A Fair Warning

As most of you know, the actual nittygritty of politics doesn't interest me. I don't usually care much about who is right or wrong. Of course it affects me, of course I take some note of the news. But what will really catch my interest is analyzing HOW people argue. What are the words they use, what are their tactics, and so on.

Recently I've heard something enough times to grate on my brain. So if you ever want to have a conversation with me, I have a request.

I don't like referring to presidential advisors and heads of the bureaucracy as 'Czars' because it just sounds dumb to me. And I don't like that both sides of the political spectrum always have problem when the other side is in power. We're a big country, it takes a lot of people to make everything work. I don't begrudge the President some help. Obama was certainly not the first, and the Republicans were certainly not the first to use the term to try to create suspicion.

That's not my issue.

If you are attempting to prove that Obama is a socialist (which of course has to mean he's the incarnation of evil right?) do NOT, I repeat NOT use the argument "Well he's appointed czars, which is a Communist term!"

You have just lost all credibility, have a nice day.

The Tsar was who the Communists overthrew (well, the Bolsheviks and other radicals anyway. Communists came later). It is pretty much the opposite of communism in just about every way (except corrupt bureaucracy which is more or less universal). Putting them together shows not only a suspension of critical thinking but a total ignorance of history, or at least a convenient smashing together of facts which only serves to prove that anything will be used to fit your preconceived notions.

There are plenty of decent, legitimate reasons to put together a case, if you feel so inclined. A lot is open to interpretation.

This is not one of those things. This is people being stupid on purpose. They may have fantastic evidence otherwise but if I hear them use this phrase (which I have...way too many times), I am going to ignore them mostly because this is a pet issue. That is admittedly close minded on my part, and if I felt they were sincere in wanting a discussion, I would probably point out the issue and move on from it, giving them the benefit of the doubt. I swear though, one word of argument, where I can tell it doesn't matter what I say since they've already made up their minds, I'm going bursar because that's just ridiculous.

So now you know, and knowing is half the battle. :D

Metablogging

Recently, a friend of mine asked why I talk about politics so much. I had to stop and think for a while, because 1) I never thought about it in terms of talking about politics and 2) that's not what the purpose of this blog is. After some discussion, it was determined that we simply approached the subject differently, but it made me consider what and why I write. Though I'm sure this will be quite apparent to all of you, I thought I should address it anyway.

I'm going to deal with the second question first, because it is the simplest. Blogging, like most role-playing games and joint stories, is inherently selfish, bordering on vain. You want to have your words read and considered and usually care more about that than reading others, usually simply because of time. I think it is a sign of maturity of the circle of bloggers I read and read me that this is less of an issue and we all are quite faithful readers. This is also why I consider blogging a perfectly valid expression of thoughts, because while there is certainly stupid people out there, if you find a good group, it can be a way to have mature discussions.

I've talked about a lot of things on this blog, usually something I'm passionate about, which is why it's somewhat limited to books, faith, music, nerdom, and what my friend identified as politics. All of these tend to be viewed through a philosophical lens, because that's how I approach things. The potential downside of course is that this means I am not REPORTING, I am INTERPRETING, which of course means that someone else could interpret the same set of "facts" differently. This can make discussion seem rather irrelevant because neither of us HAVE to be "wrong", we simply think about it differently. So it seems to have a "Why bother" element. I admit, I haven't got a great answer to this, so maybe some of you have thoughts on the matter. I don't want to just be spewing my opinion as if it is more important than anyone else's, which is why I'm always encouraging discussion.

I keep this blog because writing something down means you have to take ownership of it. It allows me to analyze my own thoughts and opinions and also not to have to repeat myself countless times when someone asks me what I think. I just direct them here. Though, I admit, most of you have to hear me talk about it beforehand anyway since I'm sorting my thoughts out loud. So, uh...apologies for all the repeats.

~~~

Now, for the other, slightly stickier question.

I do not think I talk about politics. I talk about people. If I was going to talk about politics, if I gave two hoots about it, I would watch the news. But I don't. I watch pundits and commentators. Why? Because I care less about what has happened and more about what people THINK about what's happening. And then I comment about what I think about what they think. I'm like a pundit to pundits. That's one reason that I see them all as a giant sitcom, because really, it is all so satirical.

For example, I absolutely do not CARE what Glenn Beck believes. What I care about is HOW he expresses himself (which as far as I can tell is the rudest, most moronic way possible) and how he talks to, about and with other people. It's the HOW and WHY more than the WHAT.

It interests me more when people, not parties, not political branches, but PEOPLE are being hypocritical, or holding double standards or being just plain stupid. It's true, I pick on the Republicans more for this, but that is for two reasons.
1) I was raised Republican and though I don't identify with either political party (again with the not caring about politics), it offends me that the way I was raised, the things I believe are being so twisted by people who claim to believe the same thing, yet fail to act like it at every turn.
2) At least in recent days, the party is so lost that one can't help but oscillate between pity and fury at their unending BS and stupidity and all around douchebaggery.
For example, Dick Cheney (the most aptly named man ever, I maintain) said he would much rather take Rush Limbaugh over Colin Powell.
Colin Powell's great sin of course was endorsing Barack Obama over John McCain. For this, he's been blasted, called a traitor and been told he should just go to the Democrats. Let's review. Colin Powell is a highly decorated general who has served our country with distinction. Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air who spews hatred from his smoking nostrils for three hours a day, who couldn't cut it on television and thus is consigned to radio. Colin Powell gave good, well-thought out reasons for why he was following Obama. Both Cheney and Limbaugh ignored them all and just chalked it up to race. In response, Powell said, very reasonably and without much emotion, "Well, that's unfortunate". If anyone attacks Limbaugh, he verbally shreds them, their family and any housepets. Even people who HATE the previous administration really respect General Powell, he was liked by both parties (not always, but a decent amount, more than many others) and even now, he is an eloquent, reasonable voice in a time of confusion, where being loud is more important than being right.
Yet, Cheney thinks the Republicans need Limbaugh more than Powell? Srsly, WTF? He is seriously out of touch, if that's the case. Even more so, apparently anyone who disagrees, or who doesn't 1000% follow the party line is a heretic, and that's a surefire way for any party to get blasted to bits because they are so stuck in their ways, they're incapable of adapting or seeing past their own prejudice.

But see...I've said nothing about policies, practices or other aspects of politics. I'm talking about people being dumb.

Now, it is a valid point that it is pretty much impossible to disentangle the people from the politics. That's what they talk about, that's what people will know them for. I understand this, and like I said, I didn't disagree with the person I was talking to. I simply mean that I don't THINK about it in terms of politics. I'm looking at the why's, not the what's.

One last point. I was asked if it bothered me that so many people get their news from these commentators who seem to be deities dictating what the flock of sheep should believe. And yes, it does, but I don't blame the commentators for that. I don't think pundits get their jobs because they want to be the Metatron. Sure, it can evolve to such, but I don't think that was the original intent. Like me, they are just people who are attempting to interpret the events around them. It is up to the public to either listen or not, to act on that opinion or not, and it is ESPECIALLY up to them to do their own research, to consider critically what is being said.

It is so much easier to confirm "facts" these days, with all the information on the internet, and things being recorded as to be double checked. That's why people have to take ownership of what they say.
What is harder to nail down is truth. The truth comes from the why, the interpretation, the philosophy behind. That's more of what people argue about and that's one reason it's so hard to come to a compromise and conclusion on it. There are just so many considerations and so much has to be viewed from the individual's point of view that it's nigh impossible to take the perspective of others.

It is easy to despair under all of this. Easy to fall into the Why Bother. But I think the act of talking about it in itself is a worthy enough endeavor, and it doesn't matter if we ever come to a conclusion. I don't think it would be necessary. Just the fact the discussion is there is enough for me. But that's just me and my personality, and everyone is different.

I hope that this cleared up any questions, whether vocalized or not. Hit me up with more!

~C

A few responses

I meant to get around to doing this a while back but between a very busy week and my internet going down, I had been unable to get to it.

The subject for this week are: The Correspondents Dinner and this whole Miss California nonsense. I may or may not start talking about the whole CIA VS Pelosi goofiness as well, depending on how much steam I have by the end.

I always look forward to the Press Corp dinner, ever since Stephen Colbert let former President Bush have it with both barrels. I don't know what they were thinking when they invited him, but he obviously had guts. So Miss Wanda Sykes had a lot to live up to. I considered her an intriguing choice for this year's dinner considering her race and sexuality, both undoubtedly taken into consideration and I was skeptical she would be able to perform at the same level, mostly because I'm not all that familiar with her work.

Before we get to that though, I'd like to say that I was quite impressed with President Obama. We already knew he was likable and the fact that he could also be funny by being self-deprecating and yet 'ballsy' enough to poke fun at those who those who criticize him made me that much more appreciative. When Bush did it last time I watched, he gave me the impression of a bully and while I still chuckled every now and again, it was not nearly as enjoyable. I won't go into details because I'm sure most of you have seen it, but I appreciated the President's humor.

I DID laugh at Wanda Sykes, so did the people with me. Sometimes just out of amused shock, sometimes because she was truly clever.
"Governor Palin was supposed to be here but she pulled out last second. Someone should really tell her that's not how abstinence works" was one of my favorite lines (and the aforementioned governor will come up later as well).

But of course, there was the great controversy: What she said about Rush Limbaugh.
First...like Keith Olbermann, I disagree with her and her use of those jokes. 9/11 is something that is never joked about, and I think she realized that right after she spoke. It doesn't matter who you're talking about, you simply do NOT joke about the Towers. I know people want to make this big deal about the President smiling but I don't think he agreed with it. He's in a public situation, the pressure is on, and I know *I* laughed the first time, mostly out of shock. I just don't think too much should be read into that.

I gotta admit, I thought it was really funny when she said: "I hope America fails, I hope his kidney's fail, how about that?"

Do I think that's an appropriate thing to say? No, and I feel kind of bad for acquiescing with it. Making personal attacks like that are just not good ideas.
Do I think he deserved it? HECK, yes. I cannot imagine how many Christians can listen to such a hateful man. He completely has attacks like these coming, considering how much he attacks others. This is the guy who called THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES "Barack the Magic Negro".

This makes me so angry. I can understand disagreeing with those in power, in fact, I encourage it, I think it shows what a great country I live in that you are ALLOWED to do that. I can even understand going so far as to call someone stupid or immoral, that makes you sound like a moron, but it's okay.
But RACE comments? I'm sorry, you've lost all credibility with me. Attacking someone's character with real, valid proof, that's fine. But being racist and hateful to get ratings...makes apparently a well listened to monster.

So I think she definitely stepped out of line, but part of me is sympathetic because he's been out of line for awhile. I'm pretty sure he couldn't even see the line with a telescope at this point. His following still baffles me.

So that's the dinner. All in all, I think it was cool, but I agree with those who felt some of it was ruined by inappropriate comments.

Then there's this Miss California thing. /sigh I can't believe this is even news worthy.

Okay, first of all: I think Carrie's critics are not attacking her 'anti gay marriage' message. I'm sure there are those who disagree, but that is not what the issue is. I can't really speak for them though, so I will try to just say what I think.
Saying what she thought of gay marriage was not a big deal to me.
What IS aggravating is her going on and on about how she was punished for speaking her mind and how dare people step on her First Amendment right.

First of all...She broke the contest rules, she had surgery before the pageant and she joined a political organization after, all of which is against the rules. If she's punished, it would be for that. But she WASN'T. She gets to KEEP being Miss California, so nothing happened to her.
Second of all: The First Amendment has NOTHING to do with this. The First Amendment simply says that the GOVERNMENT can't stop her from saying things. But the government didn't, her EMPLOYERS did...and they are well within their legal right to do so.
Which brings us back to...Miss Palin. Yes, I'm so glad she's sticking up for the blonde. But seriously...this is why I didn't want McCain to win. I did not want that woman within two hundred yards of executive power. Besides being just as corrupt as the 'far left' that she liked to lambaste...but she also likes to sound incredibly stupid. Again bringing in this non-existing First Amendment issue...

On the other side, we have...David Shuster. As most of you are aware...I do not like him. For all sorts of reasons, his voice is annoying, he is not good at hiding the 'reading off the teleprompter' issue and...well, he did not handle this story well in my opinion. He was incredibly emotional and just unprofessional. I wanted to tell him 'You know, I bet Fox is hiring, because you sound like one of them'.

But in the end what this all comes down to is: Who really cares what Miss California says? Yes, this is a shallow pageant, no it is not going to go away. Get over it.

~~

Now for this whole thing about Speaker Pelosi. I do not know a lot about this case, so I cannot speak definitely. But first they said she was debriefed...which she'd already said, and which they couldn't contradict.

Do I think Speaker Pelosi is lying? Probably to some extent, I have little faith in any politician. But do I think they said 'Hey, Nancy, we're waterboarding people, is that cool?' and she said 'Oh yeah, no problem'? No, I don't think so. I admit it's...disconcerting how she keeps saying 'Oh yeah...um...' and then changes her story so that it doesn't contradict but adds more details. I want to know why she didn't just say all this to begin with. On the other hand, there are some things she can't tell us and I don't think that says she's hiding something. It would be illegal for her to disclose all information, that's why you have to sign all these papers swearing you won't talk about it. So perhaps that played a part.
What aggravates me is that even if her story isn't lining up, the evidence against her is questionable at best because most of it is being given by the CIA....which is the organization she is accusing of lying. Yes, they should definitely defend themselves, but if it is just going to be a game of 'he said, she said'...I gotta admit, I'm not really convinced by either party.

Most of all, what bothers me is how partisan this all seems to be. The way the whole issue got brought up was the Reps saying 'But wait, SHE knew about it too, that makes it okay!'.
In Keith's words: "This is NOT about party. This is about the rape of our ideals. And if a Democrat is equally culpable...then they can go to hell, too."
I don't care what party those involved were in. Torture is NEVER okay. Just because someone in the Dems party MAY have known about it does not make the Reps who were in charge (IE, Bush, Cheney and them) any less responsible. This all seems like a way to divert attention and it aggravates me. But hopefully it all works out soon.

Any thoughts, fellow philosophers?

Simulated Death

Obviously, something that has been on the news so much we can't avoid thinking about it (try as we might) is the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and what should be done about it. There are obvious ramifications on all fronts, and I really appreciate how this issue transcends (for the most part) party politics. Unfortunately that taint is still there, but on the street, from what I've heard from people I've talked about, being a Republican or Democrat is pretty much irrelevant to where you stand on the issue. I don't have a legal degree, I am not a policy maker. I'm an United States citizen. So here is what I think.

1) Is Waterboarding torture?
The justification for this not being torture was that it didn't do any lasting harm and would not cause prolonged suffering. You're just simulating drowning. Only then another memo came out that said water MAY be inhaled. In the words of Aandail: At that point, you're not simulating drowning. You're actually drowning. You're simulating death.
Yes, there's a doctor present. You know, the Holocaust had doctors present, too. The logistics are pretty much irrelevant to me.

2) Should those at the top be prosecuted?
I agree with those who say that the people who had to actually perform these 'enhanced interrogation techniques' should not be punished because they were doing what they were told. I remember 'A Few Good Men', we basically program soldiers to not question, and they are already in extreme circumstances. I can't imagine that they send the fluffy bunny guards to Guantanamo and I'm sure the mental toll of being down there, with people who may be responsible for the deaths of Americans is easy on them. And it's comforting like I said that both sides are very supportive of the troops.

Well, except those people who try to blame them. Or who put them in prison for it, and then let them sit there for FIVE YEARS and only now are saying 'Oh, no, we shouldn't get mad at them'. But that's a totally different post.

So then the question is: What do we do with the people at the top? To be honest, though my populist rage rants that they should all be taken to court, 1) We simply do NOT have enough information to make any kind of legitimate judgment and 2)...it's never going to happen. We are never going to prosecute the former President of the United States for something like this, even if we wanted to. So I leave that sort of question to the policy makers.

3) Is it effective?

This then is the crux of my issue. The former Vice President, who had these files in his OFFICE, says that we were able to produce good information from using these techniques. He has provided (admittedly not much) evidence to say so. *Maybe* lives have been saved through this.

The other side says that you can't trust information obtained under extreme duress because the victim will be tempted to say something, ANYTHING to make it stop. Furthermore, if the victim IS a terrorist, they have probably been trained, much like our soldiers have, to withstand interrogation techniques such as these.

Perhaps most problematic is the fact that because WE, the United States, did this...terrorist organizations actually get MORE converts. This is a great recruitment tool because it makes US the badguys and THEM, that is, the terrorists, the victims. Apparently Torture=Door to Topsy Turvy Land.

...

But all of this is absolutely irrelevant. It does not MATTER if torture was effective, I don't know why we are even discussing it. There is never a single justifiable reason to put a human being through processes like this.
I don't CARE what they did, this is NEVER okay.

We forgive soldiers in warfare because war is a terrible terrible thing and people feel forced to do terrible things in war. And to me...this wasn't war. These were prisoners, captives, many of whom were not given a trial, we don't even know if they DID anything wrong.

I've been told by some people, that this attitude of mine makes me Un-American. And do you know why?

Because I am unpatriotic enough to consider ALL human life EQUALLY valuable, whether you are white, Arab, black, female, Muslim, poor or disabled. And I hate to say it, but here in the U.S. if you aren't a rich, White Protestant male, the odds are stacked a bit against you. This is changing, for sure, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. But for me, I consider all life important, and if it isn't okay to do to US, it isn't okay for us to do it to THEM.

So it doesn't matter to me if we were scared after 9/11, or how much evidence Dick Cheney, the most aptly named man ever, produces. Torture is morally WRONG. Always, under all circumstances.

I just hope people can get over the petty political squabbling and get this cleared away so we can move on to other issues.

Here, have a video.

http://www.rockcookiebottom.com/post/97815385/109-for-this-song-i-took-language-directly-from

~C

~EDIT: ALSO...I would LOVE to see Sean Hannity actually follow through on his word and get waterboarded for charity. I hope he doesn't disgrace the soldier's families by backing out after he talked so big. Can you think of many people who deserve it more?

"I weep for the species..."

WARNING: RANT HELMETS NEEDED BEFORE ENTERING THIS POST. Ye have been warned.

I've had this idea knocking around in my head for a while but I didn't write it down and figured I'd just let it go, the moment had been lost. Luckily (or not) the people in question are just TERRIFIC at coming up with new ways of pissing me off, so it looks like we're back on!

I know a lot of people don't like pundits from any network. Really, they have issues with punditry in general, and I understand their point. It seems rather ridiculous to listen to someone who is paid to tell you their opinion. I mean, look at this, I am telling you my opinion for FREE! Yet people take up television time with their thoughts and a lot of people get rubbed the wrong way by this because it seems useless and vain (and yet Rush Limbaugh makes HOW much money?!). I am alright with punditry, though, and especially appreciate what I take as the social benefit of the Daily Show.
People talking about people talking about people talking about the news.

This allows me as the viewer to have to think about the issues on at least three different levels and forces me to take a stand on it. Sure, it is also possible to say "Well, this is a really complex issue, and I'm just not going either way", which I've done several times, but I think that this is a mistake to do all the time. Philosophically (or morally), I could be opposed to something that I'm not practically trying to change, simply because I recognize that change would not help or would have its own inherent problems.
My point is that I like watching pundits from both sides because it allows meta-analysis and most of the time, it's just dang entertaining.
I've also realized there are implied issues with the perception of pundits. That is, there is the assumptions that they 1) Totally ignore some parts of the news and only talk about others and 2) are attempting to tell you what to think. These are both wrong for the most part, though there's certainly a few salt speckles of truth to it.

First of all, as far as I can tell, both Fox and MSNBC (who have apparently taken it upon themselves to be the FIGHTERS FOR JUSTICE of their particular side) talk about the same stories. They may even report the same facts most of the time. The difference is the INTERPRETATION. And this isn't really a bad thing per se. Most news worthy issues can be interpreted more than one way, and it is good that there is a multiplicity of voices out there to give light to them. I will come back to this point later.
The other part is that I do not feel that by watching MSNBC more than FOX, I must by definition be a dirty, hippie liberal. Just because I like Keith Olbermann more than Bill O'Reilly does not mean I swallow everything Keith says without questioning it or deciding that I think differently. I only bring this up because I am going to choose for the rest of this article, as I have done in my day to day conversations with people that EVERYONE is like that. It doesn't matter to me if someone watches Fox or even if Fox or Huffington or WHATEVER influences his/her way of thinking as long as I can tell she/he is thinking for him/herself. This will also come up later.

So first, on a light hearted note.

I happen to find it tons of fun to analyze the Soap Opera that is PRIMETIME PUNDITRY!
Now, admittadly, this is because I am most influenced and informed by the Daily Show which has built much of its following on pointing out the ironies, inconsistencies and all around goofiness that is the news. If you want to jump down to the rant, feel free to skip this part, because it is mostly just me being silly.
First, there is our cast of characters.
On the baby-killing, America-hating liberal left:
Keith "Sh*t gets real when I wear the pinstriped suit" Olbermann
Chris "I bend over for Obama" Matthews
Rachel "You just wish I was straight" Maddow
On the gun-toting, witch-burning, intolerant conservative right:
Bill "I'm a journalist. Wait, what's a journalist do?" O'Reilly
Glen "Paranoid that the government will try to take away the voices in my head" Beck
Rush "Crush the little guy...with my weight" Limbaugh
Sean "The Walking Blow-Job" Hannity

From here on, it is pure speculation.
As mentioned, I tend to watch Countdown (with Keith) way more often than say The O'Reilly Factor, though I have seen both to get a feel for the way it usually goes. I think that Keith was raised somewhat religiously conservative. I say this because I think the way he responds to Fox news is very similar to the way I do and I think it is for the same reason. I think he was raised to believe (and possibly still believes) in what the good people at Fox claim to believe but they make it looks SO bad that he is offended to even claim he thinks the same. That is...Conservatives made him ashamed of being Conservative and so he went to the other side. I think Stephen Colbert is a lot like this too. The entire purpose of his show is to parody Fox news, and I think some of that stems from him being angry that they've raped his ideals.
I also think that Bill O'Reilly should take it as a compliment that Keith hates him the way he does. I think it shows a level of respect. I believe (and think that Keith does too) that Bill O'Reilly was a good man with good intentions who is smarter than watching his show would lead you to believe. He is over inflammatory for the ratings and I think that angers Keith more than anything else. This would be in contrast to listening to Keith talk about Glen or Sean who he just holds in contempt and disdain. They are not even worthy of hatred, most of the time he is just laughing at them.
I should say that I am not against Fox news in general. It's good to have a conservative voice, I appreciate that they represent a portion of the population not always spoken for. To be honest, I like MSNBC more for the same reason I prefer Horde to Alliance. There are more people/races I like on one hand than the other. (To translate: One of the MANY reasons I don't play Alliance is because I would only be willing to play a Night Elf or Drenai because I hate all the other races and think they are ugly. But I would be willing to play any Horde race even though I don't care much for Orcs). I like Rachel Maddow a lot, I really appreciate how she doesn't often pick on PEOPLE so much as a generalized Other, even if you know exactly who she is referring to. I think part of the reason that Republicans like talking to her more than to other MSNBC'ers is because she is a bit more moderate, more centrist as it was and she is just all around nice to everyone.
...at most I can say I don't HATE O'Reilly. I somewhat respect him for reasons you probably read in my previous post.
Glen Beck and Sean Hannity? I want to kick those guys in the balls. Like, seriously...WHY are they allowed to talk on television? I will come back to this in the rant section. However, what I wanted to say now was how much it seemed to me (and this is just my perceptions, feel free to disagree) Sean Hannity was taking it up the butt from the Bush Administration before. Apparently he has moved the "orificial" opening to accommodate Rush Limbaugh, since the job of Presidential Fellatio-giver seems to have fallen on Chris Matthews who I can't stand either.

Moving on.

I want to say right off the bat that I do NOT hate America. I am not ashamed of being American. The very FACT that I HAVE to say this as a disclaimer makes me angry. When did disagreeing with someone suddenly make you a hater? When did we stop being able to have reasoned discussions based on beliefs and ideas for the betterment of both parties and were instead giving pissing contests of who's daddy sucked more?
I bring this up because the other day on Facebook I posted a Huffington Post article about how the women on the View didn't question Bill O'Reilly about the controversy surrounding his involvement in a rape victim assistance foundation. The point of the post, and the reason I was putting it up was because I think the hostess' SHOULD have said something, if ONLY to give him a chance to defend himself. But it was never even mentioned. This was also linked to two Fox news reporters tracking down a woman while she was on vacation and calling her names, accusing of her things because she said in a blog (much like this one) that O'Reilly shouldn't be at this conference. Someone on Facebook took this as a good opportunity to start flaming anyone who had ever questioned O'Reilly's legitimacy in talking about rape victims when he'd made some pretty strong comments about them before.
Here's what I got out of the mini-debate that followed:
1) Huffington Post is biased. Well, I already knew that. Or at least, the writers on Huffington are biased. Well, duh, EVERYONE is biased. Huffington is just a forum for people to put their thoughts, just like this blog is. Totally dismissing anything any of those people say however is unjust because the same could be said of any news organization, any magazine, any ANYTHING.
2) There are apparently people who DON'T think for themselves at the level I thought they did. The detractors were accused of taking O'Reilly out of context. Do you know who told the public the O'Reilly was taken out of context? O'REILLY. Hmmm....
I said that I'd seen what O'Reilly had said in context and that I agreed with those who had issues with him talking at the "It Happened to Alexa" foundation. No, he did not come right out and say "She had it coming" but everything he DID say led to that conclusion. It was a very small jump, because he implied it pretty strongly. But here we have an interpretation issue. Two people read/saw the same thing and took it to mean two different things. Fine, I can accept that.
What I canNOT accept is that if someone disagrees with you, they must automatically be "nuts", which is what the woman who was harassed was being called. They said that she was "hurting the rape victim [Alexa Bianchi, whom the foundation is named after]" by saying O'Reilly should not be there.
First of all, Terkel (the woman in question) wrote this on a blog. Remember how we live in America? That means we get the freedom of speech. It means we get to say what we want, even if other people disagree with us. This is a GOOD thing! Yes, it means that stupid people get to say stuff too. It does NOT mean you should shove a mike in their face.
This is just a huge example of unprofessionalism. If O'Reilly wanted to honestly have a discussion about this, he should have invited Terkel on his show and they could have talked about it like reasonable individuals. But he didn't. He sent goons to harass her when she was on vacation. Journalistically, that is never acceptable. When I mentioned this, it was just reiterated that Terkel was "nuts".
I guess I must be nuts too.

Other stations have done similar unprofessional things and I would certainly not single Fox out for this. But I remember O'Reilly blasting another station for not being respectful to a celebrity or political head when he has done the same thing!
Which brings us to my biggest issue: The sheer hypocrisy of Fox News, the Republican Party and a significant portion of Conservatives in general.

I was raised Conservative Republican, I even believe most of their core values. Limited government, conservative values, etc. But that ISN'T what they are arguing for these days. Half the time I can't even tell what they ARE arguing for because they are so contradictory and unintelligible that I get completely lost.

I think Jon says it best.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

This is what I'm talking about!
Republicans have no right saying that they are going to be guardians of morality when for the last eight years they have allowed so much crap to not only get by them but be PRAISED FOR IT! If they want to be the party that "sticks it to the man", they should have "stuck it" to their own man. Now, I'm not saying they are alone in this. Democrats are just as bad, but recently the Republicans have decided that it is better to be LOUD than to be fair. These are the same people who were like "If you don't like what Bush is doing, move to Canada, we don't want you here."
This is America. YOU (not you, readers, but the people who say crap like that) do NOT get to decide who we do and do not want!! That's why we're a fscking democracy. the MAJORITY decides what we do, that's how it works. Now, there are problems with this system, one of the reasons I think maybe parliaments are a bit more effective than we are, though as Canada shows us, that doesn't always work either. But the point of a democracy is that it recognized that there are differences, there are numerous desires and goals, not all of which can be met, so take what the most people want.
And the most people wanted Obama. By...quite a significant margin compared to previous elections. So seriously guys, stop saying he's a tyrant because we bloody well put him on the throne. THAT'S DEMOCRACY. You don't have to like it, but you do have to run with it.
Now I'm certainly not saying we should not question, should not disagree, not even saying we should not sometimes attack choices, decisions and words of our leaders. We absolutely should and I would praise Fox and those like it for doing so IF THEY HAD DONE IT ANY OF THE APPROPRIATE TIMES BEFORE. But they didn't, and if they are going to pick and choose when they stand up for what they say they believe in and when they just take it lying down...then they are douchebags who have lost credibility in my eyes.
I know it seems like I'm generalizing and I don't mean to. There are very good Conservatives and very good Liberals and...I mean, there's always exceptions. Like I've said, I'm generally disposed to being a Republican. But the loudest of these voices...well, they are not the people I want representing my ideals.

Take Rush. The man makes millions of dollars a year. And he bashes Obama and the liberals for being too nice, too to soft with this or that group, for making life harder for Americans...and he gets angry because Obama taxes the wealthy?
I don't know, it could be my poverty pride, the chip on my shoulder from having lived in the vast majority of poor in this country but someone like Limbaugh can STFU about having to pay taxes because he sure as hell can afford it better than I can. It makes me so angry that schools are so underfunded when a bloated walking, talking welding torch can be paid so much money for spouting off his nonsense on the radio. Democracy is suppose to encourage fairness. Fairness means that the rich pay taxes just like the poor do, and yes they have to pay more because they can.
And for a station that prides itself on being Fair and Balanced, Fox news seems to think that balance means "whatever is good for rich, white republicans who don't want to pay taxes". Kind of like how "democracy" means "choose the guy we want you to". You know, like how we knock off a dictator and give nations democratic elections and then when they elect say...the Taliban, well obviously they are doing democracy wrong and we have to step in. I'm not saying that they SHOULD have elected the Taliban, especially because of the scare tactics used to make them. But there have been cases where leaders have been elected whom we didn't like, and we felt the need to step in, knock them off and have new elections.

Again, Democrats have done many of the things I have problems with too. Both sides are human, both have problems. MSNBC has surely skewed facts to go towards their conclusion, as well. But I have found that while MSNBC can have somewhat singleminded intrepretation, at least they get more of the facts right. So often I've watched Fox, and done the most basic of checks to find that what isn't outright fabrication is a gross distortion.
Sean Hannity said that Obama was ashamed of America and practically apologized for our unjust arrogance. This is so not true, Obama said that at times America had been arrogant (which we have) but that Europe is often Anti-American when it shouldn't be (which they are). This is the same station that rails whenever any of their correspondents are so called taken out of context, yet Sean is clearly doing just that.

Let's review:
Conservatives in the guise of Fox News talk about:
Integrity and Professionalism...when they have taken others out of context, when they harass those that don't agree with them, when they find the current administrations horrifying, yet equally (if not worse) crimes perpetrated by the last administration were worthy of applause and when they get their facts wrong way more often than many other stations and skew things to an even further degree.
Morality and fairness...when they apparently want tax breaks for the rich, when they became incensed that anyone would question President Bush, when they are the ones who claim that someone is Un-American for standing up for their beliefs in opposition to the government, who talk about the total bulls**t that is the notion of "Real America".

What really turned me off to the Republican party during the election was that it seemed to me that they cared more about talking character than issues. Obviously this is a staple of any election and certainly the Dems did the same but at least during the Presidential Candidate debates, it seemed like Obama spent more time arguing issues and policy and McCain was just going 'Nuh-UH!' or 'Yeah but you did this!'. Now I'm not saying character is not important, it absolutely is but there's a time and a place. And that verse that says you can't take the splinter out of your neighbor's eye without taking the plank from you own really seems to apply to the Rep's these days because all of the things they accuse others of doing, they themselves are guilty of. Their tactics these days seem to be to incite paranoia and divisiveness.
And that leads to my last point, about Consequences.

I remember someone saying that the Democrats weren't letting anything get done in Congress when the Republicans were in power. Yet the Republicans now hold the record for most Filibusters in a certain amount of time, ever. We're talking THREE TIMES more often. So now, when our country is basically fscked and we need to do SOMETHING...they are not letting anything get done. We're stuck, stalled and going no-where fast. Yes, people should say no to things they don't believe in, but there has to be SOME kind of compromise. This is a problem from both sides, and the real issues lies in the just ridiculous level of partisanship we've got going on. There are non-life threatening issues that one side or another could give on so we could at least get SOMETHING done, but noooo, if we did that, the Enemy would be winning.
...When did our fellow Americans become our enemies?
Just...get over yourselves.

When it comes to interpretation, the basic philosophy is a good example. Conservatives are known for not compromising, and holding their positions. This can be good, shows strength of character, a willingness to stand up for beliefs. Unless it makes you completely unreasonable and close-minded. Liberals tend to be thought of as more tolerant, more interested in including more groups, but this can also be seen as being wishy-washy, as having no real position. Obviously, there are merits and downsides to both but it makes me angry that the loudest Republicans are these racist intolerant jerks. You don't have to think Islam is the correct religion to be respectful of Muslims. Islam is not our enemy, individuals are our enemies. Gay people are not going to destroy our country and not all abortion doctors are the spawn of Satan himself. Treating these people with respect and taking their views seriously is not the same as agreeing with them, which is a notion apparently lost on some people.

Fox has a lot of followers, as one might imagine, especially among the older crowd. As mentioned, as long as people are following up, are checking facts and thinking for themselves, I have no problem with this. But so often I've seen people ONLY getting their news from Fox and just believing everything they say and it makes me so sad because...it is so one-sided and so extreme. The language used gives off the impression that if you question what Sean, Bill or Glen say you must be a hater, which, though this may be subconscious, still makes people disinclined to critically analyze what's being said. The same could be said for any other station but most other stations aren't trying to say that Obama is the anti-Christ/Hitler/Muslim/Alien/Tyrant/Any-thing-else-we-can-think-of-to-incite-fear-into-the-general-public.
With all the other crap going on, fear of our democratically elected leader isn't really one of them. Wariness, sure, true of anyone, but...at least give us a REAL reason to be worried, not this satanic panic.

Glen Beck said that Obama was going to take our guns away so when some Policemen approached a guy, he killed three of them. Should Glen be held responsible? No, it is fully on that man who killed the police, but people should make sure that they are careful what they say to a scared and desperate public. Talking about us being on the road to tyranny...for doing what the last president did and lied about for years...is not being responsible.

I just wish people would think things through better.

~~~

Final Word: Part of the reason I'm doing this is that it honestly does make me angry and I don't get angry often. So this is therapeutic for me. Part of it is that I want to generate discussion. I have this blog so that I can throw out ideas and we can discuss them but there hasn't been a lot of discussion lately and I thought if I brought up some controversial stuff, even if we disagreed, at least we'd be talking about it. This was a long post I know and I appreciate you going through all of it. I probably forgot some points and was probably not as clear as I could have been so feel free to ask for any clarification.

Thanks again.

The Devolution of Punditry

Everyone probably knows by now that I love the Daily Show. As someone who hates politics and comedy, it's a beautiful juxtaposition of sarcasm and news that resonates with me far better than either stand-up or the news could. I "get" it, essentially, making it more enjoyable than most other programs, which is probably why I watch little tv.

Now, before the Daily Show comes on, sometimes I watch Countdown with Keith Olberman. I know, I can hear the mix of cheers and hisses already. Whatever your view of Keith, it's probably pretty polarized. I don't know many people who are apathetic towards him, you either love him or hate him. Much like his Conservative counterpart, Bill O'Reilly. Recently, a friend of mine said they hated Olberman cause his hate speech was exactly the same as O'Reilly, just on the opposite side.

I disagree, but I can see not only why he thought that, but how it could become the case.

So this post is to 1) Defend my love of Keith, despite my conservatism, as well as 2) offer a warning against becoming the thing he hates most.

~~~

I watch very little news. I either find it really depressing or boring. Time is a bit at a premium for me so it's not like I have a lot of time to keep up anyway. Normally, I look to Andrew to help fill me in for the most part. He's also my own personal pundit.

Punditry is a new notion for me. I never thought you could get away with blasting your opinion at people, but apparently not only are you allowed to, people get paid to. Pundits are the in between of the News and the Daily Show. They comment, but normally in all seriousness, which is probably why John has such an easy time making fun of them. And I think they SHOULD take themselves seriously, and take what they say seriously becasue people are LISTENING. It's somewhat depressing, but true. People are usually sheep, and need someone to tell them what to think. Even if that's not why they watch, it's good to get different perspectives, so the argument should be presented well so as to not misrepresent your view.

Which brings me to the comparison. It's no secret Olberman hates O'Reilly and probably the other way around, too. So here's my view on both:

I respect Bill O'Reilly because when he started, there were very few people doing what he did and no one as vocally. He stood up for what he believed in when it was not a popular view and he stuck to it. Kudos for that. Now though, I don't know which would be sadder: If he didn't really believe everything that flies out of his mouth...or if he did.

I appreciate when people are consistent with their beliefs. Walkin' the walk, as it were. But when, in defense of your beliefs (which may not necessarily be wrong), you present arguments that are factually innacurate and use purposefully inflammatory language to illicit an emotional response...to me, you've already lost the fight. Because at that point, you're not trying to convince someone, you're trying to piss them off. Now I know, different methods work with different people, and sometimes a little bit of shock treatment helps the medicine go down, but...to put it mildly, I think he overdoes it. It's not longer shock treatment it's 'I get paid to be loud, obnoxious and aggravating, because that's what gets us more ratings'. Do I think he got into it for the money? Absolutely not. Do I think that he's figured out that being explosive gets him mroe ratings and therefore higher pay? Yes.

Now, another thing that frustrates me is how many people only watch one side of the story. I literally want to weep when I hear "I get all my news from Bill O'Reilly". Same with Olberman, no one should get ALL their news from them. I personally get all my news from the Daily Show ^.^. (Kidding)

So there's my problem with Bill O'Reilly...he's loud and very often, he's WRONG. Some things are matters of perspective and belief, and in that, I don't count him as right or wrong. He believes X, even if I don't, I can understand his point of view. But when he gives evidence, there's so many times where he's talking out his hat...which is apparently resting on his rear. And he makes people like me look bad.

Flip to the other side. I like Olberman because he's eloquent and verbose. I feel smarter for listening to all the big words ;) Often, I think when he waxes sarcastic, it's hilarious and there is something to be said for the humor of seeing someone so full of hate. I don't think he's as far left as O'Reilly is far right, though obviously, he's not central. I agree with a lot of his ideas in theory, though not always in execution and like when O'Reilly was doing it, I appreciate someone being critical of those in power.

Yet, I sense a danger here, and to explain it, we are going to dip into history.

For the first two centuries (AD), Christianity was a persecuted religion. To even say you were a Christian was to invite torture, and often death. But in 300 AD onward, it moves from an underground movement to the licensed and sponsored church of the state. This is one of the reasons tat about 350 we see the rise of monostaries. Before, to show your devotion to God/Jesus, you just had to say what you believed, but that wasn't enough anymore. Quite literally "everyone was doin' it". So to go farther, to prove just how zealous you were, you would join a monostary.

I think something like this happened with BillO. When he started, he was in the minority, he was radical for saying what he did. But with the hyperconservatism of the Bush administration, he found himself being in the mainstream, now in the 'safe zone'. So to show just how conservative he was, he 'right-wing', when it was popular to be right-wing, he went farther and farther to the right. Now, I think he's being a showman.

Now, he'll be in the minority again and hopefully be coming up with better, more reasoned arguments because he'll be fighting the not-popular side again. Which goes back to Keith. Keith is now in BillO's shoes, which gives him a great deal of power...and also sets him up to make the same mistakes.

He can afford to get sloppy now because less people need convincing. I think he's gone to great lengths to build up his credibility, and I'd hate to see him spend it unwisely. So while at the moment, I'm still more inclined to listen to Keith than Bill, but I'm wary of what the future will bring.

Thoughts, fellow philosophers?

The short guy probably had it right...

EDIT: The captive slaves of the Spartans were called 'Helots' not 'huknos', I was thinking one word and typed another. I fixed it now.

Note: This is probably going to be one of those posts where I know more or less what I want to say, but because the topic is so amorphous, it is hard to really communicate well. There is no thesis statement, I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm not even sure I have a point. This post will probably be very stream of consciousness, so please bear with me.

As interesting as history is as a story, the very philosophy behind it is just as fascinating to me. Like all stories, there's usually room for interpretation, but rarely do the interpretations have such far reaching consequences (except in the case of religious texts). Napoleon Bonaparte is credited with saying, "History is a set of lies agreed upon by the victors." There is undoubtedly a grain of truth to this, on both the small and large level. Take Women's history. Now I'm sure a lot of people get aggravated that there are entire classes just focused on Women's history but that's because ours is one of the first generations that has even LOOKED at it. Before, it was assumed they either didn't have one or it would totally match up with Men's. If you were to look at a certain period in history solely from the point of view of men, and then do the same with women, no doubt you would get a different story. It's about what's emphasized, prioritized and outright ignored. Both have truths to them, both have gray areas of belief.

John Stuart Mill, great man though he was, was wrong about history. He said (paraphrased): "These nations[referring to India] have no culture, and therefore, no history. This is true of almost all of the East."
Because their culture did not look like his, he didn't recognize it as civilization. How many times may this have happened, and how many stories may have gotten lost because of it? I think this is a serious flaw in our education system, that we get so focused on American History (which is frequently white-washed past recognition), as if all of history was just setting up for the creation of the United States that we forget there's an entire world outside. And when the rest of the planet is talked about, it is usually in reference to us.

This is another inherent problem with history. For as long as the stories have been passed down, they have usually been used to engender nationalism or pride. It is awfully hard to remain objective when you want to make someone (or large groups of people) believe something about themselves.

But then, no history is wholly objective. The writers are human and therefore have flaws, and the readers are likewise without perfection. I think that's one reason it says in 1 Corinthians 13, "Now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face."
There's much we don't understand, it is obscured from us, and I personally am looking forward to seeing it all laid out later (much later, please).

Okay, so far we've shown: History changes depending on who is telling it (who may be focused on some things more than others, and who may simply be ignorant of other aspects), and because there is usually an agenda, it is difficult to say any of it can be taken totally on faith. That doesn't meant we should disregard it or consider it unimportant. It is simply something to be aware of.

Phew, glad we got that all set up. Now to what I actually wish to talk about. ^.^

Like I said, the philosophy is almost as interesting as the actual stories, and like philosophy, history is full of contradictions. Things everyone knows but doesn't always think about. Often, it is just the difference in wording. But words have power, and shape our perceptions and therefore our actions.

Why is it that:

You can be a freedom fighter...or an 'anarchist' rebel?
A crusader...or a terrorist?
A strong, effective leader...or a dictator?
A great general and tactition...or a cruel, inhumane bastard?

What's the difference? Sometimes it is easier to say, but often we are on very shaky ground. Most of the time, the only difference is whose side you're on.

Some context: For Christmas, I received a bunch of books written by the same author, historical fiction about ancient Greece and Rome. Currently I'm reading one about Xenophon, which has been really interesting because it's a period that I'm not really familiar with (though I know about what came before and then what came after). But it got me thinking about how we, in the present, think about people in the past.

A Tale of Two Cities in the Ancient World:

Once upon a time, there were two very powerful city states. They were named Athens and Sparta. Athens was the cultural center of the known world, militarily strong because of her navy (being right near the sea), and a huge trading post. Great minds, philosophical and scientific, flocked to her, and at the time we're looking, she had the first fully functional true democracy, under the leadership of Pericles. Well...true democracy in the sense that all free white men could vote and had a say. However, Athens looked around to its neighbors and literally conquered them through democracy. They became more and more powerful by subjecting other free cities, "for their own good." (Sound familiar anyone?)

Meanwhile, there was Sparta. I personally, consider the brilliance of Sparta in their social system. They had few legal punishments (obviously rape and murder, and stealing was punished, normally because you were stupid enough to get caught), instead they relied on social ostracization. Sparta had once conquered their rival and had taken all the people captive as slaves. 'True Spartans' were called Spartiates, and there were relatively few of these compared to people who just lived in Sparta, and then the helots(or the captive slaves). Now, if you know you're outnumbered by people who would kill you if they could, you would make a military society too. That's why the Spartan war-culture continued so long after they had stopped making war, they had to be always on guard against those within their own borders. And once a year, they got to go crazy and kill as many of the helots as they wanted. Fun people huh?
But back to their social psychology. Spartiate men all lived and ate together in Barracks. It was like The Big Kids table. If you showed cowardice (the highest crime in Spartan Society), you were stripped of your Spartiate status, and could no longer eat or live there. It was a huge disgrace. In this way, the Spartans ruled themselves through internalized values. No one had to be physically punished because they did it themselves. I think that's pretty innovative.

So both cultures had their good and evil, just like any other. Spartans treated their Spartiates very well, regardless of whether they were male or female. Well, women were more respected and got to have a greater say in politics, though they couldn't formally hold office. They were able to participate in Olympics, but this was mostly because healthy women create healthier children so it wasn't really due to any kind of enlightenment. But Sparta was pretty backward when it came to other things. Because they had slaves to do their work, they didn't advance technologically. Their houses were not particularly comfortable (more like mud huts than anything else), and it was once said 'No wonder Spartans are so willing to die on the spear. Better that than to live on their food'. They were strong people in that they adhered ardently to their beliefs, and with the exception of the one country that they more or less accidentally 'won', they had no interest in conquering anyone else.
At the same time, Athens encouraged new levels of higher thinking and we find the beginnings of deductive reasoning, the scientific method and great leaps in science and art. Plus, the formalization of democracy is an important contribution. But the Athenians were pretty full of themselves and felt the need to spread their greatness to others who didn't ask for it.

And so like what so often happens, the true evils of any people comes forth in war. Sparta didn't participate in the first Pelloponnesian War because they didn't like leaving Sparta for fear the slaves would rise up. But the second, which lasted for 27 years, would have tragedies on both sides.

It is during this time that my books starts. Sparta won the Second Pelloponnesian war, and installed a puppet government, known as the Thirty Tyrants. This was a huge leap from true democracy to a strict oligarchy and the Athenians resented it. Spartan philosophy didn't work on such a large scale. It was fine for their city-state, but they couldn't enforce it well on others. For one thing, they liked winning, but they didn't really like conquering.
(Note: This is all based on my personal understanding. I get my information from classes, books and talking with professors because I assume they know what they are talking about. As I've said, history is usually open to interpretation and has often been embellished if not outrightly made up. So I could be wrong on some of these points, especially motivation. Please don't think that I assume everything I say is gospel truth, I am completely open to the idea I could misunderstand these things.)

Man, that was a lot more background than I meant to give. And all from memory too ^.^ Dr.Nuzum (my Prehistory teacher) would be so proud.

So what this has done is made me think about our double standards. Take the movie 300. Obviously, only loosely based on historical fact, and I don't use it as a real reference point, but it DOES speak to our present perception. And a lot of it is right, at least philosophically. Spartans were the best hoplite warriors of the time (hoplites are foot soldiers). And they really did fight off an overwhelming number of Persians to allow for the rest of the army to escape (yeah, covering for someone else running away isn't quite as romantic, but it does show a level of self-sacrifice).
The Queen, Gorgo, was actually a really fascinating figure, someone who greatly interested Herodotus, the father of history. She is the main reason we know about the battle of Thermopylae, as she wrote extensively. Leonidas was a great king, he introduced many reforms and improved the lives of his people (I personally consider that a plus for a ruler). But we have this over-simplified view of the Spartans I think, just as we do of many other peoples and individuals. We, Americans, and probably humans in general, are drawn to people who are the best at physical prowess. Take team names. My school mascot is a Viking. Vikings were smelly, gross and often terrible human beings. Yet, we glorify them. Look at most teams. Heck, the Forks High School team is called the Spartans. No one wants to be called the Athenians because they were known for their mental abilities and despite our great enlightment (/sarcasm) we don't value that nearly as much as the ability to swing an ax into someone's face. It's just as we like winners, no matter how they achieve that rank.

Something I've always wrestled with is how we judge individuals, and if we even have the right. I've talked to a lot of people about it, especially my dad and Dr.Nuzum (who is a historiographer and so usually understands where I'm coming from).
What do we judge? The action, the consequences, the motivation? If they were a total douchebag, but did good things for their country, are they excused? What if they did good things for their country but at the expense of another country? I suppose that's the philosophy of Political Science.

Take three of my favorite subjects: Richard, Coeur de Leon, Alksandr of Macedon (also known as Alexander the Great) and Napoleon Bonaparte.
Richard was one of the ten greatest generals of all time (as far as I know). He inspired much in his men, and his people loved hearing of his victories.
But he also bankrupted his country to fund the Crusades, and obviously his victories came through killing people closer to their own country than he was to his. I highly doubt he really cared about liberating the Holy City. He loved making war, he was good at it, and any excuse would have worked. He was known for raping women and then passing them around to his men for their depravations. In his defense, that was expected of him, though it hardly excuses him morally.

So which column do we put him in? Should we even try? Perhaps we don't have the right, as we weren't there. But then, we have to live in a world shaped by these actions, which gives us some leeway. If Sparta and Athens hadn't more or less destroyed each other, Phillip of Macedon would have had a much more difficult time defeating them and Alexander the Great would likely never have risen and the world would certainly be different.
Alexander unified formerly disparate nations and paved the way for the Roman Empire who for all of its evil, did much for the world, including setting the stage for the birth of Christ. If Alexander had lived past 33, who knows what he could have accomplished, for good or ill? But in his time, he perfected his father's improvements in hoplite warfare and reshaped the map. People became aware of the world around them better. When Rome came, they also built on this, creating the Latin Rule, which made them come to new nation-states as colonizers, not conquerors and is one of the main reasons they were as powerful as they were for as long as they were (an empire that literally lasts 1000 years is not to be sneered at).

More directly than either of these perhaps is Napoleon. Much that is in the world today can be traced to him, including the rise of Nationalism (and come of its consequences, such as Abolitionism and Feminism). The Napoleonic Wars greatly altered Europe and many of the colonies (such as Haiti). Napoleon was definitely egotistical, but he was also a great general and understood psychology to the extent that he perfected nationalism to help keep the French people in line and to this day they have few figures they love as much as him.

I know I'm talking in circles, but that's how I think about these things, there is always a thought and then a counterthought.

Were these great men? Were they good as human beings or are those in authority answerable to a different set of rules? Jimmy Carter was probably one of our most moral presidents but he failed as a ruler pretty hard. Herbert Hoover was one of the most hated, but he didn't really do things wrong, he just didn't do much of anything. Johnson WANTED to do a lot of great things, he had a lot of good intentions, but he's mostly remembered for getting us stuck in Vietnam.

Or look at it another way:
During World War I, we saw the formalized conceptualizing of Total War. One of the components of Total War is the Homefront. Every individual is involved, man, woman, child, with the war machine. And therefore, there are no civilians. It because acceptable to bomb cities, towns...If you destroy their suppliers, if you demoralize their soldiers...you win. The Blitzkrieg, Nagasaki...Terrible atrocities done in the name of victory.

But if it WORKS...it's considered good strategy. The Assyrians ruled through fear because they did terrible things to those who rebelled against them, including babies on spikes. But it worked right? Does that justify it? That's a dramatic example but we can see it other places. It's war right? The rules change. But when the OTHER side does it...it's barbaric, it's evil, and that's why we have to stop them. The double standard continues.

If we do it, we're Liberators. If They do it, they're terrorists. How dare Russia invade democratic Georgia? Oh, we invaded democratic Iraq? Well...that's hardly the same thing.

I'm not ragging on the US, but pointing out a problem with humanity in general. As a species, we tend to suck hardcore when it comes to fighting with each other.

There was a line, at some point, someone must have said 'We should never go past this point. This is the worst we should do, because after this, it becomes morally unnacceptable'.

I think that point was passed a long time ago. Now we can destroy the world 80 times over with nuclear weapons, and even better we have MACHINES to do it. The only benefit is that war is no so horrid, we are discouraged from doing it because of how awful the cost would be. But there's always a button pusher, always someone who considers the ends justifying the means, and our children will have to live with the consequences of those decisions.
Because someone decided that killing each other more efficiently was a good idea. And then someone else, and then someone else...and no one stopped them. And they thought they were doing the right thing.

So how do we judge THEM? If their intentions were, if not pure, at least in the best interest of those they considered important, could we say they were evil? Or just misguided? Einstein said one of his greatest regrets was helping with the Atom bomb. But he had been told that the Germans already had one and the only way to preserve peace was for America to have one too. He was lied to, plain and simple. Does that excuse him?

A lot of good things have happened in our world. So have a lot of evil things. And so many many things we don't know about anymore.

So what's the point? I told you, way at the beginning that I didn't have one. Remember that far back? ;)

We are all actors in history. What we do changes the world, whether we see it not. So take care and consider your decisions because someone else will likely have to live with the consequences.