"The World is too much with us"
Truer now than then
we scramble for purchase, footing
like frightened ants and busy men
"The World is too much with us"
it's never left my side
a constant nuisance, ever-present
as inexorable as a tide
"The World is too much with us"
I'd like to leave awhile
to let my thoughts collect themselves
and gather life more fertile
"The World is too much with us"
Wm Wordsworth once did say
I think the man ahead of his time
his words haunt me still today.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Twice in the recent past
I have come across the phrase "global warming deniers." "Global warming deniers" yields 238k results on Google and searching the exact phrase (" 'global warming deniers' ") yields 133k, so the phrase is in fairly wide usage. It struck me as a very powerful thing to call someone, for several reasons.
The first is the word "deny." To deny, in this sense, is to be contradictory, to refuse acknowledgment or recognition or to refuse to admit the truth or existence of something. So, right off the bat, a 'global warming denier' is a pretty stubborn and obstinate person, certainly no one pleasant.
"Deny" also has a pretty strong connotation of a guilty party trying to protect their ass, as it's most often seen in a legal context: "O.J. Simpson denies the allegations against him;" "Michael Jackson denies any inappropriate contact;" "City accountants deny any knowledge of wrongdoing."
(As a quick aside, doesn't "wrongdoing" have a wonderfully Orwellian feel to it?)
"Deny" coupled with "global" intensifies these meanings. You're accusing someone of refusing to admit to something as large as the Earth itself. Using the two words together makes the scale of someone's denial ludicrous; it's like denying the moon or Africa. What kind of a stubborn ass do have to be to refuse the existence of Africa?
Finally, what makes 'global warming deniers' such a powerful appellation is it's similarity to "holocaust deniers" (451k results. Holocaust denial nets 1.18 million), something so heinous that even holocaust deniers themselves understand it's not something to be known as; they seem to prefer the term 'revisionist.' Weather intentional or not, global warming activists are subtly comparing their opponents to Nazis, and I think the negative connotations associated with 'global warming deniers' are powerful enough that it will be difficult for people to shake the label, once applied. In most debates, playing the Hitler Card, as I call it (comparing Bush to Hitler, comparing abortionists to Nazis, etc.) instantly removes the argument from the realm of rationality and, unless they want to spend a tremendous amount of time and energy repudiating it, all the defender can do is deny it.
The first is the word "deny." To deny, in this sense, is to be contradictory, to refuse acknowledgment or recognition or to refuse to admit the truth or existence of something. So, right off the bat, a 'global warming denier' is a pretty stubborn and obstinate person, certainly no one pleasant.
"Deny" also has a pretty strong connotation of a guilty party trying to protect their ass, as it's most often seen in a legal context: "O.J. Simpson denies the allegations against him;" "Michael Jackson denies any inappropriate contact;" "City accountants deny any knowledge of wrongdoing."
(As a quick aside, doesn't "wrongdoing" have a wonderfully Orwellian feel to it?)
"Deny" coupled with "global" intensifies these meanings. You're accusing someone of refusing to admit to something as large as the Earth itself. Using the two words together makes the scale of someone's denial ludicrous; it's like denying the moon or Africa. What kind of a stubborn ass do have to be to refuse the existence of Africa?
Finally, what makes 'global warming deniers' such a powerful appellation is it's similarity to "holocaust deniers" (451k results. Holocaust denial nets 1.18 million), something so heinous that even holocaust deniers themselves understand it's not something to be known as; they seem to prefer the term 'revisionist.' Weather intentional or not, global warming activists are subtly comparing their opponents to Nazis, and I think the negative connotations associated with 'global warming deniers' are powerful enough that it will be difficult for people to shake the label, once applied. In most debates, playing the Hitler Card, as I call it (comparing Bush to Hitler, comparing abortionists to Nazis, etc.) instantly removes the argument from the realm of rationality and, unless they want to spend a tremendous amount of time and energy repudiating it, all the defender can do is deny it.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Friday, January 05, 2007
Signs I Don't Think Like a Kid Anymore
We actually had a decent snow here a few weeks ago. Several inches, lasted more than an hour (couple days in fact) all in all a kind of rare treat for us down in the valley.
Anyway, it wasn't until I saw the rain-eaten remains of a snowman yesterday that I realized it never occurred to me to make a snowman. It never occurred to me to go sledding or make snow angels or have a snowball fight or any of the other things that kids think about when they see the first winter snow.
The first and pretty much last thing I thought about the snow was, "Thank God I don't have a car and don't have to drive in this shit."
Anyway, it wasn't until I saw the rain-eaten remains of a snowman yesterday that I realized it never occurred to me to make a snowman. It never occurred to me to go sledding or make snow angels or have a snowball fight or any of the other things that kids think about when they see the first winter snow.
The first and pretty much last thing I thought about the snow was, "Thank God I don't have a car and don't have to drive in this shit."
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The Birth of Prejudice
My friend and I have a theory that there may be an evolutionary component to prejudice. Bear in my I do not submit this as means for someone to excuse their prejudice, or to try and make prejudice OK, merely as an attempt to explain why prejudice in humans is pretty much universal, and so easily acquired.
First off, we define prejudice: as a noun, prejudice is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (online) as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." You can be prejudiced about anything, not just people.
On with the theory:
Early humans roaming their world did not have the time or the resources to approach every single thing they encountered without any bias whatsoever: some things are too dangerous to deal with more than once, and so the next time it's encountered it's simply avoided. Our capacity for language and teaching things to others makes it unnecessary to experience things first hand. I have never been to Italy, but a number of people who have tell me there's a tower in Pisa that leans at a startling angle and I take them at their word.
Imagine this scene: You are lost in the woods and hungry. Seeing some red berries, you eat them, and several hours later throw them back up. Will you taste the next red berries you find? Probably not. This is not prejudice because you have direct experience.
Seeing signs of what you think is a town nearby, you head for it eagerly, but encounter a bruised and bloodied man coming the other way. You explain your situation to him and ask if you might find help in the town. He says he's lost too, and when he tried to get help there, the townsmen beat him and threw him out. You thank him and as he leaves you warn him about the red berries.
Do you still go to the town for help? If not, prejudice is born, not of any desire to see harm come to a particular group, but out of a simple need to survive.
Viewed this way, it's easy to see how prejudices can be so easily formed and passed around. I'm sure you can think of time when someone made a bad first impression and you told all your friends what an ass your new boss is, planting the seed of prejudice in their mind, or times when you gave into prejudice and avoided a business or person because of something someone else had said.
First off, we define prejudice: as a noun, prejudice is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (online) as "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts." You can be prejudiced about anything, not just people.
On with the theory:
Early humans roaming their world did not have the time or the resources to approach every single thing they encountered without any bias whatsoever: some things are too dangerous to deal with more than once, and so the next time it's encountered it's simply avoided. Our capacity for language and teaching things to others makes it unnecessary to experience things first hand. I have never been to Italy, but a number of people who have tell me there's a tower in Pisa that leans at a startling angle and I take them at their word.
Imagine this scene: You are lost in the woods and hungry. Seeing some red berries, you eat them, and several hours later throw them back up. Will you taste the next red berries you find? Probably not. This is not prejudice because you have direct experience.
Seeing signs of what you think is a town nearby, you head for it eagerly, but encounter a bruised and bloodied man coming the other way. You explain your situation to him and ask if you might find help in the town. He says he's lost too, and when he tried to get help there, the townsmen beat him and threw him out. You thank him and as he leaves you warn him about the red berries.
Do you still go to the town for help? If not, prejudice is born, not of any desire to see harm come to a particular group, but out of a simple need to survive.
Viewed this way, it's easy to see how prejudices can be so easily formed and passed around. I'm sure you can think of time when someone made a bad first impression and you told all your friends what an ass your new boss is, planting the seed of prejudice in their mind, or times when you gave into prejudice and avoided a business or person because of something someone else had said.
Monday, December 18, 2006
The thing I hate most
about getting a haircut is how every person I meet for three days has to comment on it.
Friday, December 15, 2006
I do not deny the holocaust.
You can tell it's going to be a weird post when I feel that I need to establish that right off the bat.
Earlier this week there was a conference of sorts in Tehran. Iran invited people from all over the world to share papers and research they had conducted regarding the holocaust, pretty much exclusively research that concludes that the holocaust was either faked or exaggerated. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that in many countries it is illegal to deny the holocaust happened (true, but instead of "many" I submit 3: France, Austria and Germany) and since Iran had nothing to do with WWII, it's aftermath or the holocaust, they can be a impartial place to allow academic discussion on the subject. I'll agree it's difficult to find neutrality on the subject in Europe, given the still very raw emotions associated with the war, but I reject the notion that Iran can be considered "impartial" on anything related to Jews, Judaism or Israel.
Reaction on the world stage was predictable: Basically every western government decried the conference as a sham and a distraction from Iran's plans to develop nuclear reactors, which it probably was, and Jews the world over were irate, as I suppose they should be.
Me, I'm OK with the conference. I do consider laws against denying the holocaust an unacceptable breach of freedom of speech. I completely disagree the position, but I think that people have a right to be willfully ignorant bigots if they so decide. Freedom of speech unfortunately means that people are free to spout what you consider to be patent nonsense.
As for world reaction, I really think it should have been minimal. I don't think anyone is concerned that President Bush or any member of congress is about to sides with anyone attending the conference, so there really is no need to get prove that you don't agree with them by trying to shout them down. And if the conference really was intended to be a distraction, we played directly into their wishes by spilling so much ink over a few dozen ignorant people gathering in a bellicose country and playing scholar for a few days. Let them have their conference and publish their papers. Let us ignore them and focus on more important things. By getting so up in arms over the whole affair, we kind of imply they might have a point and that we're afraid of it. We should rest assured that this conference is unlikely to sway anybodies opinion.
Earlier this week there was a conference of sorts in Tehran. Iran invited people from all over the world to share papers and research they had conducted regarding the holocaust, pretty much exclusively research that concludes that the holocaust was either faked or exaggerated. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that in many countries it is illegal to deny the holocaust happened (true, but instead of "many" I submit 3: France, Austria and Germany) and since Iran had nothing to do with WWII, it's aftermath or the holocaust, they can be a impartial place to allow academic discussion on the subject. I'll agree it's difficult to find neutrality on the subject in Europe, given the still very raw emotions associated with the war, but I reject the notion that Iran can be considered "impartial" on anything related to Jews, Judaism or Israel.
Reaction on the world stage was predictable: Basically every western government decried the conference as a sham and a distraction from Iran's plans to develop nuclear reactors, which it probably was, and Jews the world over were irate, as I suppose they should be.
Me, I'm OK with the conference. I do consider laws against denying the holocaust an unacceptable breach of freedom of speech. I completely disagree the position, but I think that people have a right to be willfully ignorant bigots if they so decide. Freedom of speech unfortunately means that people are free to spout what you consider to be patent nonsense.
As for world reaction, I really think it should have been minimal. I don't think anyone is concerned that President Bush or any member of congress is about to sides with anyone attending the conference, so there really is no need to get prove that you don't agree with them by trying to shout them down. And if the conference really was intended to be a distraction, we played directly into their wishes by spilling so much ink over a few dozen ignorant people gathering in a bellicose country and playing scholar for a few days. Let them have their conference and publish their papers. Let us ignore them and focus on more important things. By getting so up in arms over the whole affair, we kind of imply they might have a point and that we're afraid of it. We should rest assured that this conference is unlikely to sway anybodies opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)