I suppose moving to a new town where everything is unfamiliar does have advantages and disadvantages. Hawaii is pretty far away. this falls under both categories. i also have serious amounts of free time.
I feel like I left Coopersburg months ago. I don't think it has even been two weeks. The 18th I flew into LA for training. Summoning an air of confidence, while my guts rattled with airport food and nervousness, I made my way to the hotel. At the registration table I ran into Adam Stanley, Juniata '08 alum (VISTA Bakersfield, CA). This was only the first of many ridiculous coincidences which logically prove 'its a small world'. Everyone knows everyone and every other person I meet is from the east coast. Training was pleasant. Positive thinking, friendly new faces, and three solid meals a day can't be beat. Tuesday night, Luke and Jodie pulled up to the front door of the Crowne Plaza in their beat rental convertible with disheveled hair and a hungry look of days on the road in their eyes. I think we all realized that LA wasn't really our scene but we were all glad to be there. The volunteers headed to Hawaii quickly formed an exclusive club. In the back of our minds, "The poverty line on a mid-Pacific island rarely sees the mainland." Thursday night we all flew into Honolulu where we were greeted warmly with leis, hugs, and a ride to a nearby dorm for the night. Then more training on Friday morning. I should clarify. They gave us a giant three ring binder full of helpful information. And then training was over. Those 3 1/2 structured days and hours in the confines of hotel conference rooms drifted through my mind. I awoke in a Starbucks parking lot in Ewa Beach, HI. In a few short days everything changed. It was all so familiar, yet I was consciously out of place. Arrive in a strange town. Jet lag and baggage, literally, weighing you down. You become acutely aware of the physical space which you occupy. Not only are you desperately trying not to knock over tables with that bulky rolling suitcase, but the unknown makes even your muscle and bone uncomfortable. Keeping an eye on the sum total of my worldly possessions, sitting with my back against the wall, trying to sip an iced coffee slowly, burning under the shifting sun, I wished I were just a big dude. No one messes with a big dude.
Luckily, the people I have met in Hawaii are incredibly friendly and helpful. At this point, just about everyone I meet makes the transition exponentially easier. I've found a place to live in Makaha. The beach is across the street and the mountains are out my back door. Thinking about it now, there isn't really anywhere on the island where this isn't true, but I'd like to think I got a pretty good deal. I've started work at Nanakuli Elementary School. Tomorrow is day four. Still kind of unclear, but I'm sure it will all begin to make some kind of sense. There is a lot I would like to say about the school and about the area and about my impressions of Hawaii in general, but, another time. Aloha.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Surrender Your Student
Earlier this afternoon I was searching for a train ticket from Baltimore to Allentown. There are, however, no trains arriving in Allentown. My disgruntled views on the state of public transportation in America, taking into consideration rising gas prices and the shallow end of the income pool in which I wade, will just have to be another story. The point of all of this is that a trip from Baltimore to Philly is a mere 37 cold hard dolla bills. And then, with a student discount, only 31!
And thats about when I sadly shook my "not a student" head.
I either have to go back to school, start making enough money to pay that extra 6 dollars, or retire.
And thats about when I sadly shook my "not a student" head.
I either have to go back to school, start making enough money to pay that extra 6 dollars, or retire.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
manifesto of hope
Thinking about thinking
I’ve holed up here in my dim library cubicle to write my last will and testament, my manifesto for hope. I will abandon logical criticism and everything I have learned. I will write for myself and for my reader. There is no need for apologies. I will battle the skeptical spirit growing inside me and I will focus on the hope and goodness I find inherent in humanity.
Achieving any ideal is no easy task. Moving the entire world beyond petty bickering is only an idea and not a solution. “The New York Times” reappears on the racks scattered around campus and every morning the world is brought before our eyes to be examined, scrutinized and criticized. World leaders are failing their people. Corporate CEOs are greedy thieves. Men, women and children are brutally murdered and tortured. Often they are innocent. Occasionally they are not.
As the ephemeral wide-eyed optimism of a college freshman sinks into murky visions of cynicism, I struggle. Four years later that freshman is agonizing over the economy, finding a job and paying rent. Will he compromise his ideals? Will he succumb to the pressures of just getting by? I imagine we all will at some moment. However, there is still a feeling within us; a small part of every person’s being which desires something better. Grasping this is my goal.
Let us move forward, focus on the future, live in the present and keep the past in the back of our minds. If it sounds paradoxical, then I think we have landed near the truth. There are moments when life seems so simple and good. There are moments when communities gather together to support a cause. There are those brief moments when it seems the world can be turned around.
For me, this moment is captured by Empty Bowls. A community gathers together and everyone gains. Young and old alike smile broad simple smiles as they fill their newly glazed bowls with delicious soup. Students, locals, businesses and churches all lend their hands. There is a feeling of community: a feeling that these people have all gathered together and set aside their differences to help someone else.
I am attracted to a presidential candidate who shares this feeling as well. This is my unabashed plug for Barack Obama. There have been too many divisions created in a world that operates on a national and global scale. Even if Obama were to fail miserably, I am attracted to his message of hope. He professes to be able to bring people from every race, religion and political party together .
I believe we all want the same things. We are veered off track by extraneous ideals and wild misunderstandings. At some point, even terrorists, the evil terrorists, are just people who want to live happily. It sounds naïve, but I believe we all feel this. Have you ever wondered, for only a split second, what makes us so different that we refuse to just get along? Do you still wonder?
Moving forward and bringing together international and local communities requires more than a great dogmatic ideology. This requires understanding differences before condemning them. This requires keeping an open dialogue. This requires placing trust in people whom we do not want to trust. This requires being flexible and thinking while we act. This all rests on keeping an open mind and understanding life from more than one point of view.
With no tried and trusted recipe, this is a start. This is hope. This may be all we have.
As rejection letters and loan payments arrive, as the world agonizes in confusion, as politicians try rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, it is easy to surrender. But there is no Man getting us down. There is only you and I, here, trying to move along.
In 10 years, where will we be? I can hope that you and I will not fall prey to cynicism and practical solutions. I can know we must be somewhere. I only want to suggest that we learn to work together. I want to suggest that you and I should never lose hope.
* ryan hamilton, Juniatian April 17th, 2008
I’ve holed up here in my dim library cubicle to write my last will and testament, my manifesto for hope. I will abandon logical criticism and everything I have learned. I will write for myself and for my reader. There is no need for apologies. I will battle the skeptical spirit growing inside me and I will focus on the hope and goodness I find inherent in humanity.
Achieving any ideal is no easy task. Moving the entire world beyond petty bickering is only an idea and not a solution. “The New York Times” reappears on the racks scattered around campus and every morning the world is brought before our eyes to be examined, scrutinized and criticized. World leaders are failing their people. Corporate CEOs are greedy thieves. Men, women and children are brutally murdered and tortured. Often they are innocent. Occasionally they are not.
As the ephemeral wide-eyed optimism of a college freshman sinks into murky visions of cynicism, I struggle. Four years later that freshman is agonizing over the economy, finding a job and paying rent. Will he compromise his ideals? Will he succumb to the pressures of just getting by? I imagine we all will at some moment. However, there is still a feeling within us; a small part of every person’s being which desires something better. Grasping this is my goal.
Let us move forward, focus on the future, live in the present and keep the past in the back of our minds. If it sounds paradoxical, then I think we have landed near the truth. There are moments when life seems so simple and good. There are moments when communities gather together to support a cause. There are those brief moments when it seems the world can be turned around.
For me, this moment is captured by Empty Bowls. A community gathers together and everyone gains. Young and old alike smile broad simple smiles as they fill their newly glazed bowls with delicious soup. Students, locals, businesses and churches all lend their hands. There is a feeling of community: a feeling that these people have all gathered together and set aside their differences to help someone else.
I am attracted to a presidential candidate who shares this feeling as well. This is my unabashed plug for Barack Obama. There have been too many divisions created in a world that operates on a national and global scale. Even if Obama were to fail miserably, I am attracted to his message of hope. He professes to be able to bring people from every race, religion and political party together .
I believe we all want the same things. We are veered off track by extraneous ideals and wild misunderstandings. At some point, even terrorists, the evil terrorists, are just people who want to live happily. It sounds naïve, but I believe we all feel this. Have you ever wondered, for only a split second, what makes us so different that we refuse to just get along? Do you still wonder?
Moving forward and bringing together international and local communities requires more than a great dogmatic ideology. This requires understanding differences before condemning them. This requires keeping an open dialogue. This requires placing trust in people whom we do not want to trust. This requires being flexible and thinking while we act. This all rests on keeping an open mind and understanding life from more than one point of view.
With no tried and trusted recipe, this is a start. This is hope. This may be all we have.
As rejection letters and loan payments arrive, as the world agonizes in confusion, as politicians try rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, it is easy to surrender. But there is no Man getting us down. There is only you and I, here, trying to move along.
In 10 years, where will we be? I can hope that you and I will not fall prey to cynicism and practical solutions. I can know we must be somewhere. I only want to suggest that we learn to work together. I want to suggest that you and I should never lose hope.
* ryan hamilton, Juniatian April 17th, 2008
Sunday, April 06, 2008
disrupting fact and fiction
Thinking about thinking
Every 15 minutes televised news programs serve the daily dose of updates from around the world in easy to swallow, sweeping sound bites. We drool over the simplicity of the ideas, the absolute certainty of our leaders, and the conviction that now we, too, know. However, as the cynic inside scratches through my confident cocoon, I often find myself wondering where the line between fluff and fact is drawn.
In the competitive world of media it seems that truthfulness and allure must reach a compromise. In reporting and politics, where an uneven balance carries heavy consequences, the compromise is especially pertinent. The American government claims Iran is building nuclear weapons. Iran flatly denies the statement. Whose story is more trustworthy?
I have no doubt that in the fast-paced, marketing-driven environment of media and politics hard facts can accidentally be replaced by attractive rumors. However, I never imagined that the same kind of disruption could tumble the romantic walls of my literary stronghold.
That is until early March revealed the literary world was infiltrated by a very convincing liar. Margaret Seltzer’s autobiographical gang memoir, “Love and Consequences,” under the pen name Margaret B. Jones, was shamefully exposed as a largely fictitious work.
Seltzer went to great lengths to convince editors and reporters that her “autobiographical” work represented the truth. She provided witnesses and photographs to corroborate her story. Even in the wake of James Frey’s “A Million Little Pieces” which ruffled Oprah’s feathers two years ago, Seltzer was never suspected.
Ironically, before Seltzer was exposed, a reviewer for the New York Times said, “Although some of the scenes she has recreated from her youth… can feel self-consciously novelistic at times, Ms. Jones has done an amazing job of conjuring up her old neighborhood.”
Nevertheless, the publisher is cancelling Seltzer’s book tour and recalling nearly 19,000 copies of the book.
Yet, when it was agreed that weapons of mass destruction were not being hidden in Iraq, troops were not recalled. President Bush continued his tour promoting the fight for freedom and the seemingly false allegations provided justification for a war. The public only revolts when an author fictionalizes her memoir.
The question this raises is—where does responsibility lie? Critics of the memoir debacles blame the publishers and editors for poor investigative practices. I say more power to the author for pulling one past us all. Oprah and other embarrassed readers need to get over themselves. Stop attacking the author and put responsibility back in the hands of the reader. The public’s naïve complacency and then sudden outrage upon learning it has been duped by an author is almost comical. Is the American public afraid to think, to take responsibility?
This critique may be reasonable in the memoir debate. Though again, it seems necessary to hold the news media to a more stringent code of conduct. In the case of politicians and reporters’ words, the public needs to be assured they are receiving genuine information.
Absolute dependence upon the media to report the ‘facts’ is necessary, but prone to invite trouble. How can “The Truth” be regulated? How can a single individual, a student in Huntingdon, determine the truth about an event taking place halfway around the globe?
Seltzer’s editor admits that she made the mistake of relying upon the author as a sole source of information. Ideally, the individual and the media can avoid this by gathering news and information from various sources. Yet, is there really any objective perspective?
The transfer of information nearly always requires a constructed narrative. In a capitalist society - or a democracy dependent upon public opinion – marketing often takes center stage. It is both liberating and frightening to play with these ideas. Sometimes I can only laugh, unsure if I should be disgusted or elated. It may be that the truth is only a story told by the most convincing liar.
*ryan hamilton - From April 3 Juniatian
Every 15 minutes televised news programs serve the daily dose of updates from around the world in easy to swallow, sweeping sound bites. We drool over the simplicity of the ideas, the absolute certainty of our leaders, and the conviction that now we, too, know. However, as the cynic inside scratches through my confident cocoon, I often find myself wondering where the line between fluff and fact is drawn.
In the competitive world of media it seems that truthfulness and allure must reach a compromise. In reporting and politics, where an uneven balance carries heavy consequences, the compromise is especially pertinent. The American government claims Iran is building nuclear weapons. Iran flatly denies the statement. Whose story is more trustworthy?
I have no doubt that in the fast-paced, marketing-driven environment of media and politics hard facts can accidentally be replaced by attractive rumors. However, I never imagined that the same kind of disruption could tumble the romantic walls of my literary stronghold.
That is until early March revealed the literary world was infiltrated by a very convincing liar. Margaret Seltzer’s autobiographical gang memoir, “Love and Consequences,” under the pen name Margaret B. Jones, was shamefully exposed as a largely fictitious work.
Seltzer went to great lengths to convince editors and reporters that her “autobiographical” work represented the truth. She provided witnesses and photographs to corroborate her story. Even in the wake of James Frey’s “A Million Little Pieces” which ruffled Oprah’s feathers two years ago, Seltzer was never suspected.
Ironically, before Seltzer was exposed, a reviewer for the New York Times said, “Although some of the scenes she has recreated from her youth… can feel self-consciously novelistic at times, Ms. Jones has done an amazing job of conjuring up her old neighborhood.”
Nevertheless, the publisher is cancelling Seltzer’s book tour and recalling nearly 19,000 copies of the book.
Yet, when it was agreed that weapons of mass destruction were not being hidden in Iraq, troops were not recalled. President Bush continued his tour promoting the fight for freedom and the seemingly false allegations provided justification for a war. The public only revolts when an author fictionalizes her memoir.
The question this raises is—where does responsibility lie? Critics of the memoir debacles blame the publishers and editors for poor investigative practices. I say more power to the author for pulling one past us all. Oprah and other embarrassed readers need to get over themselves. Stop attacking the author and put responsibility back in the hands of the reader. The public’s naïve complacency and then sudden outrage upon learning it has been duped by an author is almost comical. Is the American public afraid to think, to take responsibility?
This critique may be reasonable in the memoir debate. Though again, it seems necessary to hold the news media to a more stringent code of conduct. In the case of politicians and reporters’ words, the public needs to be assured they are receiving genuine information.
Absolute dependence upon the media to report the ‘facts’ is necessary, but prone to invite trouble. How can “The Truth” be regulated? How can a single individual, a student in Huntingdon, determine the truth about an event taking place halfway around the globe?
Seltzer’s editor admits that she made the mistake of relying upon the author as a sole source of information. Ideally, the individual and the media can avoid this by gathering news and information from various sources. Yet, is there really any objective perspective?
The transfer of information nearly always requires a constructed narrative. In a capitalist society - or a democracy dependent upon public opinion – marketing often takes center stage. It is both liberating and frightening to play with these ideas. Sometimes I can only laugh, unsure if I should be disgusted or elated. It may be that the truth is only a story told by the most convincing liar.
*ryan hamilton - From April 3 Juniatian
Monday, March 24, 2008
Riding the border fence
Thinking about thinking
The headline reading “‘Virtual fence’OK’d for U.S.-Mexico border” caught my attention on Feb.22 as I browsed CNN.com. Only halfway through the article, I self-consciously laughed aloud. Oddly enough, I could not help recalling my summers at camp.
Every year I looked forward to our camp wide capture the flag tournament. Hundreds of 12 year olds decked out in camouflage and sneakers. This was a serious endeavor. I relish the memories of my entire cabin being led, by a more adventurous counselor, through 500 yards of knee-deep muddy creek water. We were skirting around enemy lines. It was fantastic.
I largely keep these childhood memories of glory and defeat stored away in the rusty corners of my mind along with jars of fire flies and grape twin-pops. Upon reading this immigration article however, nostalgia emerged in a very unfamiliar guise.
“On February 13, an officer…noticed a group of about 100 people gathered at the border.” As a serious camper, I immediately recognized this tactic. ‘Everyone together! If we make a run for it all at once, they’ll never be able to catch us all.’ And sure enough, “Border Control caught 38 of the 100 people who tried to cross illegally, and the others went back into Mexico.”
Real people are attempting to cross the American border illegally. Border guards pursue and tag them out. This is not a silly back-yard game, this is happening every day. In my central Pennsylvanian bubble that reality is incomprehensible.
The solution however, is even more difficult to swallow. ‘We’ll build a fence!’ Maybe it is my naïve idealistic thinking, but this must be a joke. Perhaps there is also a specialized department procuring alligators for the moat. Granted this fence is not a medieval stone wall. No, this is the 21st century! This is the age of technology!
This is a ‘virtual fence’ equipped with “radar, sensor devices and cameras capable of distinguishing people from cattle at a distance of about 10 miles.” Apparently, the border patrol has accidentally arrested numerous herds of cattle. The age of technology, indeed.
Satellite feeds, wireless communication dispatch units, laser beams, space-age microscopic doohickeys, heat sensing infra-red, but it is still a fence. We have not progressed as far as some would like to think. This “solution” is only America’s thumb in the levy.
Why do we insist on wasting time and money on a temporary solution? The United States Government made a $20 million contract for the 28 mile ‘virtual fence.’ This follows the 2006 bill appropriating $1.2 billion to build a 700 mile fence. The border is nearly 2000 miles long.
The fence is an expensive and ineffective solution treating the very end of a long chain of problems. These funds can be put to better use. Immigrants do not enter the United States with the intention of harm. Why does the public fear infiltration? Is this racism or just ignorance?
To argue that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans is misguided. American companies are increasingly sending work out of the country and illegal immigrants are working in the lowest of positions. Innocent people crossing the border in hopes of a better life are not to blame.
Illegal immigration and drug trafficking are still problems. Though, the ‘Fence Solution’ unconvincingly treats the physical act of crossing the border as if it were the true problem. I am truly surprised this mentality is so popular. Building a fence is only a deceptive last attempt; like using a thimble to bail water from a sinking ship.
If an individual really desires to ‘invade’ the United States, to work illegally or traffic drugs, they will find a way. A fence may temporarily slow these activities, but it does nothing to treat their causes. Why not allot money to the research and treatment of the real problems?
Immigrants would not illegally cross the border if situations in their own country were not so desperate or if legal immigration were a possibility. Drugs would not be trafficked into the United States if there were no market.
This is a half-hearted solution to real problems that are much deeper than just unwanted individuals crossing borders. This is not a game. Border control is a complicated problem. However, the true problems begin long before someone steps across a conceptual line in the sand. Building a fence is only the façade of protection and action.
*Ryan Hamilton
Juniatian - March 20, 2008
The headline reading “‘Virtual fence’OK’d for U.S.-Mexico border” caught my attention on Feb.22 as I browsed CNN.com. Only halfway through the article, I self-consciously laughed aloud. Oddly enough, I could not help recalling my summers at camp.
Every year I looked forward to our camp wide capture the flag tournament. Hundreds of 12 year olds decked out in camouflage and sneakers. This was a serious endeavor. I relish the memories of my entire cabin being led, by a more adventurous counselor, through 500 yards of knee-deep muddy creek water. We were skirting around enemy lines. It was fantastic.
I largely keep these childhood memories of glory and defeat stored away in the rusty corners of my mind along with jars of fire flies and grape twin-pops. Upon reading this immigration article however, nostalgia emerged in a very unfamiliar guise.
“On February 13, an officer…noticed a group of about 100 people gathered at the border.” As a serious camper, I immediately recognized this tactic. ‘Everyone together! If we make a run for it all at once, they’ll never be able to catch us all.’ And sure enough, “Border Control caught 38 of the 100 people who tried to cross illegally, and the others went back into Mexico.”
Real people are attempting to cross the American border illegally. Border guards pursue and tag them out. This is not a silly back-yard game, this is happening every day. In my central Pennsylvanian bubble that reality is incomprehensible.
The solution however, is even more difficult to swallow. ‘We’ll build a fence!’ Maybe it is my naïve idealistic thinking, but this must be a joke. Perhaps there is also a specialized department procuring alligators for the moat. Granted this fence is not a medieval stone wall. No, this is the 21st century! This is the age of technology!
This is a ‘virtual fence’ equipped with “radar, sensor devices and cameras capable of distinguishing people from cattle at a distance of about 10 miles.” Apparently, the border patrol has accidentally arrested numerous herds of cattle. The age of technology, indeed.
Satellite feeds, wireless communication dispatch units, laser beams, space-age microscopic doohickeys, heat sensing infra-red, but it is still a fence. We have not progressed as far as some would like to think. This “solution” is only America’s thumb in the levy.
Why do we insist on wasting time and money on a temporary solution? The United States Government made a $20 million contract for the 28 mile ‘virtual fence.’ This follows the 2006 bill appropriating $1.2 billion to build a 700 mile fence. The border is nearly 2000 miles long.
The fence is an expensive and ineffective solution treating the very end of a long chain of problems. These funds can be put to better use. Immigrants do not enter the United States with the intention of harm. Why does the public fear infiltration? Is this racism or just ignorance?
To argue that immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans is misguided. American companies are increasingly sending work out of the country and illegal immigrants are working in the lowest of positions. Innocent people crossing the border in hopes of a better life are not to blame.
Illegal immigration and drug trafficking are still problems. Though, the ‘Fence Solution’ unconvincingly treats the physical act of crossing the border as if it were the true problem. I am truly surprised this mentality is so popular. Building a fence is only a deceptive last attempt; like using a thimble to bail water from a sinking ship.
If an individual really desires to ‘invade’ the United States, to work illegally or traffic drugs, they will find a way. A fence may temporarily slow these activities, but it does nothing to treat their causes. Why not allot money to the research and treatment of the real problems?
Immigrants would not illegally cross the border if situations in their own country were not so desperate or if legal immigration were a possibility. Drugs would not be trafficked into the United States if there were no market.
This is a half-hearted solution to real problems that are much deeper than just unwanted individuals crossing borders. This is not a game. Border control is a complicated problem. However, the true problems begin long before someone steps across a conceptual line in the sand. Building a fence is only the façade of protection and action.
*Ryan Hamilton
Juniatian - March 20, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Identity and Renovations
Founders Hall is not Founders Hall
It is difficult to miss the large wooden sign planted in front of Founders Hall depicting a sketch of the Hall following renovations. Standing there, with this historic building in the background, the problematically minded may wonder if the ‘New Founders Hall’ is still Founders Hall at all. This question of identity seems simple enough; still any uncertainty is not only the lonely ponderings of misguided metaphysicians.
What is it about the identity of this building which needs to be preserved so the renovated building is still Founders Hall? Intuitively, there is a problem with constructing a new building across campus and claiming it is also Founders Hall. Therefore, it seems there must be something inherent in Founders Hall, some essence, which needs to be preserved.
Those who are generously funding renovations claim it is necessary to preserve the clock tower. Yet, why not preserve the door frames, or decorate the renovated building with pictures of the original? Granted, in an economic sense, if the funding for renovations requires the original light bulbs to be preserved, then it seems prudent to comply.
It is often the seemingly inconsequential questions which stimulate the harshest debate in philosophical circles. While these are often ignored in everyday activity, there are always underlying philosophical quandaries. These occasionally rise to the surface of discussion and influence important actions in very real ways. The age-old trouble of identity, in this instance, pertains especially well to the renovation of Founders Hall.
The classic illustration of this problem is known as the Paradox of Theseus’ Ship. The story begins in a major port of ancient Athens with a ship owned by a merchant named Theseus. His ship has sailed across the entire known world and weathered many nights on the rough seas. Upon the death of Theseus, his ship is inherited by his son. At this time, old rotting boards are replaced with new boards and the sails are patched before Theseus’ son sets sail.
Over the following years, as Theseus’ son persists in the family trade, the rudder wears out and needs to be replaced; the oars are all discarded and working replicas are provided. Even the original mast cracks in a violent storm and is also replaced. Eventually, every original piece of the ship has been substituted for new materials. But is this still the same ship? If not, when did this ship cease to be Theseus’ ship?
Following this thought, if Founders Hall was leveled to the ground and an exact replica built in its place, could this building still be Founders Hall? This is a tricky distinction. However, buildings destroyed by fire or warfare are often rebuilt in nearly exact likeness and name with no questions asked.
Pushing this idea, imagine the materials from the original Founders Hall are all recycled and used to build a replica of Noah’s Ark. Is the ark then also Founders Hall? Answering yes, and assuming the ‘essence’ of Founders Hall is inherent in the plywood, bricks and mortar sounds wrong.
It seems reasonable to assume portions of the Hall are being preserved, not because of some belief that identity is inherent in the bricks, but because they are prominent features of the building. The clock tower is what identifies the original and the renovated as one in the same.
Keeping in mind the story of Theseus’ ship though, how is a ‘prominent feature’ determined? How many original bricks need to be reused for the identity of Founders Hall to persist? If the conclusion that identity is not inherent in physical material is correct, then why preserve any of the building at all? At some point, it becomes unreasonable to claim an entirely new entity is identical to the original.
At the very least, these are interesting questions to ask. The true answer, most likely, needs to involve the implications of emotional attachments to Founders Hall. In the end, the actual mental procedure may be further complicated by other matters or even irrelevant. However, it is clear this is an important and intricate discussion which has very real implications. Those funding renovations for Founders Hall would probably agree.
ryan hamilton
-taken from Feb. 28th Juniatian (omitting editor's corrections. i didn't really approve.)
It is difficult to miss the large wooden sign planted in front of Founders Hall depicting a sketch of the Hall following renovations. Standing there, with this historic building in the background, the problematically minded may wonder if the ‘New Founders Hall’ is still Founders Hall at all. This question of identity seems simple enough; still any uncertainty is not only the lonely ponderings of misguided metaphysicians.
What is it about the identity of this building which needs to be preserved so the renovated building is still Founders Hall? Intuitively, there is a problem with constructing a new building across campus and claiming it is also Founders Hall. Therefore, it seems there must be something inherent in Founders Hall, some essence, which needs to be preserved.
Those who are generously funding renovations claim it is necessary to preserve the clock tower. Yet, why not preserve the door frames, or decorate the renovated building with pictures of the original? Granted, in an economic sense, if the funding for renovations requires the original light bulbs to be preserved, then it seems prudent to comply.
It is often the seemingly inconsequential questions which stimulate the harshest debate in philosophical circles. While these are often ignored in everyday activity, there are always underlying philosophical quandaries. These occasionally rise to the surface of discussion and influence important actions in very real ways. The age-old trouble of identity, in this instance, pertains especially well to the renovation of Founders Hall.
The classic illustration of this problem is known as the Paradox of Theseus’ Ship. The story begins in a major port of ancient Athens with a ship owned by a merchant named Theseus. His ship has sailed across the entire known world and weathered many nights on the rough seas. Upon the death of Theseus, his ship is inherited by his son. At this time, old rotting boards are replaced with new boards and the sails are patched before Theseus’ son sets sail.
Over the following years, as Theseus’ son persists in the family trade, the rudder wears out and needs to be replaced; the oars are all discarded and working replicas are provided. Even the original mast cracks in a violent storm and is also replaced. Eventually, every original piece of the ship has been substituted for new materials. But is this still the same ship? If not, when did this ship cease to be Theseus’ ship?
Following this thought, if Founders Hall was leveled to the ground and an exact replica built in its place, could this building still be Founders Hall? This is a tricky distinction. However, buildings destroyed by fire or warfare are often rebuilt in nearly exact likeness and name with no questions asked.
Pushing this idea, imagine the materials from the original Founders Hall are all recycled and used to build a replica of Noah’s Ark. Is the ark then also Founders Hall? Answering yes, and assuming the ‘essence’ of Founders Hall is inherent in the plywood, bricks and mortar sounds wrong.
It seems reasonable to assume portions of the Hall are being preserved, not because of some belief that identity is inherent in the bricks, but because they are prominent features of the building. The clock tower is what identifies the original and the renovated as one in the same.
Keeping in mind the story of Theseus’ ship though, how is a ‘prominent feature’ determined? How many original bricks need to be reused for the identity of Founders Hall to persist? If the conclusion that identity is not inherent in physical material is correct, then why preserve any of the building at all? At some point, it becomes unreasonable to claim an entirely new entity is identical to the original.
At the very least, these are interesting questions to ask. The true answer, most likely, needs to involve the implications of emotional attachments to Founders Hall. In the end, the actual mental procedure may be further complicated by other matters or even irrelevant. However, it is clear this is an important and intricate discussion which has very real implications. Those funding renovations for Founders Hall would probably agree.
ryan hamilton
-taken from Feb. 28th Juniatian (omitting editor's corrections. i didn't really approve.)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
thinking at half-mast
The flag on campus has been flying at half-mast for a number of days now. I was puzzled and asked a number of other students about this. "Who died?" Eventually, someone pointed out the recent shooting at the university in illinos. This has been publicized, we've heard about it, read about it, and the wreckless and unexplained murder of college students slips our mind.
Convicts are doctors, too
Thinking about thinking
Juniata graduate, Jim Kalinski ‘03 was recently expelled from John Hopkins Medical School when it was revealed that Kalinski held a record of aggravated assault and armed robbery. Kalinski created a fake identity, which he used to conceal his past, after his release on parole in April 1999. His falsified records were only noticed when Kalinski applied for a grant to continue his medical studies at John Hopkins.
The incident raises many ethical concerns for the medical community as well as safety concerns at Juniata. Professors at Juniata were shocked to hear about Kalinski’s past. One professor, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “Jim was a model student, polite, helpful, and involved in student life. He graduated at the top of his class.”
With meager legal precedent for the expulsion, John Hopkins has come under fire from human rights groups. They claim that Kalinski was wrongfully expelled; they say that he is not being judged on the basis of present behavior or performance, but because of the stigma attached to ex-convicts.
On the contrary, the National Medical Association (NMA), in an official statement claims, “The removal of Kalinski will uphold the trust which the public places in the hands of medical practitioners.”
Kalinski’s case, though entirely fictionalized, has an alarming resemblance to the actual case of Karl Helge Hampus Svensson. Svensson was recently expelled from The Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden where he was studying medicine.
According to the New York Times, it was discovered last fall that, “Mr. Svensson had been a Nazi sympathizer who was paroled from a maximum-security prison after being convicted in 2000 of murder, a killing the police called a hate crime.” In prison, Svensson took classes online and was then accepted into the prestigious Karolinska Institute.
With his criminal record out in the open, controversy arose concerning the character of those men and women whom the public depends upon for its continued health. Just as pressing however, is the ethical concern that a capable individual can be denied a future on the basis of his past. Should an ex-convict with previous Nazi sympathies be allowed to become a doctor? Maybe he has changed his ways.
Svensson proved himself through exceptional coursework and questions about his past were never raised. The discussion really centers on a question of human nature. The answers to the complicated questions at hand rely on the answer to one simple question: Can people change?
From one point of view, it can be argued that Svensson possesses the ‘know-how’ and intelligence to prove himself as a capable doctor. Is it right to deprive the public of a competent medical professional? If human nature is essentially determined by nurture, then it seems reasonable that a person who made unacceptable decisions in the past can be turned around. These ideas can be used to build the argument, made by human rights groups, that Svensson’s expulsion was unjustified.
On the other hand, if human nature is essentially determined by nature, then it will most likely be argued that Svensson cannot be trusted. Once a bad apple, always a bad apple. If a person’s identity and character are determined at birth, there is no rehabilitation project that can ever reform a convicted murderer.
However, there are not only two options. There are some who argue that human nature is determined by a combination of nature and nurture. This makes the issue even more complicated. There is also the notion that a ‘medical professional’ is not just a person with the necessary practical skills. Some suggest that a doctor is also a person who makes the kind of rational, moral decisions which a man guilty of murder has exhibited he does not understand.
The public places an almost unreasonable trust in medical professionals. Would the case be different if Svensson were training to be an architect and not a doctor? Is this a question of trust in the individual or comfort for the public? Which should be more important? It is always interesting to see how basic assumptions about human nature can determine policy and action in a very real way.
-RH, Juniatian, feb. 14 '08
Juniata graduate, Jim Kalinski ‘03 was recently expelled from John Hopkins Medical School when it was revealed that Kalinski held a record of aggravated assault and armed robbery. Kalinski created a fake identity, which he used to conceal his past, after his release on parole in April 1999. His falsified records were only noticed when Kalinski applied for a grant to continue his medical studies at John Hopkins.
The incident raises many ethical concerns for the medical community as well as safety concerns at Juniata. Professors at Juniata were shocked to hear about Kalinski’s past. One professor, who wished to remain anonymous, said, “Jim was a model student, polite, helpful, and involved in student life. He graduated at the top of his class.”
With meager legal precedent for the expulsion, John Hopkins has come under fire from human rights groups. They claim that Kalinski was wrongfully expelled; they say that he is not being judged on the basis of present behavior or performance, but because of the stigma attached to ex-convicts.
On the contrary, the National Medical Association (NMA), in an official statement claims, “The removal of Kalinski will uphold the trust which the public places in the hands of medical practitioners.”
Kalinski’s case, though entirely fictionalized, has an alarming resemblance to the actual case of Karl Helge Hampus Svensson. Svensson was recently expelled from The Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden where he was studying medicine.
According to the New York Times, it was discovered last fall that, “Mr. Svensson had been a Nazi sympathizer who was paroled from a maximum-security prison after being convicted in 2000 of murder, a killing the police called a hate crime.” In prison, Svensson took classes online and was then accepted into the prestigious Karolinska Institute.
With his criminal record out in the open, controversy arose concerning the character of those men and women whom the public depends upon for its continued health. Just as pressing however, is the ethical concern that a capable individual can be denied a future on the basis of his past. Should an ex-convict with previous Nazi sympathies be allowed to become a doctor? Maybe he has changed his ways.
Svensson proved himself through exceptional coursework and questions about his past were never raised. The discussion really centers on a question of human nature. The answers to the complicated questions at hand rely on the answer to one simple question: Can people change?
From one point of view, it can be argued that Svensson possesses the ‘know-how’ and intelligence to prove himself as a capable doctor. Is it right to deprive the public of a competent medical professional? If human nature is essentially determined by nurture, then it seems reasonable that a person who made unacceptable decisions in the past can be turned around. These ideas can be used to build the argument, made by human rights groups, that Svensson’s expulsion was unjustified.
On the other hand, if human nature is essentially determined by nature, then it will most likely be argued that Svensson cannot be trusted. Once a bad apple, always a bad apple. If a person’s identity and character are determined at birth, there is no rehabilitation project that can ever reform a convicted murderer.
However, there are not only two options. There are some who argue that human nature is determined by a combination of nature and nurture. This makes the issue even more complicated. There is also the notion that a ‘medical professional’ is not just a person with the necessary practical skills. Some suggest that a doctor is also a person who makes the kind of rational, moral decisions which a man guilty of murder has exhibited he does not understand.
The public places an almost unreasonable trust in medical professionals. Would the case be different if Svensson were training to be an architect and not a doctor? Is this a question of trust in the individual or comfort for the public? Which should be more important? It is always interesting to see how basic assumptions about human nature can determine policy and action in a very real way.
-RH, Juniatian, feb. 14 '08
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Apathy and Politics
Thinking about thinking
American civil rights activist Jesse Jackson once said, “In politics, an organized minority is a political majority.” Nearby Brady Township, in their recent elections, has shown that the minority need not even know they are in the race. It must be a fluke — or is it the beauty? — inherent in the democratic process which allowed student Jon Knepp to be elected Brady Township Auditor.
Knepp, a senior, told me he likes to write his own name in the blank ballot spaces when no one is running for the position. He finds it humorous to think that someone will have to count the single vote.
Jon’s mother, knowing that he does this, thought it would be funny to tell him she wrote in his name as well. The real joke is that Knepp was elected to township office with only two votes.
Knepp explained his duties, “The auditor oversees the financial transactions of a township.” It is a paid six year position. Knepp admitted that he has no experience auditing. He only said, “I plan to audit to the best of my auditing capabilities.”
Granted, no one was actually running for the position, however, Knepp was elected with at least twice as many votes as any other possible candidate. The landslide demonstrates how easy it is for any uncommitted and unqualified candidate to be elected, at least in a relatively small township. Knepp said, “This just shows how rampant voter apathy is, but also that people who say they can’t effect government are just wrong.”
It can be acknowledged that Brady Township is only a specific example, but if voters are not interested in running for office at the local level, it makes one curious to know how these same voters feel about national government. Knepp suggested, “Even if you don’t run a campaign, you can still be elected and if people knew this maybe they wouldn’t be so apathetic and positions wouldn’t go unfilled.”
Knepp and I reminisced back to the notorious 2000 presidential election. The election was riding on a couple hundred votes in Florida, a state where voter participation was low. Knepp suggested, “If people felt they were more involved at a local level then they would be more confident on a national level and we could really make some changes.”
Democracy may not be the perfect political system we envision. It is interesting to wonder if in the 21st century there will be a new form of government implemented to deal with our ever changing culture, ideals and dare it be mentioned, our apathy. For now however, it is the system which we have in place and emphasizing the positive aspects of the system is very important.
With the airwaves electrified by coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaigns I can only hope to persuade every student of age to take advantage of their opportunity to vote. The beauty of democracy is that every individual is involved.
Yet, increasing voter participation is a problematic issue in the United States. Enormous efforts from nonpartisan groups like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote are applaudable. Nevertheless, the problem persists. Is this seriously a problem stemming from apathy or is there something else?
The American essayist from Pennsylvania Agnes Repplier once said, “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements.”
There is a vague feeling within our generation, an apathetic political mentality far from the ideals of democracy which needs to be questioned. I have heard many students express their disinterest in politics. Is this because people feel insignificant in national elections? Knepp commented, “Those people are only insignificant because they make themselves insignificant.”
Knepp has no plans to run for public office in the future. In fact he told me that he really has no interest in politics. However Knepp did say, “If I continue to see such apathy I may continue to write myself in and maybe I’ll squeeze out another win.”
ryan hamilton
-taken from Dec. 13th issue of the Juniatian.
American civil rights activist Jesse Jackson once said, “In politics, an organized minority is a political majority.” Nearby Brady Township, in their recent elections, has shown that the minority need not even know they are in the race. It must be a fluke — or is it the beauty? — inherent in the democratic process which allowed student Jon Knepp to be elected Brady Township Auditor.
Knepp, a senior, told me he likes to write his own name in the blank ballot spaces when no one is running for the position. He finds it humorous to think that someone will have to count the single vote.
Jon’s mother, knowing that he does this, thought it would be funny to tell him she wrote in his name as well. The real joke is that Knepp was elected to township office with only two votes.
Knepp explained his duties, “The auditor oversees the financial transactions of a township.” It is a paid six year position. Knepp admitted that he has no experience auditing. He only said, “I plan to audit to the best of my auditing capabilities.”
Granted, no one was actually running for the position, however, Knepp was elected with at least twice as many votes as any other possible candidate. The landslide demonstrates how easy it is for any uncommitted and unqualified candidate to be elected, at least in a relatively small township. Knepp said, “This just shows how rampant voter apathy is, but also that people who say they can’t effect government are just wrong.”
It can be acknowledged that Brady Township is only a specific example, but if voters are not interested in running for office at the local level, it makes one curious to know how these same voters feel about national government. Knepp suggested, “Even if you don’t run a campaign, you can still be elected and if people knew this maybe they wouldn’t be so apathetic and positions wouldn’t go unfilled.”
Knepp and I reminisced back to the notorious 2000 presidential election. The election was riding on a couple hundred votes in Florida, a state where voter participation was low. Knepp suggested, “If people felt they were more involved at a local level then they would be more confident on a national level and we could really make some changes.”
Democracy may not be the perfect political system we envision. It is interesting to wonder if in the 21st century there will be a new form of government implemented to deal with our ever changing culture, ideals and dare it be mentioned, our apathy. For now however, it is the system which we have in place and emphasizing the positive aspects of the system is very important.
With the airwaves electrified by coverage of the 2008 Presidential campaigns I can only hope to persuade every student of age to take advantage of their opportunity to vote. The beauty of democracy is that every individual is involved.
Yet, increasing voter participation is a problematic issue in the United States. Enormous efforts from nonpartisan groups like the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote are applaudable. Nevertheless, the problem persists. Is this seriously a problem stemming from apathy or is there something else?
The American essayist from Pennsylvania Agnes Repplier once said, “Democracy forever teases us with the contrast between its ideals and its realities, between its heroic possibilities and its sorry achievements.”
There is a vague feeling within our generation, an apathetic political mentality far from the ideals of democracy which needs to be questioned. I have heard many students express their disinterest in politics. Is this because people feel insignificant in national elections? Knepp commented, “Those people are only insignificant because they make themselves insignificant.”
Knepp has no plans to run for public office in the future. In fact he told me that he really has no interest in politics. However Knepp did say, “If I continue to see such apathy I may continue to write myself in and maybe I’ll squeeze out another win.”
ryan hamilton
-taken from Dec. 13th issue of the Juniatian.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Time travel and global warming
Thinking about thinking
The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was recently awarded, jointly, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. The award was given in recognition of the effort to spread knowledge about climate change. To learn more about this controversial and important issue, I knew my research would need to be unconventional.
Without a moment hesitation, I fired up my hybrid time machine and embarked on an epic adventure to get the down low on global warming and possible solutions. Who better to ask than those great minds and influential leaders of our past?
Of course, I made my first stop ancient Greece; an appointment with the man often noted as the father of western thought. In typical form, Plato replied, “Global warming is not the worst that can happen to men.” Aristotle was only slightly more helpful. He said, “The gods too are fond of a joke, but global warming isn’t very funny.”
Without any tangible solutions from ancient Greece, I decided to hop, skip and jump forward in time to visit my other favorite philosophers. I found Descartes sitting in a leather armchair in his study. When asked for his thoughts on global warming he replied, “I think the earth is warming, therefore it is.” Nietzsche only forcefully grumbled, “Global warming is dead.”
In hopes of finding a solution, I revved up my time machine once again. Shakespeare lamented, “I wasted resources and now doth my resources waste me.” Emerson was certain, “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of global warming.”
It seems that the issue of global warming falls into the hands of us all. However, little can be accomplished if world leaders are not engaged. With this in mind, I decided to ask past American presidents for their perspective. Thomas Jefferson said, “When in the course of human events it is no longer possible to live with global warming it becomes necessary for a people to remove global warming from their society.”
Jumping back into my time machine I arrived in the 20th century to talk with John F. Kennedy. His advice, “Ask not what you can do for global warming, but what global warming can do for you.” Franklin D. Roosevelt explained, “We have nothing to fear but global warming itself.”
Nixon declined to comment. Storming away I heard him exclaim, “I am not a dirty polluter.” When I arrived to talk with Reagan he was in the middle of a speech. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Seeing me in the audience he added, “And use it to seed a coral reef in the Caribbean.”
At that moment I thought, when the future of the entire world is at stake, the megalomaniacs of the past will certainly have an opinion. Hitler was adamant, “We need to stop global warming or it will conquer the world before we do.” Napoleon was busy, but took a moment to say, “Global warming is a set of lies agreed upon.”
Ironically, my time was running out. With desperation, I punched the random time travel button. Gandhi said, “Whatever you do about global warming will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.” Benjamin Franklin commented, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and global warming.” Martin Luther’s solution, “Pray and let God worry about global warming.”
Back in 2007 once again, I felt there was still insight to be found. In an unprecedented feat of diplomacy and plot levering I convinced George Bush, Tony Blair and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to meet me at Boxers in Huntingdon. As we waited for President Bush and former Prime Minister Blair, I sipped a beer. Ahmadinejad said, “In Iran we don’t have global warming like in your country. Iran emits no CO2. I don’t know who told you that.” He promptly got up and left.
Sadly, my other two guests never arrived. It looked like I was on my own. The words of Einstein came to mind. “Do not worry about your difficulties with global warming, I assure you that mine are still greater.” It was late in the day, the sun had set, I could only finish my beer and begin the walk home.
*Ryan Hamilton
- From November 30 issue of Juniatian
The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was recently awarded, jointly, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. The award was given in recognition of the effort to spread knowledge about climate change. To learn more about this controversial and important issue, I knew my research would need to be unconventional.
Without a moment hesitation, I fired up my hybrid time machine and embarked on an epic adventure to get the down low on global warming and possible solutions. Who better to ask than those great minds and influential leaders of our past?
Of course, I made my first stop ancient Greece; an appointment with the man often noted as the father of western thought. In typical form, Plato replied, “Global warming is not the worst that can happen to men.” Aristotle was only slightly more helpful. He said, “The gods too are fond of a joke, but global warming isn’t very funny.”
Without any tangible solutions from ancient Greece, I decided to hop, skip and jump forward in time to visit my other favorite philosophers. I found Descartes sitting in a leather armchair in his study. When asked for his thoughts on global warming he replied, “I think the earth is warming, therefore it is.” Nietzsche only forcefully grumbled, “Global warming is dead.”
In hopes of finding a solution, I revved up my time machine once again. Shakespeare lamented, “I wasted resources and now doth my resources waste me.” Emerson was certain, “The end of the human race will be that it will eventually die of global warming.”
It seems that the issue of global warming falls into the hands of us all. However, little can be accomplished if world leaders are not engaged. With this in mind, I decided to ask past American presidents for their perspective. Thomas Jefferson said, “When in the course of human events it is no longer possible to live with global warming it becomes necessary for a people to remove global warming from their society.”
Jumping back into my time machine I arrived in the 20th century to talk with John F. Kennedy. His advice, “Ask not what you can do for global warming, but what global warming can do for you.” Franklin D. Roosevelt explained, “We have nothing to fear but global warming itself.”
Nixon declined to comment. Storming away I heard him exclaim, “I am not a dirty polluter.” When I arrived to talk with Reagan he was in the middle of a speech. “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Seeing me in the audience he added, “And use it to seed a coral reef in the Caribbean.”
At that moment I thought, when the future of the entire world is at stake, the megalomaniacs of the past will certainly have an opinion. Hitler was adamant, “We need to stop global warming or it will conquer the world before we do.” Napoleon was busy, but took a moment to say, “Global warming is a set of lies agreed upon.”
Ironically, my time was running out. With desperation, I punched the random time travel button. Gandhi said, “Whatever you do about global warming will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.” Benjamin Franklin commented, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death, taxes and global warming.” Martin Luther’s solution, “Pray and let God worry about global warming.”
Back in 2007 once again, I felt there was still insight to be found. In an unprecedented feat of diplomacy and plot levering I convinced George Bush, Tony Blair and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to meet me at Boxers in Huntingdon. As we waited for President Bush and former Prime Minister Blair, I sipped a beer. Ahmadinejad said, “In Iran we don’t have global warming like in your country. Iran emits no CO2. I don’t know who told you that.” He promptly got up and left.
Sadly, my other two guests never arrived. It looked like I was on my own. The words of Einstein came to mind. “Do not worry about your difficulties with global warming, I assure you that mine are still greater.” It was late in the day, the sun had set, I could only finish my beer and begin the walk home.
*Ryan Hamilton
- From November 30 issue of Juniatian
Saturday, November 10, 2007
the power of irrational language
Thinking about Thinking
As 2007 comes to a close, the Senate has been busy passing amendments “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense…” The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, expressing the Senates position on Iran, passed on Sept. 26 with a vote of 76-22.
With the appropriate language in place, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment may be the first step toward a dangerous war with Iran. One section of the amendment proposes, “…the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps” (IRGC) “as a foreign terrorist organization…on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”
In the years following 9/11, ‘terrorism’ has become a very powerful word. Singling out terrorists or potential terrorists has allowed The United States to implement otherwise unjustified laws in our country, and fuel an otherwise unjustified war in another.
This is not to argue that these actions were necessarily wrong, though there seems to be a feeling of regret brooding around the ‘war on terror’. This only highlights how, with proper marketing, the American public will allow emotional language to sway their hearts and minds.
I do not want to argue that the IRGC are not terrorists. I do however want to point out that labeling this group ‘terrorists’ restricts choice of action. The American public’s current mentality makes it far too easy to justify the implementation of force in dealings with deemed terrorists.
A single word can be very persuasive. Language carries emotional and psychological powers that have the ability to blind us to reality beyond language and rhetoric. Certain propositions are just not exposed to the same critique we thrust on any other because of the way they are posed. This is why propaganda is so powerful and dangerous.
A person wielding these powerful words also becomes powerful themselves. As a simple example, imagine citing religious beliefs, as reasoning for exemption from a required high school health class. Religion is essentially a set of organized personal beliefs. And one personal belief could be that sitting through another year of required health classes is a waste of time. Not exactly an airtight argument.
Yet, if a person wrote ‘religious beliefs’ on the appropriate paperwork, there would be no questions asked. This is the kind unjustified language that the general public is willing to tolerate. By citing ‘religious beliefs’, no matter how unjustified, the student is not questioned because it is generally accepted that religious beliefs are to be tolerated and respected.
No doubt, tolerance and respect keep our society civil. Yet, when these notions are stretched to their limits, propaganda justifies outrageous actions and the public has the wool pulled over their eyes.
The word ‘terrorism’ has a persuasive emotionally motivated control over the American public. By documenting an agreement stating the IRGC is a terrorist organization, we have, to a great extent also agreed upon how this organization needs to be treated.
We toss around words in the wind, when we should really be treating them as the bombs they may one day justify. The American Public’s tolerance for the marketing of vague unjustified or irrational language is absurd. When sophistry is substituted for logical justification, language becomes emotionally motivated and irrational. If we are not careful, this language can justify drastic actions.
The public will not be told why the IRGC are terrorists; the public will hear that they are terrorists. The label controls the thoughts of the public by playing on their sense of morality and fear. Terrorists are bad people who need to be stopped. If the IRGC are terrorists, then this justifies a reaction appropriate for terrorists. If anything goes wrong, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment can be waved in the air; we all agreed.
Why are there certain instances where irrational emotionally motivated language exempts a person from providing the justification that we expect from everyone else? If this is how the world works, the public needs to recognize this and step carefully. Language is powerful, and irrational language is frighteningly dangerous.
-from Nov. 8 issue of Juniatian 2007
As 2007 comes to a close, the Senate has been busy passing amendments “to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense…” The Kyl-Lieberman amendment, expressing the Senates position on Iran, passed on Sept. 26 with a vote of 76-22.
With the appropriate language in place, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment may be the first step toward a dangerous war with Iran. One section of the amendment proposes, “…the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps” (IRGC) “as a foreign terrorist organization…on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”
In the years following 9/11, ‘terrorism’ has become a very powerful word. Singling out terrorists or potential terrorists has allowed The United States to implement otherwise unjustified laws in our country, and fuel an otherwise unjustified war in another.
This is not to argue that these actions were necessarily wrong, though there seems to be a feeling of regret brooding around the ‘war on terror’. This only highlights how, with proper marketing, the American public will allow emotional language to sway their hearts and minds.
I do not want to argue that the IRGC are not terrorists. I do however want to point out that labeling this group ‘terrorists’ restricts choice of action. The American public’s current mentality makes it far too easy to justify the implementation of force in dealings with deemed terrorists.
A single word can be very persuasive. Language carries emotional and psychological powers that have the ability to blind us to reality beyond language and rhetoric. Certain propositions are just not exposed to the same critique we thrust on any other because of the way they are posed. This is why propaganda is so powerful and dangerous.
A person wielding these powerful words also becomes powerful themselves. As a simple example, imagine citing religious beliefs, as reasoning for exemption from a required high school health class. Religion is essentially a set of organized personal beliefs. And one personal belief could be that sitting through another year of required health classes is a waste of time. Not exactly an airtight argument.
Yet, if a person wrote ‘religious beliefs’ on the appropriate paperwork, there would be no questions asked. This is the kind unjustified language that the general public is willing to tolerate. By citing ‘religious beliefs’, no matter how unjustified, the student is not questioned because it is generally accepted that religious beliefs are to be tolerated and respected.
No doubt, tolerance and respect keep our society civil. Yet, when these notions are stretched to their limits, propaganda justifies outrageous actions and the public has the wool pulled over their eyes.
The word ‘terrorism’ has a persuasive emotionally motivated control over the American public. By documenting an agreement stating the IRGC is a terrorist organization, we have, to a great extent also agreed upon how this organization needs to be treated.
We toss around words in the wind, when we should really be treating them as the bombs they may one day justify. The American Public’s tolerance for the marketing of vague unjustified or irrational language is absurd. When sophistry is substituted for logical justification, language becomes emotionally motivated and irrational. If we are not careful, this language can justify drastic actions.
The public will not be told why the IRGC are terrorists; the public will hear that they are terrorists. The label controls the thoughts of the public by playing on their sense of morality and fear. Terrorists are bad people who need to be stopped. If the IRGC are terrorists, then this justifies a reaction appropriate for terrorists. If anything goes wrong, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment can be waved in the air; we all agreed.
Why are there certain instances where irrational emotionally motivated language exempts a person from providing the justification that we expect from everyone else? If this is how the world works, the public needs to recognize this and step carefully. Language is powerful, and irrational language is frighteningly dangerous.
-from Nov. 8 issue of Juniatian 2007
Saturday, October 27, 2007
free speech, belief and punishment
My second article. the first is below.
Thinking about Thinking
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Over two centuries ago Voltaire revealed our current American notion of free speech. This very same principle encouraged Columbia University to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to speak in New York on September 24.
Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University prompted controversy from all sides. Ahmadinejad is a prominent critic of western power and Iran is seen as a significant nuclear threat. The media was enthralled. During his appearance, Ahmadinejad went so far as to question the historical validity of the holocaust.
Ahmadinejad stated, “…if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?” Ahmadinejad and others support different approaches to the history surrounding World War II.
From a political or historical perspective the statement is certainly controversial, some would argue laughable. However, the speech also raises interesting questions about the implicit, more philosophical issues, of belief and free speech.
Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust is particularly interesting because in America the freedom to make such a statement is upheld. Contrary to this, in many European countries, most notably Germany and Austria, the same statement is a punishable offense. For obvious reasons, the Holocaust is a very sensitive subject in these countries; there is a strong obligatory feeling for coming to terms with the brutal reality of the past.
In February of 2006 David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Vienna Austria for his denial of the Holocaust. In lectures he gave in 1989, Irving denied that gas chambers were used for mass killing at Auschwitz. In April of 2007, the European Union passed legislation making it a punishable crime to deny the Holocaust.
The historical equivalent of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded room, questioning the extent of the Holocaust is treated as anti-Semitic hate speech which encourages racism and violence. Essentially this is a personal belief, contradicted by vast historical evidence in this instance, which impedes on the freedom of others.
Ethically and morally these are intuitively contentious, even wrong beliefs. Nonetheless, with the words of Voltaire echoing in our minds, we uphold Ahmadinejad’s right to free speech even if his beliefs drastically oppose our own. The critic will insist we have an obligation to protect the ears of the uneducated from slanderous ignorance. But is legislation the right way to go about this?
Does our notion of free speech rest on the childish idea that sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me? E.U. legislation implies that a personal belief can be detrimental to society. Anyone who has ever been a victim of hateful speech knows that words can be damaging.
So what is the relationship between belief and action? If a person believes that minority groups are inferior, they may or may not act discriminatorily towards these groups. If a person believes that a personal relationship with God is the one and only road to salvation, they may or may not discriminate against unbelievers. Is it the belief or the action which is wrong? There is a fine line. How do we decide to outlaw one type of expression and not another?
I want to agree that a person should be punished for promoting hate and violence, but where do we draw the line? By treating ill formed beliefs in a serious manner we only give credence to absurd theories.
If it is illegal to make an outrageous claim against the validity of the Holocaust then punishing other marginal beliefs is only a small step away. Maybe legal action is not the right way to approach this; intellectual discussion and education may be more appropriate solutions.
We must remember, the right to free speech allows a minority to speak out and instigate positive change. America’s founding fathers and Voltaire were rightly attracted to preserving free speech to allow for an open flow of ideas. Legally limiting the right to voice a belief, no matter how controversial, directly limits the freedom of us all.
Thinking about Thinking
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Over two centuries ago Voltaire revealed our current American notion of free speech. This very same principle encouraged Columbia University to invite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, to speak in New York on September 24.
Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University prompted controversy from all sides. Ahmadinejad is a prominent critic of western power and Iran is seen as a significant nuclear threat. The media was enthralled. During his appearance, Ahmadinejad went so far as to question the historical validity of the holocaust.
Ahmadinejad stated, “…if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives?” Ahmadinejad and others support different approaches to the history surrounding World War II.
From a political or historical perspective the statement is certainly controversial, some would argue laughable. However, the speech also raises interesting questions about the implicit, more philosophical issues, of belief and free speech.
Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust is particularly interesting because in America the freedom to make such a statement is upheld. Contrary to this, in many European countries, most notably Germany and Austria, the same statement is a punishable offense. For obvious reasons, the Holocaust is a very sensitive subject in these countries; there is a strong obligatory feeling for coming to terms with the brutal reality of the past.
In February of 2006 David Irving, a British historian, was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Vienna Austria for his denial of the Holocaust. In lectures he gave in 1989, Irving denied that gas chambers were used for mass killing at Auschwitz. In April of 2007, the European Union passed legislation making it a punishable crime to deny the Holocaust.
The historical equivalent of yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded room, questioning the extent of the Holocaust is treated as anti-Semitic hate speech which encourages racism and violence. Essentially this is a personal belief, contradicted by vast historical evidence in this instance, which impedes on the freedom of others.
Ethically and morally these are intuitively contentious, even wrong beliefs. Nonetheless, with the words of Voltaire echoing in our minds, we uphold Ahmadinejad’s right to free speech even if his beliefs drastically oppose our own. The critic will insist we have an obligation to protect the ears of the uneducated from slanderous ignorance. But is legislation the right way to go about this?
Does our notion of free speech rest on the childish idea that sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can never hurt me? E.U. legislation implies that a personal belief can be detrimental to society. Anyone who has ever been a victim of hateful speech knows that words can be damaging.
So what is the relationship between belief and action? If a person believes that minority groups are inferior, they may or may not act discriminatorily towards these groups. If a person believes that a personal relationship with God is the one and only road to salvation, they may or may not discriminate against unbelievers. Is it the belief or the action which is wrong? There is a fine line. How do we decide to outlaw one type of expression and not another?
I want to agree that a person should be punished for promoting hate and violence, but where do we draw the line? By treating ill formed beliefs in a serious manner we only give credence to absurd theories.
If it is illegal to make an outrageous claim against the validity of the Holocaust then punishing other marginal beliefs is only a small step away. Maybe legal action is not the right way to approach this; intellectual discussion and education may be more appropriate solutions.
We must remember, the right to free speech allows a minority to speak out and instigate positive change. America’s founding fathers and Voltaire were rightly attracted to preserving free speech to allow for an open flow of ideas. Legally limiting the right to voice a belief, no matter how controversial, directly limits the freedom of us all.
Thinking about philosophy
It is nearly november. I haven't written anything exciting in quite a while. I suppose i'm too busy with classes and studying and GREats. I have been writing for the school newspaper. i'm supposed to write a philosophy/world issues column and it hasn't been fantastic, but i'm working on it. I decided that i would post my articles, pre-edited versions, here.
Thinking about Thinking
The desire for knowledge seems to be a significant part of our human nature. Children are never satisfied with answers like, “I’ll tell you when you’re older”. They don’t accept, “Because that’s just how it is.” The search for knowledge is driven by a curious desire to understand the world we inhabit. Like inquisitive nine year olds with a hammer and the family stereo, we are all pounding away at the world, taking it apart, and occasionally learning something.
Students in every discipline pick apart the complex structure of the universe in their own manner to learn how it functions and why it came to be. The term philosophy stems from the Greek word philosophia, meaning friend or lover of wisdom. If it is accepted that a desire for knowledge is part of our human nature, then in many ways we are all philosophers.
It is a misconception to think that philosophy is a theoretical study of abstract ideas with no application to practical life. I will soon graduate with a degree in philosophy and my grandfather still slyly hints that he would be getting into the health profession himself.
Ethical concerns such as euthanasia, abortion and even justifications for war are all founded in philosophical problems. I think most scientists would agree that the debate between evolution and creation is not so much a scientific debate as it is a philosophical debate about the nature of the scientific method. This misunderstanding has caused passionate, but basically unwarranted, controversy in high school biology classes across America.
In Chinese Philosophy, a course offered at Juniata, students learn that the foundation for ancient Chinese government was very often linked to the philosophical discussion of human nature. The same thought can be applied to government in the United States today. Considering human nature, to what extent should the government be involved in our personal lives?
If human nature is inherently malicious, then it seems that the government should have more control to keep society in balance. In fact, maybe the general public should not be consulted at all and strict laws need to be enforced for the general good. On the other hand, if human nature is inherently positive and good, then we could conclude that there is no need for the government’s hand in personal matters. The public would be able to make the right choices on an individual level. Excessive control would be unnecessary and hence a waste of time and money. What does current government in the United States say about human nature? And more importantly, is it right?
The notion of ‘analytic thinking’ has almost become a cliché catchphrase for any respectable liberal arts education. However, this is not to say there is nothing behind the idea. Analytic thinking involves breaking down ideas and arguments to understand each piece and how they contribute to the whole. Philosophy is largely analytical in that it advances forward by assessing an argument, finding weaknesses and constructing a new argument with fresh ideas.
Aristotle, a famous ancient Greek philosopher wrote, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” The study of philosophy requires the ability to entertain ideas that are drastically different from your own. The student is forced to view the world from a different perspective.
Thinking analytically is not only applicable to philosophy or philosophical issues, but is well suited to prepare the student for any endeavor they may undertake. One example is the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). This is a test often required for students applying to graduate school. It includes an analytic writing section where the student is asked to analyze the reasoning behind one argument and present his/her perspective on a given issue.
Philosophy utilizes an analytic mode of inquiry to undermine the foundations of all that we know. It also builds new foundations for that which we do not yet understand. Of course many other disciplines also promote analytic thinking. Philosophy is simply thinking about thinking. An education involving philosophy can lead to a fulfilling life and has many practical applications. Most importantly though, it will prepare the student to think for themselves.
Thinking about Thinking
The desire for knowledge seems to be a significant part of our human nature. Children are never satisfied with answers like, “I’ll tell you when you’re older”. They don’t accept, “Because that’s just how it is.” The search for knowledge is driven by a curious desire to understand the world we inhabit. Like inquisitive nine year olds with a hammer and the family stereo, we are all pounding away at the world, taking it apart, and occasionally learning something.
Students in every discipline pick apart the complex structure of the universe in their own manner to learn how it functions and why it came to be. The term philosophy stems from the Greek word philosophia, meaning friend or lover of wisdom. If it is accepted that a desire for knowledge is part of our human nature, then in many ways we are all philosophers.
It is a misconception to think that philosophy is a theoretical study of abstract ideas with no application to practical life. I will soon graduate with a degree in philosophy and my grandfather still slyly hints that he would be getting into the health profession himself.
Ethical concerns such as euthanasia, abortion and even justifications for war are all founded in philosophical problems. I think most scientists would agree that the debate between evolution and creation is not so much a scientific debate as it is a philosophical debate about the nature of the scientific method. This misunderstanding has caused passionate, but basically unwarranted, controversy in high school biology classes across America.
In Chinese Philosophy, a course offered at Juniata, students learn that the foundation for ancient Chinese government was very often linked to the philosophical discussion of human nature. The same thought can be applied to government in the United States today. Considering human nature, to what extent should the government be involved in our personal lives?
If human nature is inherently malicious, then it seems that the government should have more control to keep society in balance. In fact, maybe the general public should not be consulted at all and strict laws need to be enforced for the general good. On the other hand, if human nature is inherently positive and good, then we could conclude that there is no need for the government’s hand in personal matters. The public would be able to make the right choices on an individual level. Excessive control would be unnecessary and hence a waste of time and money. What does current government in the United States say about human nature? And more importantly, is it right?
The notion of ‘analytic thinking’ has almost become a cliché catchphrase for any respectable liberal arts education. However, this is not to say there is nothing behind the idea. Analytic thinking involves breaking down ideas and arguments to understand each piece and how they contribute to the whole. Philosophy is largely analytical in that it advances forward by assessing an argument, finding weaknesses and constructing a new argument with fresh ideas.
Aristotle, a famous ancient Greek philosopher wrote, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” The study of philosophy requires the ability to entertain ideas that are drastically different from your own. The student is forced to view the world from a different perspective.
Thinking analytically is not only applicable to philosophy or philosophical issues, but is well suited to prepare the student for any endeavor they may undertake. One example is the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). This is a test often required for students applying to graduate school. It includes an analytic writing section where the student is asked to analyze the reasoning behind one argument and present his/her perspective on a given issue.
Philosophy utilizes an analytic mode of inquiry to undermine the foundations of all that we know. It also builds new foundations for that which we do not yet understand. Of course many other disciplines also promote analytic thinking. Philosophy is simply thinking about thinking. An education involving philosophy can lead to a fulfilling life and has many practical applications. Most importantly though, it will prepare the student to think for themselves.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
writing from here.
sitting in the basement of the juniata college library in huntingdon pennsylvania. USA.
one month to the day since i caught that great white bird across the atlantic and my head still swirls in moments of weakness. the girls on the computers across the room are talking about leeds right now. how weird is life. thats a statement.
memory comes and goes. remembering life in flashes of photos and colors sounds and smells. my greatgrandmothers apartment building had a particular odor as well as the gymnasium at the camp i went to every summer when i was younger. while i was in england the smell of windex made me think of my father, cleaning our old coffee table. stories of childhood are related back to you and i when we are older and we tell them again like we were there. a story never gets old, but maybe you've heard this one before. i puked in the second grade and laid my reading book on the airconditioner to dry. this scar on my knuckle, slingshots and bandannas at the dinner table.
one month to the day since i caught that great white bird across the atlantic and my head still swirls in moments of weakness. the girls on the computers across the room are talking about leeds right now. how weird is life. thats a statement.
memory comes and goes. remembering life in flashes of photos and colors sounds and smells. my greatgrandmothers apartment building had a particular odor as well as the gymnasium at the camp i went to every summer when i was younger. while i was in england the smell of windex made me think of my father, cleaning our old coffee table. stories of childhood are related back to you and i when we are older and we tell them again like we were there. a story never gets old, but maybe you've heard this one before. i puked in the second grade and laid my reading book on the airconditioner to dry. this scar on my knuckle, slingshots and bandannas at the dinner table.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Wakefields
hidden between bustops, these fields kind of remind me of pennsylvannia. it isn't very sunny in england, but it does rain quite often. the green trees and fields, the power lines stretched up in the heavens over our heads. black cords, modern magic connecting the expanses of nature. even the pollen in my eyes makes me think of home. 
If you're lucky enough to have looked through my pictures you now get an update on life in leeds. It is in fact drawing to a close. i attempted to draw out my time here and found a job working at the Radisson hotel, but august will see me back in huntingdon in time for classes to begin again. i fly back to the states on august 2nd. i'll spend some quality time in coopersburg with family and friends before moving into the house in huntingdon with jon, kazia, ross and the numerous pets. i'm not sure i'm ready to think and write about summing up my experiences here. i've met so many people and seen so many different places. i dont think i really started to understand england until a week or two ago, and i'm still baffled most of the time. anna and i nearly got hit crossing the street in wakefield. and catching a bus is largely a matter of luck. why they insist on driving on the other side of the road, no one will ever understand. but england is more than driving on the other side of the road, pubs, pints and popular culture. i wish i could expand. yet i think i have learned a few things along the way, even if they have nothing to do with england. wow, that was all real vague.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Getting Married
i'm listening to the radio. not getting married. but everytime i sign on to facebook, my worldwide stalker gossip connection web, it seems someone else is getting hitched. and last weekend i experienced my first gay wedding. not My first gay wedding, but i waited tables and served drinks at A wedding. i must admit there were simple questions which arose in my mind, concerning those traditions we take for granted at any other wedding i have been to, and they were answered. there was no bride. just two grooms each wearing a tux. simple solution to a half joking half ignorant question. and honestly that was pretty much the only difference. both sides of parents spoke of gaining a son in law. i'm fairly certain there was a larger than average number of other homosexual men in attendance. the wedding party also seemed to consist of more friends than family as compared to the weddings i've been to, but this could be due to any number of reasons. so it was cool, they got married, everyone was happy.
1st of July, 2007: it has rained for the entire month of june. i need some sunshine. people have died in the flooding. will it ever let up? the 4th of july is only three days away.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
French Riviera
Enthusiasm was wearing thin. Twelve hours earlier we were eating calamari in the old town of Nice. The sun still beating down on our faces. a few hours by bus and plane and we were sitting in an all night hole in the wall in north east England, chilly Newcastle. our train didn't leave until 4:30 and the train station closed at eleven so we took to the streets with luggage in tow. dark crowded unfamiliar streets looking for somewhere to pass the time. 24/7 city cafe. greasy English chips and chicken. the bars closed at 2:00 driving crowds of drunken teens towards our hideaway. i only begin at the end of the story in an attempt to persuasively convey our state of mind. harsh reality, optimism, out of touch. the shock upon returning to England was not 
overshadowed by excitement and expectation as was our shock upon arriving in France. maybe it was just getting late and we needed to sleep.'French in Translation'
Monday afternoon seven friends and myself boarded a plane in Newcastle England. walking into the boarding area, i noticed right away that almost everyone getting on our plane looked retired. Monday evening we were on the beach in Nice France. the 21st century is an incredible time to live. (going through customs in France i remembered i didn't speak french). that same evening we each treated ourselves to a pasta dinner and a crepe with nutella. the air was still warm, the waiters were friendly, the night was relaxed. the french
riviera must be an incredible place to live.
Monday afternoon seven friends and myself boarded a plane in Newcastle England. walking into the boarding area, i noticed right away that almost everyone getting on our plane looked retired. Monday evening we were on the beach in Nice France. the 21st century is an incredible time to live. (going through customs in France i remembered i didn't speak french). that same evening we each treated ourselves to a pasta dinner and a crepe with nutella. the air was still warm, the waiters were friendly, the night was relaxed. the french
riviera must be an incredible place to live.Tuesday was devoted to the exploration of Nice and with the aid of daylight we got our first true taste of the city. the colors, architecture, style, food, and sun all made an impression as we headed towards the beach. by the time we eventually made it there a cloud formed in the sky and a light rain began to fall. disappointment. we walked along the coast with the sea to our right. the bluest water I've ever seen washed up onto the stony shore. i had noticed the musical sound this created the night before, and now i could see the stones rocking against each other with each wave. a man fished from the high rocks below the road. bright orange red and 
yellow buildings stood to our left with romantically carved balconies and faded blue shutters. all an apparent contrast to the bricks and dull modern facade of England. the old town was bustling with activity, shops, cafes, and tourists in designer clothes. narrow winding streets, wash hanging from lines stretched between windows to dry. artists, butchers, florists, all side by side.
yellow buildings stood to our left with romantically carved balconies and faded blue shutters. all an apparent contrast to the bricks and dull modern facade of England. the old town was bustling with activity, shops, cafes, and tourists in designer clothes. narrow winding streets, wash hanging from lines stretched between windows to dry. artists, butchers, florists, all side by side. 
that afternoon the sun was shinning bright and we went back to the beach. I had restrained myself from jumping into the sea the night before, knowing that we would be back. now however, there was no reason not to swim. no one else wanted to come, so i waded in alone. the water was cold, but not unbearable and i quickly got used to it, swimming out and floating, opening my eyes under the water to see the stones below. ten minutes later i waded out with a giant red imprint of a jelly fish on my right forearm. life just isn't fair, i only wanted to swim. 
Cannes, where they host the famous film festival, is a half hour south-west of Nice and it's the city of the Rich and the Famous. there's a certain luxurious aroma in the air. tanned, wearing designer clothes and gold chains or diamond earrings. everyone. sunscreen for 20 euros, i preferred to burn a little. Anna and i met an older gentlemen who noticed us speaking English. he was from Manchester and has spent the last 25 years in Cannes. 'I've met all the stars, Nice is a beautiful city, where are you two beautiful people from?' that sort of thing. private yachts and private parties on private beaches, 'no, I'm not registered on the beach'. high class my 
friend. it was the old women in gold diamonds and red sweaters with high heels and great big hats and makeup caked on sunken tanned faces that kind of makes you wonder. these people are slightly out of touch with reality. i can't say it wouldn't be a relaxing life to lead.
friend. it was the old women in gold diamonds and red sweaters with high heels and great big hats and makeup caked on sunken tanned faces that kind of makes you wonder. these people are slightly out of touch with reality. i can't say it wouldn't be a relaxing life to lead. Monaco is extravagant. one city, an entire country. the 
wealthy and the royal. Monte-Carlo is a world famous casino with a prominent position within the country, high on a hill overlooking the sea. when it opened it was known as the cathedral of hell. we walked down to the beach and watched a volleyball game through a fence. jellyfish were out in full force. we took a ten minute bus ride across the country and surveyed the port and everything else from near the palace. everything was beautiful. we went to the aquarium and looked at 
the fishes.....
wealthy and the royal. Monte-Carlo is a world famous casino with a prominent position within the country, high on a hill overlooking the sea. when it opened it was known as the cathedral of hell. we walked down to the beach and watched a volleyball game through a fence. jellyfish were out in full force. we took a ten minute bus ride across the country and surveyed the port and everything else from near the palace. everything was beautiful. we went to the aquarium and looked at 
the fishes.....Time again...i was writing this last week just after we returned from France and that's why the date of the post is what it is and in any case, i was getting sick and writing very slowly and then Monday morning i got a phone call and a job interview and Tuesday i started working at the Radisson hotel and its now Saturday afternoon and its been my first chance to write and I'm afraid those wonderful stories of Nice will have to wait for some other time. i don't think it was going anywhere anyway.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Time, as chorus
It has been over a year since my first post and nearly a month since my last. and well, the jig is up, the time has come, the cock has crowed, the clock has struck, the tide is rising, and the sun is setting, its about time i wrote something down. Classes are over, finals are finished, I've spent a year studying in England. I pause here for contemplation. Enter Time, as chorus. wade through memories bound in digital frames lashed loosely together by imprecise language...I've been sitting here for 10 minutes now wondering where i should go from there. I've left myself knee deep in memory, sitting on the edge of the bed slightly baffled, letting my mind wander an hour or more away, trespassing upon the unknown lands of space-time. Saturday afternoon was sunny, or the sun filtered down through the clouds every few minutes and I took off walking. there is a large stone building that can be seen from Anna's kitchen window which from a distance i have always supposed was a castle. Here you may infer that it was not a castle at all. and when i finally got close enough to see the stone towers rising above the small brown town houses i had difficulty getting any closer. the roads i walked down ended in culdisacs and wooden fences and dogs, with English accents, barking behind flimsy wooden gates. a gang of children on bicycles raced around taunting and chasing each other weaving in and out of the houses along the paved footpaths which i also followed. my castle was not 200 yards away when a large metal fence lined with barbed wire stood in my path. a quixotian giant with six arms, each brandishing a razor sharp saber. i ducked down an uncertain path into someones backyard and attempted to circumnavigate the giant. In some roundabout way, following narrow alley streets and turning down shrubbery lined drives i eventually arrived in the parking lot of my castle. Its the 21st century, why shouldn't castles have parking lots? Exactly. no reason why a moat and horses can not be replaced by a steel fence and cars. Of course this all made more sense when I realized that my castle was in fact a Prison. Enter Time, as chorus. a metaphor surfaces on the still lake of consciousness. disillusionment, facade. I've often mentioned the island of claustrophobic geography, prison walls, the city. I've been reading too much philosophy and enjoying 'Orlando' by Virginia Woolf more than may be healthy for my writing. but here there is no turning back. the walk was worth it. Prison or castle, i found a wonderful pet store along the way.
the sun shines through the window as it rises somewhere close to 4:30am, if my half asleep attempt at reading a clock can be trusted. when i awake sometime later, grey clouds hover and rain is threatening a morning walk. an hour later the sun is shinning and then again it looks like rain. am i dwelling on the weather? but it has been light until past nine pm for a few weeks now.
So what have i learned? What great conclusions can be drawn from this experience? What am I feeling? Where am I going? 'Its all very wonderful, terrible, complex, different and good.' i'd like to end it there...but, i'm very glad I came to live and study in england, even if it is only for a short while. i've met a few wonderful people. i've travled extensively (i think so) and i've watched every Seinfeld episode two or three times at least. and i'm not quite ready to leave, but i really look forward to returning to Pennsylvania. so for what its worth. In Conclusion, i'm searching for a job. next week we are visiting Nice, france. Matt Foley says Nice is nice. i must go find out for myself. and then...i have no idea.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Book Review
Incredibly my second semester at Leeds is quickly reaching its end. Not winding down, but building to a climactic and frightening finish with a week left of classes and then exams. just for kicks i thought i'd post some of the better things i've read over the past few months. i picked a book from each course that i found enjoyable or most important or the one that leaves an impression. i just found these interesting and thought i'd share. these may not be the best works from each course, but i suppose they are the ones that reached out to me and said, 'look at this, incredible eh?' so i thought i'd pass on the sentiment, maybe just so you know i've done more than travel and maybe so i could get back into the studying mood.
'Between the Acts' by Virginia Woolf
read for modern literature last semester, my first glimpse of virginia woolf. the story of a small town on the day of their town pagent just days before the outbreak of world war II. Interested in History, art, war, sexuality, personal anxiety concerning all of these. blah blah. i became really interested in the connection that woolf builds between words and thought and the way that a single word is packed full of many many connotations beyond itself. words branch out in webs across time and space. thought and speech are not necessarily aligned, or maybe more than we first perceive. i'm now a huge virginia woolf fan.
Article on Foundherentism by Susan Haack
i dont have the actual article in front of me, and the name of it eludes my memory, but i found this article to be a very effective contribution to epistemology; the study of knowledge, what does it mean to say we know something, how do we know something, is this different than belief etc? anyway, there are two competing theories in epistemology, foundationalism and coherentism, both describing different ways in which we gain knowledge. Susan Haack presents a theory of knowledge that combines these two and she cleverly calls it foundherentism (philosophers tend to do this sort of thing). she uses the idea of a crossword puzzle to simulate how we gain knowledge. she looks at our practicle uses of the word knowledge and creates a theory, as opposed to building a theory and attempting to describe how it fits into life.
'The Mill on the Floss' by George Eliot
i read a number of different authors and poets for victorian literature last semester. i can't say a lot of it really appealed to me. the poetry was...a bit tedious, as were some of the books. however, there were some really interesting contributions to literature and when looked at in the context of the period, how people viewed reading etc. some of it is really pretty good. 'the mill on the floss' may not have been the greatest story ever, and there is a lot of criticism, but george eliot (not her real name, and not a man, oh the things you learn) kind of caught my attention because her writing style was really wondering and somewhat philosophical, taking random turns to discuss things not at all important to the story.
'Language Truth and Logic' by A.J. Ayer
philosophy of language. Ayer's book is incredible for many reasons. One, he wrote it when only 24. two, although the position of logical positivism which he backs is no longer popularly accepted, the book is still read as a major contribution to the philosophy of language; (an attempt to say something systematic about language and how we determine meaning). Ayer proposes the idea that in order for a statement to be meaningful it must either be analytic (discoverable a priori, a tautology true by definition, math etc) or empirically verifiable (principle of verifiability) corresponding to something that can be determined through observation of the world. In any case, this leads to the conclusion that any talk of metaphysics (transcendental reality, religious speculation etc.) is essentially meaningless. This drastically changes the face of philosophy if it is accepted. Ayer's book is a straightforward and concise argument that cannot be ignored.
'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' by David Hume
David Hume is the arch empiricist of modern philosophy. Essentially, this book is a fictional dialouge between three characters discussing the philosophical foundations of religous belief. The characters all outwardly agree there is a God, however their main discussion revolves around our ability to determine the attributes of this God. In a skeptical approach to the discussion, Hume is attempting to avoid the religous dogma that we all too often fall into. very convincing arguments and a strong introduction to philosophy of religion, i imagine.
'Measure for Measure' or 'The Winter's Tale' by William Shakespeare
or any other play by shakespeare. i know he isn't always associated with a relaxing read, but it really is good. his plays seem to discuss everything and the language really is poetry. the hard part is getting past the first few pages i imagine, but after that it is very easy to be drawn into the play. 17th century hollywood. sex, drugs, murder. exit pursued by a bear.
'Between the Acts' by Virginia Woolf
read for modern literature last semester, my first glimpse of virginia woolf. the story of a small town on the day of their town pagent just days before the outbreak of world war II. Interested in History, art, war, sexuality, personal anxiety concerning all of these. blah blah. i became really interested in the connection that woolf builds between words and thought and the way that a single word is packed full of many many connotations beyond itself. words branch out in webs across time and space. thought and speech are not necessarily aligned, or maybe more than we first perceive. i'm now a huge virginia woolf fan.
Article on Foundherentism by Susan Haack
i dont have the actual article in front of me, and the name of it eludes my memory, but i found this article to be a very effective contribution to epistemology; the study of knowledge, what does it mean to say we know something, how do we know something, is this different than belief etc? anyway, there are two competing theories in epistemology, foundationalism and coherentism, both describing different ways in which we gain knowledge. Susan Haack presents a theory of knowledge that combines these two and she cleverly calls it foundherentism (philosophers tend to do this sort of thing). she uses the idea of a crossword puzzle to simulate how we gain knowledge. she looks at our practicle uses of the word knowledge and creates a theory, as opposed to building a theory and attempting to describe how it fits into life.
'The Mill on the Floss' by George Eliot
i read a number of different authors and poets for victorian literature last semester. i can't say a lot of it really appealed to me. the poetry was...a bit tedious, as were some of the books. however, there were some really interesting contributions to literature and when looked at in the context of the period, how people viewed reading etc. some of it is really pretty good. 'the mill on the floss' may not have been the greatest story ever, and there is a lot of criticism, but george eliot (not her real name, and not a man, oh the things you learn) kind of caught my attention because her writing style was really wondering and somewhat philosophical, taking random turns to discuss things not at all important to the story.
'Language Truth and Logic' by A.J. Ayer
philosophy of language. Ayer's book is incredible for many reasons. One, he wrote it when only 24. two, although the position of logical positivism which he backs is no longer popularly accepted, the book is still read as a major contribution to the philosophy of language; (an attempt to say something systematic about language and how we determine meaning). Ayer proposes the idea that in order for a statement to be meaningful it must either be analytic (discoverable a priori, a tautology true by definition, math etc) or empirically verifiable (principle of verifiability) corresponding to something that can be determined through observation of the world. In any case, this leads to the conclusion that any talk of metaphysics (transcendental reality, religious speculation etc.) is essentially meaningless. This drastically changes the face of philosophy if it is accepted. Ayer's book is a straightforward and concise argument that cannot be ignored.
'Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion' by David Hume
David Hume is the arch empiricist of modern philosophy. Essentially, this book is a fictional dialouge between three characters discussing the philosophical foundations of religous belief. The characters all outwardly agree there is a God, however their main discussion revolves around our ability to determine the attributes of this God. In a skeptical approach to the discussion, Hume is attempting to avoid the religous dogma that we all too often fall into. very convincing arguments and a strong introduction to philosophy of religion, i imagine.
'Measure for Measure' or 'The Winter's Tale' by William Shakespeare
or any other play by shakespeare. i know he isn't always associated with a relaxing read, but it really is good. his plays seem to discuss everything and the language really is poetry. the hard part is getting past the first few pages i imagine, but after that it is very easy to be drawn into the play. 17th century hollywood. sex, drugs, murder. exit pursued by a bear.
Friday, April 20, 2007
(kinda) lost in translation
but the fruit and the vegetables....Those ripe red juicy tomatoes make Barcelona more than perfect. City of design? Maybe. Picasso, Dali, who were they if you have tomatoes that leave your tastebuds tingling with anticipation for more. The tastes, smells, sights and sounds 
are nothing like that cold stale northern island of England.
'Ah no comprendo'
"two cappuccinos? Ok. where are you from?" (in spanish of course)
and anna understood enough.
' Greece'
'ah yes Greece, beautiful country. and him?'
'The United States'
'Ah...Bush!'
'yes, bush'
'Well, welcome to spain!'
Captain Hook bar, giant statues of cats, camels and mammoths, many many dogs, try a dino's gelato, friggo, el torro, park guell, cuitadella, girl from australia traveling the world, hostel with no windows turning into a sweat lodge,
men on the street selling sixpacks, la rambla, old couple from oregon, rabla del raval, placa catalunya, bush, american embassy, barcelonetta, funicular de montjuic, crema catalana, tapas, ill on the pier, biciclettas. Barthelona, 
Girona, running out of a cafe to catch the last train, Figueres, Barcelona. sunshine, post cards.
are nothing like that cold stale northern island of England.'Ah no comprendo'
"two cappuccinos? Ok. where are you from?" (in spanish of course)
and anna understood enough.
' Greece'
'ah yes Greece, beautiful country. and him?'
'The United States'
'Ah...Bush!'
'yes, bush'
'Well, welcome to spain!'
Captain Hook bar, giant statues of cats, camels and mammoths, many many dogs, try a dino's gelato, friggo, el torro, park guell, cuitadella, girl from australia traveling the world, hostel with no windows turning into a sweat lodge,
men on the street selling sixpacks, la rambla, old couple from oregon, rabla del raval, placa catalunya, bush, american embassy, barcelonetta, funicular de montjuic, crema catalana, tapas, ill on the pier, biciclettas. Barthelona, 
Girona, running out of a cafe to catch the last train, Figueres, Barcelona. sunshine, post cards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
