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
Thursday, April 17, 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
