American Pride and Intellectual Insecurity

I've noticed that certain people like to brag about how patriotic they are. Recently I was in a debate with someone over various aspects of American security, and at the end of one of his statements he said "Well I value freedom and American lives". My first reaction was pure rage that someone would be so stupid to think that, while we're discussing something as complex as American security, that I would have informed opinions on American security if I did not value freedom or American lives. So I explained to him that, for all practical purposes, everyone that will be expressing enough interest in American security values those things, and thus stating those things in that debate was about as relevant as stating "I am a carbon based life form". After which he apologized, and said that what he meant was that he shows his love of freedom and American lives, while I don't (in the process he, of course, accused me of liberalism). So I asked him what exactly it was about my thoughts on the matter made it reasonable to assume that I did not value freedom or American lives. I got no response.

It's really not a very hard thing to figure out, why someone would state something like that. It's because his side needs a boost. In stating "I value freedom, and American lives" while debating me, the basic assumption made by a looker on is that, since he statedly values freedom and American lives, and since I disagree with him on many issues, I don't value freedom or American lives, and thus why should anyone take what I have to say on American security? But this would lead to the next conclusion, which is that the presence of such statement is evidence that the person who stated that feels like s/he is losing the debate. Why else would someone state something that a child could tell isn't relevant in the debate (well, it's unfair to say it's irrelevant, since if he could've actually proven that I in fact do not value freedom or American lives, it would very rightly place into question the legitimacy of what I am saying about American security)?

But what of those who state it regularly. On the debate forum that I frequent there is a member who's name is ProudAmerican. Why would someone do this? Is it possible that someone believes that they need this unfairly earned extra legitimacy before any debate even begins?

I'd say it's a sign of intellectual insecurity. Intellectual insecurity isn't an uncommon thing, or something that is solely held to those who do not have anything worthwhile to say, just as much as someone being insecure in general doesn't mean that the person has more reason to be insecure than anyone else. Hell, Frank Sinatra was admitedly insecure, and he was fuckin Frank Sinatra!

but although a problem is not required to bring about intellectual insecurity, intellectual insecurity itself is a problem. This is because, if a given person is insecure intellectually, yet they place themselves in a situation where every aspect of one's intellect, and what they draw from that intellect (aka debate), they are clearly there to attempt to bolster their confidence in what they believe, as opposed to reforming what they believe into what is correct. Thus they are pointless in discussions, since they will always ignore the points that you make, while attacking you in any way possible in an attempt to justify, namely to themselves, that their opinions are correct.

And this leads to the single biggest problem in the world today, the one problem that all other problems stem from. Lowered levels of debate. I am a firm believer that there is not a single problem that the human race has, or will ever face that we couldn't eventually find a solution to. Now this is, of course, a debatable stance to hold. It is reasonable to look at human progress and human history and take from that that there are certain inherent aspects of humanity that make us incapable of solving certain problems. What I would argue, though, is that since humans are in a constant state of evolution, we are constantly improving, and the presence of improvement is proof that we have not achieved our full potential, and it is impossible to say what traits are inherent, and which traits can be improved, and thus the problems stemming from them become solvable once our full potential has been reached (although I do see the argument that, since we are in a constant state of evolution, for us to reach our true potential we have to reach a zenith, in which the human race is perfect, and how some could see this as impossible). That being said, that's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it (unless someone presents an argument that would change my mind, which is certainly possible. I have not reached my full potential, and thus any of my views or beliefs are fallible).

Anywho, what we do know is that the limits of human potential are not static. There is short term full potential, and then there is long term full potential. If someone lowers the level of debate, what we know is that after which we are no longer discussing our problems, and their potential solutions, at the current full level of our potential. Although it is debatable on whether or not this slows down the speed of our intellectual evolution, it is unquestionable that it slows down the level of human progress. This is because debate, at its very core, is not just an intellectual pissing match, but a comparison of ideas on various perceived problems, and a comparison of proposed solutions to those problems, from which we can learn from each other, and thus develop better ideas and better potential solutions to our problems. Thus the one thing we do know about a lower level of debate is that we get worse ideas and worse potential solutions (speaking in an opportunity cost sense).

This effects every aspect of human existance. The vast majority of our problems are so complex that solutions are almost always imperfect. Imperfection in a solution is that, along with solving current problems, it brings about problems of its own. For example, yes, a minimum wage solves the problem of people who work hard but don't make enough to survive. But along with doing that, it also messes up the equilibrium in the market, and makes it so that fewer people will have jobs then had them before (and due to the nature of who is effected, both positively and negatively, from an increase in the minimum wage, those who lose their jobs are the ones who were barely scraping by in the first place, and thus they are the single group that has the least ability to absorb such a loss). Thus the minimum wage is an imperfect solution. Whether or not you believe that the overall benefit achieved by those who benefit from an increase in the minimum wage outweighs the cost of those who lose their jobs is a matter of opinion, but to deny the imperfection of the minimum wage brings us to a point where we cannot discuss how to deal with those who would lose their jobs because of an increase, simply because a large portion of the population denies their existance.

Since we know that our solutions are imperfect in nature, what we're seeking is the least imperfect solution to any given problem. And to effectively and constantly find these solutions, we must be at the top of our game, which a lowered level of debate makes impossible, by definition. Thus there is no greater sin against humanity than lowering the level of debate.

But who is responsible? Is it those who are intellectually insecure? That doesn't sound very fair to me, since insecurity is unpleasant in and of itself, and thus it is reasonable to believe that if those who are intellectually insecure would stop if they knew how, just as if something's consistantly stabbing me in my foot, I reasonably would remove it as soon as I realized what was actually stabbing me. So I'd say know, it is not their fault per se, but instead that they are merely pawns in this matter.

The ones who play upon intellectual insecurity are the ones who are responsible, regardless of their own level of intellectual security. The worst are the ones who are secure, and have a great understanding of how things work, but personally stand to benefit from misunderstanding, and thus foster misunderstanding. For example, those who try to convince people that there are only two options in any issue. This lowers the level of debate simply because, out of the seemingly infinite possible solutions, it eliminates all but 2, the one we're currently using, and the opposite of that. If we're at war, it's either we stop fighting or we keep fighting, which doesn't allow us to discuss different ways of fighting, fighting a different target, or anything else. You're either for gay marriage or you're against it. You're either for welfare, or you're for making all poor people fend for themselves. You're either for a minimum wage, or you think that people who work, but don't make enough to survive, is not a problem worth adressing. You can either vote for George W. Bush or John Kerry.

Another breed of these people are a seemingly less viscous group, those who introduce emotion into debate. Emotion, by its very nature, is illogical, since emotion causes us to act in ways that we otherwise would not if we had summed up a situation objectively and logically. When in "Bowling for Columbine" when Michael Moore left the picture of some kid who'd been killed by gun violence at Charleton Heston's door, that was lowering the level of debate. Forcing someone to adress someone who just lost their job to outsourcing while discussing the merits of outsourcing, that is lowering the level of debate. MADD constantly telling sob stories in trying to make drunk driving more illegal, is lowering the level of debate.

Note, this is not to say that the points they are arguing are wrong, but just the methods that they are using. This is because they are intentionally introducing an illogical factor into a debate that, for it to find the least imperfect solutions, must be entirely logical. Is it logical for a police force to dedicate more of its resources to stopping drunk driving then stopping rape? It depends, but if people are more outraged over drunk driving than rape, due to the presence of more horrible stories about drunk driving then rape, this question will not get the level of thought needed to find the correct answer. Should we have attacked Iraq? Probably not, but we certainly didn't come to that conclusion due to those in favor of it repeatedly mentioning September 11th, something that obviously elicits strong emotional responses, despite questionable links between the two at best. Considering the wealth of knowledge gained from the work of Darwin, does it matter if people are uncomfortable with his discoveries, or is it relevant if he was a drunk? Regardless of your opinions on George W. Bush, what is the ACTUAL relevence of his former coke addiction or alcaholism or weak grasp on the english language?

Let's go back to the original story, of the debate between me and the person who vocally values freedom and American life. What we should take from this is that the problem in this was not that he's intellectually insecure, but instead the problem is that he missed out on things he may have learned by lowering the level of debate (and possibly moreso, what I didn't learn because of his lifetime of participating in a lower level of debate). It should not be tolerated. It should be called out, regardless of what they may think of you for it, because when it comes down to it, their level of thought calls into question the value of their current thoughts anyways.

Israel and the Middle East

I hate to say this again (moreso, I hate the fact that I have to say this again), it's time for everyone to stop being stupid.

To the left, stop acting like there's no reason for Israel to be in this conflict. It's stupid. Although on face value this conflict is ridiculous, you can never adress any conflict involving Israel in and of itself. Hezbollah wants to eliminate Israel, and futhermore wouldn't mind killing off all of the jews. Yes, they're killing civilians, but if they allow hiding behind civilians to be an infallible form of defense, then they have no way of stopping Hezbollah.

To the right, stop acting like Israel's completely justified. In this conflict Hezbollah has killed maybe 6 Israeli civilians, something like that. There is no way that Hezbollah poses enough of a threat to justify the killing of hundreds of innocent Lebanese civilians. This conflict, just like every other conflict over the last several thousand years, will just make things worse.

And to the truly retarded, there are reasons that the Lebanese support Hezbollah. What have they seen from Israel? First they saw fellow Arabs run out of their homes, followed by them killing countless Arabs, and they see attacks on Israel as being, although pre-emptive, still defensive in nature. They see Hezbollah as a group fighting to protect them, and Israel has given them no reason to think otherwise.

People are not adharently different from region to region. Thus we must accept that there are reasons why the Palestinians elected Hamas, and why Hezbollah holds many seats in the Lebanese government, just as we must accept that there are reasons that people in the middle east hate us and want us dead. There is no way that we are perfect, and everyone in that region are just blood thirsty maniacs, and until we accept that and internalize that, we're fucked, because there's no fucking way we're gonna get anywhere close to solving these problems.

The only way to ever solve problems is to correctly identify them first, which is impossible until we cut through all of the bullshit rhetoric, and start accepting our role, and Israel's role in motivating this conflict. That being said, we must not let ourselves fall into the trap of thinking it's our fault, or it's Israel's fault. It's everyone's fault.

It's our fault that we've alienated an entire region, and responded to an act of terrorism which was, although devastating to us, not that huge of a deal when you take into account that shit like that happens every day throughout the world. Hundreds of thousands died in genocides in Africa and we didn't do shit, but when 3,000 of us die, it's time to blow up the entire fucking middle east. It's Israel's fault that they drove all of the Palestinians from their homes, and have responded to every threat with the grace and nuance of a blind hyena hopped up on PCP. It's the various governments in the middle east's fault for perpetuating this conflict to distract their people from their horrible living conditions and the horrible amounts of corruption, and it's the people in the middle easts fault for falling for it.

I'm not a dove, and there are most certainly times when force is neccisary, and if we shy away from force at those times we are fucking ourselves and the rest of the world. But military force should only be used when it is the BEST thing we can do, and short of a full out war, it is just about never justifiable to use force without any tandem acts of diplomacy and sanctions.

That being said, there is 3 groups that are 100% in the wrong in this conflict, Hezbollah, the Iranian government, and the Syrian government. There are no justifications, there are no excuses, they are causing the deaths of hundreds to try to distract the world from preventing them from killing millions, and there are absolutely no redeeming features to what they're doing.


So here's what needs to happen. The whole world needs to stop being stupid, the Syrians and Iranians need to rise up and cast out their governments, the rest of the world needs to make it so they can transition out of these governments and into new ones with relatively little friction and damage to their infrastructures, and then we all need to root out the Hezbollah's and Al Quedas of this world. In our attempts to do the last part we have also been very stupid. We've been stupid because we're only adressing one side of it. We're killing those who join, but we're making NO effort to make it so new people don't want to join.

To a degree, getting rid of current members, and preventing the recruitment of new members are contradictory missions. This is because great acts of violence are neccisary in getting rid of the current members, and these acts of violence will seem to many as cause to join these groups. But there's a lot we can do. Providing infrastructure, respecting and supporting nationalism, even when it's inconvinient to us, making the quality of life all and all better in the middle east, THAT'S what we can do to prevent terrorism. Hezbollah wouldn't have shit for support in Lebanon if there was someone else stepping in and providing them with basic infrastructure. While we're busy drafting pointless UN resolutions, they're off feeding, educating, and taking care of medically the Lebanese people, and it's ridiculous that we're not right there providing better food, better education, and better medicine, and helping them set up a system in which they can provide this for themselves, with no other hopes than to leave Lebanon better than when we entered. Haven't you ever wondered why there are just about no terrorists from the United Arab Emerites, or Kuwait? It's because life is good there, and people who have something to lose don't become terrorists. Well, some of them do, but not many. Terrorists certainly wouldn't be picking up as many votes as they are across the region.

So stop being stupid, adress the situation for what it is, and then work for a solution that respects the complexity that is the Israel/Middle East conflicts. We're all adults here, so let's fucking act like it.

Gay Marriage

Alright, the whole debate on Gay Marriage is stupid. This is because it ignores one ESSENTIAL aspect of the debate, and thus we're left with a bunch of politicians yelling at each other "You're homophobic!" or "You hate the traditional American family!" and all the other bullshit.

The essential point they ignore is that marriage is a multi-tiered institution, three tiers to be exact. There is the the state institution of marriage, the religious institution of marriage, and the institution of marriage between the two married individuals. They are three entirely different institutions, and thus to speak of what "marriage" as a whole is, is quite frankly preposterous.

Now I've been accused of being a liberal because I support gay marriage on all three tiers. I am of the opinion that those who are willing to throw those accusations are retarded.

On the state level, it's a government institution, and I am firmly of the belief that there is no sanctity in ANY government institution. Marriage in particular is nothing more than state recognition of a domestic partnership. Now if you think this is sacred, I would actually maintain that YOU are a liberal, because there is no fucking way a conservative could think that any aspect of government is sacred. The actual institution is important, calling it marriage is not (and if that's your only issue, then shut the fuck up, cause you are being petty). The institution is important because it allows governmental issues to more accurately address the people it effects. For example, it would be unreasonable to allow anyone who wants to to come in and visit someone on their death bed. That being said, we are closer to some that are not our blood relatives, and to deny the right to visit a dying loved one just because there is no blood relation is cruel and immoral. Marriage helps to lessen how often this happens. Also tax wise, two people sharing income is different than one person with an income, thus another important aspect of the institution. Also, the reason why employee health insurance applies to the employee's family is because we often have situations where one partner works outside the home, and the other does the work inside the home (thus allowing the other to be able to work outside the home more), and due to that domestic partnership the rewards of the payed work (that which is outside the home) are shared.

Now none of these should be denied to gays. Gays love each other, and share all of the aspects of domestic partnership that straights have, and thus the only reason one would want to deny them these rights is bigotry.


Then there is the religious institution of marriage. This is only important to the religious. As a religious person, I do find marriage sacred, but I do not see monogamous gays as a threat to it. I instead see Hollywood publicity stunt marriages as a threat to it's sanctity, I see people who get married 6 or 7 times as a threat to it's sanctity, but I do not see gays as a threat to it (other than gays who'd get married as a publicity stunt or get married 6 or 7 times, just as straights, but that's an issue we're yet to have to face). In my personal beliefs, love is love, and if two people love each other, and want to stand together with God, then by all means. Thus religiously I recognize gay marriage.

But, as it is with all issues dealing with religion, it's to a great deal subjective. Just as I respect those who believe that Mohammed is the savior instead of Jesus, I also respect those who honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong. If we do not respect each others' religious beliefs, then we have no right to expect others to respect our own.

This is not the government's business, plain and simple. Whether or not you choose morally to recognize gay marriage should be entirely up to you.

Then there is the personal institution, which I won't speak on much. Essentially, it only involves those participating in it. My cousin Morgan is only married in this way, but it's still a marriage as far as I'm concerned. Hippie married, but married none the less.


As we blur these lines between religious and governmental institutions, the debates become muddled and irrelevent. We have separation of church and state for a reason, and it's to avoid ridiculous shit like this.