Sticks and Stones: How Hyperbole is Hurting America

In these recent weeks, the passage of new immigration laws in Arizona, continuing debate over healthcare, Tea Party protestors touring the country and the myriad other goings on in America, have set the infotainment industry ablaze with fresh fodder for their "intellectual" discussion.

Emotion-stirring issues like these usually lend themselves to all kinds of finger pointing and posturing from the opinionators and pundits of the media, with their comments generally landing somewhere between derisive to ad hominem. Normally, I don't mind the impassioned sword-crossing of ideological opponents; in fact, I generally think it is a sign of a healthy freedom of speech. However, recent comments have me worried that the state of political discourse is America has plunged to a new low.

Consider the recent deluge of dissent being thrown around the papers and television:

New York Times columnist Frank Rich charged the Tea Party protestors who had thrown bricks through the windows of congress members homes, with reenacting Kristallnacht, the two-night raid of Jewish homes and businesses prior to WWII that marked the genesis of the Holocaust.

Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., has made similar comparisons, calling the countries failure to cover the uninsured, a "holocaust."

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson called the recent Arizona immigration law draconian, racist, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust, xenophobic, unconstitutional and an abomination.

Jesse Jackson may well agree. In a recent interview on MSNBC, he said the new law is, "a form a terrorism."

Glenn Beck, in a discussion on his show about some Americans' distaste for the recent healthcare overhaul, compared the U.S. government to pedophilic rapist Roman Polanski, and the American people to a 13-year-old girl.

Maureen Dowd, another New York Times columnist, compared her own experience as a Catholic woman, to that of the subjugated women of Saudi Arabia, calling the Catholic Church, "an inbred and wealthy men’s club cloistered behind walls and disdaining modernity . . . an autocratic society that repress[es] women and ignore[s] their progress in the secular world."

If I may just briefly and respectfully offer some perspective: In this country, Ms. Dowd can say that. In this country, she can travel without a chaperone, drive a car, vote, use the internet and make love to someone of the same sex without fear of death, imprisonment or deportation. And perhaps most importantly given her charge against the Catholic Church, she can leave her religion.

These are of course just a few examples of the pabulum that is daily passed off as discourse in America. Certainly these people have the right to their opinions, but their choice of language and imagery is boorish, morally confused and dangerous. By using this emotionally charged language so cavalierly, they are striping the language of any meaning.

When uninsured Americans are compared to the millions of men, women and children that were exterminated in the Holocaust, then the word "holocaust" loses its significance, and the lives of the victims of that great evil are cheapened. When American taxpayers are compared to a victim of child rape, the true victims of that heinous crime are undermined.

Rhetoric is a wonderful part of American society, but if language is to retain any utility it must be measured.

The Trenta vs. The Human Stomach (and Mind)

As a former Starbucks barista, I can't help but weigh in on the "Trenta," Starbucks' newest and largest drink size.

Ever since its announcement last week, the blogosphere has been buzzing with speculation, sneers, cynicism and incredulity.

"This must be a joke!" Some assert. "It's a publicity stunt." Others charge. "It's just another satirical meme." Others say, patting themselves on the back in celebration of their internet acumen.

But this is no meme. The 31 ounce behemoth (which is just slightly larger in volume than the average human stomach) will be available nationwide sometime in May. According to Starbucks, the Trenta will only be available for iced coffee, tea and juices, not for lattes, Frappuccinos and other milk-based drinks.

But does anyone really think this limitation will last? The rules of supply and demand are pretty simple, and I can't imagine Starbucks be able to resist the urge to charge $7 for a Frappuccino.

Don't get me wrong; I love Starbucks. I met my wife there, half my family has worked there at one time or another, and I think they treat their employees beautifully. But if they think customers won't demand their favorite drinks in the new coronary compromising size, they are fooling themselves.

"But no one would order that much milk in one drink," You say. Take it from someone who has worked there, they will. If you don't believe me, just take a moment to consider the super-sized society in which we life. Is a country that uses chicken breasts as buns for a beacon and cheese sandwich really going to forgo a quarter gallon of milk just on principal? Besides, it's not the copious amount of milk that should disturb you, it's the fact that some people will order it with half n' half and extra butter-caramel.

I can hear it now:

"Can I get a Trenta, breve, extra caramel, Caramel Machiato please? Oh, and can you go easy on the ice?" The customer asks.

The barista's eyes widen as she tries to calculate the amount of calories in the customer's request. She imagines the patrons plaque-packed artery walls, already about as thick as half-set Jello, and wonders if the drink will deny her heart the precious, red liquid-life it's already so desperate for.

As the barista tries to keep her lunch from coming back like a bad Michael Bay sequel, she asks the question she already knows the answer to. She doesn't want to ask, but her training takes over her mouth like a epileptic fit and she hears exactly what she feared.

The answer is nauseating, it's horrifying and yet, it's simultaneously puzzling. It is so counter to the human instinct to live that our barista friend now finds herself slipping away from consciousness, drifting like a sailless ship at sea, tossed by the waves, pulled by the tides, further from shore, away from the coffee counter and into the foggy unknown.

She begins to question everything she knows; her existence, the existence of others, of God, of the universe. The fog and the waves begin to overtake her as she feels her mind being pulled below the surface. Like the Titanic's iceberg, the customer's answer delivers a devastating blow to our friend, tearing a rift in her mind too deep to hold out the frigid realization of human mortality.

As she sinks deeper into despondency, the cold and crushing weight seems unbearable. Our once bubbly barista is now tumbling into despair, plummeting into nihilism. Her eyes, once sparkling with life and optimism, are now clouded with existential doubt, darkened by her new found truth; nothing exists, nothing matters.

"How could I have been so blind?" She asks herself. "How could I have ever believed in life, in love, in goodness?"

She sinks deeper and deeper into the cold darkness, further and further from that moment at the coffee counter, the moment that changed her life forever. As she approaches the depths of her own psyche, she finds a reality that she does not recognize, yet wonders if it is any less real than the reality from whence she came. "Maybe I should end it all," she thinks to herself. But does "it all" even exist?

"Excuse me... Did you get that?"

The customer's voice pierces the air like a sonic boom. The curious customer, now holding out her Visa Gold card, is wearing a look so evenly divided between perturbed and puzzled that each emotion seems to be worn on opposite sides of her face.

"Sorry," The barista replies. "What did you say?"

"You asked if I wanted whip," the patron reminds her. "I said yes; with whip please."

"Anything else?"

"Yes. Two glazed doughnuts."

The barista takes the card, swipes it, returns it with a smile and weeps inside...

All this so we could have seven more ounces of cold caffeine? If you want to order the Trenta America, go right ahead, it's a free country. But mark my words; if there is a sudden wave of barista depression and suicides, the blood's on your hands people.

The Valentine problem: How the day of love is ruining romance

We all know that single people hate Valentine's Day and their reasons given are legion. For some it's personal; "I never have anyone on Valentine's day." Some blame capitalism for their distaste; "It's just a way for greeting card companies and florists to make money." Others, more honest, can even be malicious; "All these happy couples make me sick!"

But if you ask these same people (women especially) their feelings about Valentine's Day while they are in a relationship, you will get quite a different response. In fact, you'll hear them gush about how their boyfriend surprised them with dinner and flowers, swoon as they showoff the necklace he bought them and describe in adulation God knows what else. Yes, Valentine's Day reveals one of life's unfortunate truths; attitude is often spoiled by singltude.

While couples may have good reason for their adoration of V-day and singles their reasons for antipathy, relational status is not exactly a rational barometer for deciding one's feelings about a holiday. Besides, who wants to ride the rollercoaster of love-hate with an annual event?

My advice for couples and singles alike on Valentine's Day? Hate it. No matter what.

Now before all you couples discard my thoughts as the ranting of a misogynist hater, just hear me out. I did not come to this opinion lightly and it does not stem from the bitterness of a past burn; in fact, those who know me well would actually describe me as somewhat of a romantic. While I can't speak for all couples, as a man in a successful, long term relationship (over a decade of marriage), I think I have some credibility on this issue. Let me explain why I think the day of love is actually hurting relationships and stifling romance. (That's right romantics, I'm on your side.)

You see, in the romance department, most people are about as stable as a spastic colon. The flames burn hot in the beginning, but over time things naturally level out. Romantic gestures become a sort of maintenance rather than a desire, and the dinners, flowers and necklaces only serve as holiday highs in an otherwise tepid relationship. So often I see couples who express their affection through gift giving and grand surprises during Valentine's Day, and then treat their loved one as a buddy or roommate until the next holiday. Don't get me wrong, I am all for grand gestures, but why let "The Man" tell you when to do something nice for the person you love?

We should never think of romance like a to-do list and we certainly shouldn't need a national holiday to do something nice. Bring her lunch at work, bring him a cup of coffee after class, wear something "nice" for him just because, do the dishes and make breakfast for her while she sleeps in, (trust me guys, it's nature's most powerful aphrodisiac). $5 daisies for no reason mean a lot more than the obligatory $40 dozen roses on Valentine's Day.

I'm not saying you should just ignore Valentine's Day if you are in a relationship, but for the sake of your Valentine, don't just check it off the list. If you have someone in your life, make sure they know your happy about it all year long.

Keeping the fires burning can be a lot of work, but take it from someone who knows, that work pays dividends.

Egoism

Okay, since I am having trouble finding time to write, I have decided to start posting some of my work from my ethics class. Ethics is ultimately at the heart of my preoccupation with life, so it only seems fitting, (not to mention convenient.) and should provide some good topics for discussion. Let me know what you think.

Egoism:
Egoism is generally divided into two basic concepts: Descriptive, or psychological egoism, and normative, or ethical egoism. Psychological egoism is a theory about the human condition, and holds that people are by nature selfish and driven only by personal gain. Though people at times help each other and act unselfishly, according to psychological egoism it is only out of a selfish hope for a future payoff. This theory also excludes even the possibility of altruism, suggesting that acts of altruism are motivated only by the desire for the feeling of self-gratification, and are therefore ultimately selfish acts. This theory is unfortunately impossible to prove or disprove however, since a persons true motives cannot be known. Even if we think we know our own motives, there is always the possibility of some level of self-delusion possibly driven by guilt over our own selfishness. While selfishness is often an obvious driving force, and as much a part of the human condition as suffering, I believe it is a rather bleak perception of humanity, and that there is insufficient evidence to assert that we are 100% driven by selfishness.

The other form of egoism, ethical egoism, holds that we are not necessarily selfish by nature, (though it does not exclude this as a possible fact.) but rather that we ought to be selfish. Ethical egoism postulates that it is not only moral to act in ones own self interest, but that it would be immoral to expect someone to act contrary to their own interests. There are many arguments for this ethical theory, however many are built on the perceived notion that our nature is selfish. This falls short of a convincing argument that we ought to be selfish however, since as David Hume wrote in his, Treatise on Human Nature, “You cannot derive an ought from an is." Ultimately, ethical egoism seems to be more of an attempt to justify human nature, rather then an attempt to answer what is moral.

The think and the do continued...

The following paragraph was a comment on last weeks post that I thought brought up some good questions worth consideration. If you have not read the Sep 19th post, I recomend you read it first as it will give better context to this thread.

here's a thought: can the rules of logic be applied to morality? do ethical claims not only express a value but are they also propositions? if ethical claims are in fact propositions (and as such either true or false) then why is it the case that ethical claims about what one ought to do in a given situation are not always obviously true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true? further, if ethical claims do in fact convey factual information, then how do we go about discovering these facts? where are they? or, do ethical claims simply express a certain emotion, disposition, attitude towards a given action? finally, is it possible to realize an ethical truth and not be motivated to abide by it?



Now that is indeed an interesting query. Morality (and I’ll use morality and ethical truth interchangeably.) is in many ways both indefinable and indefensible, but at the same time, unabandonable. (I don’t think that is a word but we’ll go with it.) We clearly do not live in an amoral world, nor would anyone want to; yet at the same time it would be hard to find two people that view morality as having the same weight, or by definition being the same thing. So 2+2 may only be 2 1/2 to some because 2 doesn't hold the value that some claim. Or perhaps there is agreement that it is 4, but that it's 1+3 that truly =4.

Because of the somewhat subjective nature of morals, it seams that morals, (in the logical or social since as apposed to the religious. Religious morals are by definition better expressed as rules, though these are not necessarily excluded.) Are not so much a map, but rather like gas station directions. (Sometimes they’re right.) Ask three people how to get to the closest Starbucks and you may get three different answers. In fact you’ll likely get three different opinions as to which Starbucks is the closest. I think at some point you have to make a somewhat educated guess as to whom is right, or rather, whom is more right. (I use the term “right” loosely here as it has not yet been defined in this thread.) On a side note, I would also like to propose that it is very important to ask others for directions in life. We ask others opinions on what movies to see, what restaurants are good, and where is a good place to camp. It seems that the “important” questions of life that truly do affect us should necessarily be asked.

Perhaps ethical truth is best described as ethical idea. If someone travels a certain road, and falls into a pit, will I too fall into the pit if I travel the same road? Not necessarily, but it seems reasonable that the person would warn others of the hazard, and that future travelers would take precautions to avoid the same folly. So to answer the question, “Do ethical claims simply express a certain emotion, disposition, attitude towards a given action?” Yes. I think…..

As to the final question, “Is it possible to realize an ethical truth and not be motivated to abide by it?” That truly is the question of ultimate importance, because if the answer is yes, which I believe it is, then the question “why” must be answered. Why do people, (myself included) disregard either there own perception of ethical truth, or the warnings of others? I attribute this to human nature, which is another subject all together, but one worth exploring and of great interest to me.

The Think and the Do

As the web address of this blog suggests, I am preoccupied with life. Not simply what is life’s meaning, (I say simply because what it "means" is not only unprovable, but also has little to do with day-to-day life), but how it should be viewed, how we should act and react to situations, be it physical, emotional, or psychological, that is the aspect of life that I am preoccupied with. I firmly believe that logic, (rational thought) can not only answer many of life’s questions but can also change the way we examine ideas and situations, therefore changing what we do. It is this, thinking and doing, that we as individuals engage that affect others and therefore ultimately effects "life".

Now the thoughts and actions of one person may be viewed by some as less then significant, however, that this blog is being read on a computer unknown miles from where it was written argues otherwise. The thoughts and actions of people like Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, and Adolf Hitler, changed the world (i.e., life). These people had the status and the influence to change the lives of many, but don’t disregard the importance of your own life. Consider the Christmas classic, "It's a Wonderful life." George Bailey was unaware of how much his life had affected others until he saw the result of his absence. This is of coarse a dramatization, but you get the point. Our life, albeit in sometimes unknown ways, does affect others. (If you have not seen this movie, you can Google it for the basic premise, though I highly recommend you see it. Not only is it a cultural classic and therefore relevant, it is also a great character study and analogous to many of life’s subjects.)

Now perhaps you are saying to yourself, "This concept of thinking and doing is redundant; it is our thoughts that lead us to our actions." I disagree. With just a brief analysis of our own lives, we can quickly debunk this idea. How often have you thought that you should go the speed limit, but chosen to set the cruise at ten over? Now I'm not making any moral judgments here, I use this as an example because I do it almost every time I drive. To fully understand this concept, you must separate thought from action. Or the, “think” from the, “do”.
There are two possible reasons one thinks one thing, and does another. The first is what I call the discard. The thought comes to mind, but is quickly discarded to prevent guilt, or the chance that we might talk ourselves out of the do. The second is rationalization. We evaluate the facts in our head to determine what we feel is truly the "right" action. However, this methodology is based on the facts as we see them, and are often tainted by our desired outcome. Rationalization can therefore be either our greatest tool for thought, or our greatest downfall.

My intention with this and the blogs to follow is not to challenge, (challenge is what people say when they think they have the answers and is a dare to be proven wrong), but rather to invite people to consider their thoughts and actions, and how they affect others. Some may see themselves not as George Bailey, but rather as Mr. Potter, (who took over the town in Bailey’s absence), having a negative effect on others. Or perhaps, worse yet, as one of the extras whose role was simply to walk down the street in the background of a scene, and whose absence would not even be noticed.

With regard to the Mr. Potters out there, this is either the result of lack of consideration, or choice. If it is the former, then that is what I want to address, and I believe can be corrected with relative ease. However, if it is the latter, then that will have to be the topic of another discussion. This discussion is based on the assumption that a person wants to do good. (Which I believe is generally the case.) With regard to the so called extra, I would submit that even our smallest encounters with others can have either a positive or negative effect. A simple smile or scowl to a casual passerby can bring joy or discomfort to someone we don’t even know. Consider that Benjamin Franklin the man, did not wake up one day as Benjamin Franklin the icon, pioneer, and influencer. He became that through his thoughts and actions. His think and his do. The potential in each person to do and be more is incomprehensible.

I will grant that not all of us will have the opportunity to influence as many lives as someone like Benjamin Franklin, but all of us have the opportunity to influence for the betterment, or the degradation every person we encounter.

These thoughts and countless others are the reason for my preoccupation with life, and it is my intention to influence for the betterment every person I encounter.