i am

I am, therefore I write.
A different combination of things you've probably already read before, perhaps;
but my existence transcends mediocrity all the same.
You read, and I am manifest;
words, dancing from my fingertips and pirouetting onto the screen,
giving my amorphous soul shape and form.
Words, floating through cyberspace,
drifting towards an unknown destination,
a time capsule of thoughts and emotions to be discovered by you.
Words, screaming 'HERE I AM!'
Subject and object merging together as one;
for at least a fleeting moment, eternity unfolds between the two us.
Words, consumed by your eyes.
Hopefully enjoyed, maybe despised;
but here I am, naked and bare, unashamed of my humanity,
my insatiable desire to be acknowledged.
It doesn't really matter what I say,
as long as I say it well enough to capture your gaze,
the gaze which validates my being,
and breathes life into my clumsily assembled vicariousness.
I write because I don't want to be alone,
even if my ephemeral companion is unknown and thousands of miles away.
Even in my solitude, I am a social creature it seems.
I write, therefore I am.

way to go, north carolina

Apparently the citizens of North Carolina passed a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, effectively stripping all same-sex couples of any benefits awarded with those legal partnerships whatsoever, such as the right to be there in the hospital and make important medical decisions for an incapacitated partner, federally protected family leave time to in the event of a partner's illness, receiving retirement plans and life insurance benefits for a deceased partner, etc.

Way to go, North Carolina. You can proudly say that you, along with 29 other states, have successfully managed to vote away this particular civil right, even though section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly states that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ironically, I think this is a perfect example of the 'tyranny of the majority' conservatives so often criticize these days when giving sermons on the virtues of limited government and the inherent superiority of a constitutionally limited republic vs. a democracy; and who'd wholeheartedly agree with Thomas Jefferson in any other circumstance that "the majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society" (Letter to Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816).

The Constitution is supposed to prevent a majority of citizens who are united and motivated by a common interest from taking away the rights of the minority of other citizens, as James Madison argued in Federalist No. 10. Marriage is a civil right that should be available to all adult citizens equally; and as such, it shouldn't be subject to the whims of the majority (or anyone else for that matter) according to the founding principles of the Constitution. But marriage isn't just a civil right, it's a legal contract that confers certain privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits to committed couples; and in my mind, denying same-sex couples equal access to those privileges, immunities, rights, and benefits merely because of their sexual orientation and/or gender is as ridiculous and as unconstitutional as denying interracial couples the same thing.

In my opinion, sexual orientation should be considered a 'suspect category' in equal protection jurisprudence along with race because they're similar in that they're both 'minorities' that have at one time or another been unable to effectively use the political process to insure fair treatment from the majority. As Kenneth D. Wald notes in his review of The Constitutional Underclass: Gays, Lesbians, and the Failure of Class-Based Equal Protection:

What Tocqueville called "majority tyranny" is presumed most likely to be visited upon groups "who suffer from prejudice, are unable to form effective political coalitions, and are often singled out for especially unfavorable treatment by the hostile majority" (26). Laws that target such groups—what later became "suspect" classes—are in principle subject to especially rigorous review under "strict scrutiny" and are unlikely to pass judicial muster. In a series of post-CAROLENE decisions that developed less coherently than any summary can convey, the categories of race, national origin, and alien status were recognized as suspect classifications that would generate strict scrutiny. By contrast, laws that burden other groups are normally upheld with minimal scrutiny and maximum deference to the legislative branch. The Court subsequently created an intermediate category of "quasi-suspect" classes based on gender and legitimacy. Laws that burden such groups receive heightened scrutiny to insure there is some discernible "rational" purpose embedded in them. In practice, the contrast between suspect and quasi-suspect classes has become a distinction without a difference, producing what amounts to a two-tiered system.

Considering the amount of discrimination and unfair legal treatment that gays and lesbians have endured throughout the years, I think sexual orientation deserves to be placed in the same classification as race; and I wholeheartedly believe that laws targeting gays and lesbians should be subject to the same rigorous review under 'strict scrutiny' as those targeting race—even more so given that this may also be just a small part of a much larger political strategy designed to divide and discriminate, as evidenced by these unsealed memos from the National Organization for Marriage released by a judge last month (read esp. the section titled "Internationalizing The Marriage Issue: A Pan-American Strategy").

dadt as an example of ruling class ideology?

While watching the documentary The Strange History Of Don't Ask, Don't Tell today, certain events struck me as being potential real-world examples of what Marx meant when he wrote in The German Ideology, "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." For example, the Crittenden Report, an internal military study done in 1957 by the US Navy, concluded that 'homosexuals' serving in the military didn't pose any kind of security risk, with subsequent studies done in the 80s and 90s by various Department of Defense agencies (e.g., PERSEREC) and think tanks (RAND Corp.) concluding that sexual orientation is completely unrelated to, and has no bearing on, job performance. Nevertheless, the dominate view of those in charge (i.e., the ruling material force of society) was that "Homosexuality is wrong, it is evil, and it is to be branded as such" (Crittenden Report), and all such studies were classified and essentially buried, hence the ruling idea was that gays and lesbians should be barred from the military.

President Clinton's 1993 DADT policy, which was basically a compromise between his progressive campaign rhetoric and the status quo, did little more than legalize this kind of discrimination, and homosexual witch-hunts actually increased with the implementation of 'don't ask, don't tell.' Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, both scientific and empirical (esp. nations with gays and lesbians already openly serving in the military), the ruling ideas prevailed relatively unchallenged for decades; and it was only through decades of struggle, particularly on the part of the LBGTQ community, that DADT was repealed—not the facts, which were actually covered up by the powers that be because they conflicted with their ideological view of the world and challenged their ideological hegemony (a view personified in the documentary by Senator McCain).

One theory of mine about this is that the ruling class by its very nature fosters divisions within society — as in separate, competing factions à la Madison — in order to prevent a unified challenge to the institution of private property and the dominance of ruling-class ideology; and anything which tends to unite these opposing factions is perceived as a danger to those two things, as well as those it favours (i.e., the propertied and capitalist classes). Here, non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in regard to military service is a uniting force seeking to tear down a socially constructed barrier within society, which will logically help to erode discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the spheres of employment, housing, marriage, etc., thereby limiting its use as a dividing force, much the same way that struggles against discrimination on the basis of things like gender, race, etc. have attempted to do.

Of course, through constant struggle, ideas and social relations change over time; and the ruling class' ideological positions naturally must shift with them in order to compensate and insure that it maintains its control over the productive base of society, which, according to Marx's theory of base and superstructure, does a great deal to condition the rising legal and political superstructure of society. So it's expected that reforms will eventually manifest themselves, such as the allowance of gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military at the same time they're unable to legally get married in 44 of the 50 states (with none of the marriages in those 6 states being currently recognized by the federal government, by the way), and while still excluding transgendered individuals from service. And I think this particular example can not only be used to illustrate the existence of ruling class ideology, but how combating aspects of it without addressing its underlying foundation (i.e., its material/structural basis) ultimately leads to inadequate compromises and endless battles of social equality instead of truly progressive victories.

ctpa

It seems the Obama administration is pushing ahead with the US-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA), which is set to go into effect in May, despite Columbia's fairly weak record on workers' rights and the ongoing threat to union activists (somewhere between 3,000-4,000 have been assassinated since the mid 1980's, at least 40 of them last year according to historian and NYU professor Greg Grandin). Like most free trade agreements, the CTPA is designed to benefit capital at the expense of labour, paying lip service to workers' rights and anti-labor violence while doing precious little to actually protect the former and stop the latter. While the Democratic Party tends to present itself as pro-labour, in reality it's anything but, as its continual support of neoliberal policies at home and abroad clearly demonstrates. It's high time the left in this country started thinking outside the box of two-party electoral politics and stop blindly supporting the 'lesser evil.' /rant

gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists

A frightening article from Al Jazeera about the ongoing effects of the 2010 BP Gulf oil spill:

Gulf seafood deformities alarm scientists

Further evidence, in my opinion, that we need to collectively change our behaviour, particularly the ways we produce our means of subsistence. Being the pessimist that I am, however, I doubt that we're going to in time to prevent our actions from doing even more irreparable harm to the planet. Capitalism has become the dominate economic system worldwide, and with it, rampant consumerism, depletion of natural resources, and industrial pollution on a global scale. The market itself is designed to give people what they want, regardless of the consequences, and it's frankly unsustainable.

For one, capitalism's need for continual economic growth requires a continual increase in consumption, and in turn, continually expanding markets and/or an increase in population to create and sustain such growth. This, naturally, tends to lead to consumerism, which has its own downsides, such as environmental degradation, the depletion of natural resources, and the promotion of unnecessary and even harmful jobs as long as they contribute to growth. In addition, the planet's resources are limited, and its ecosystems relatively fragile.

The cumulative cost of negative externalities produced by companies like BP are hard to calculate in dollars; but their cost in terms of quality of life for us and future generations is simply too high, in my opinion. Moreover, I don't think that production, distribution, and exchange should be left to the whim of some supposedly self-regulating 'invisible hand' that guides production in global capitalism and directs "industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value." While value can include things like quality of life and so on, it's often limited to profit by the system itself since profit is not only the driving force behind capitalism (and hence economic behaviour), but the metric by which success is most often measured. And governments don't necessarily perform the role of regulator any better, more often than not colluding with capital to the detriment of workers, consumers, and the environment alike.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see, there's no panacea for the myriad of problems we face as an ever-evolving, technologically advanced, and increasingly globalized species with an unprecedented ability to change and shape the environment. But I'm strongly convinced that any long-term solutions lie not with governmental agencies or the ephemeral and God-like invisible hand, but with a politico-economic system that's not centred around the idealization of profit, and which promotes the existence of an informed and engaged working class possessing a direct say in how production, distribution, and exchange is carried out. /rant

practical morality?

Interesting debate between Sam Harris and William Craig on the subject of moral truths and values:



Some tentative thoughts: I think Craig really trips himself up when he uses his own God = good tautology after criticizing Harris for playing semantic games and accusing him of using a tautology.

I also think it's interesting that Harris' reply at 1:50-52 is somewhat similar to the Buddha's reply to King Pasenadi in SN 3.8, which essentially gives the underlying basis for Buddhist morality (especially in regard to the principle of ahimsa or 'harmlessness').

This basis or argument for morality focuses on the moral character of the individual and revolves around seeing our desires for happiness and freedom from pain in all living creatures, particularly human beings. The essential premise here being that there's no one that's as dear to us as ourselves, that all sentient beings essentially want to be happy in their own way (according to their specific capacities), and that this is a fairly decent and logical reason to desire their happiness and well-being as well as our own. The reasoning is fairly simple. If our happiness and well-being comes at the expense of theirs, they'll do everything in their power to upset that happiness.

Conversely, if they were to infringe upon ours, wouldn't it follow that we'd do everything in our power to upset theirs? Looking at it from this perspective, where insecurity dominates the moral playing field (like never knowing if your doctor is going to cut you up in order to help five other patients), a world with moral security not only seems more desirable, but more conducive to the flourishing of conscious beings. Moreover, the former promotes a vicious circle of retribution, and one of the ways to break this circle is an ethical framework that takes the happiness and general well-being of others into consideration, which is one of the things that Harris seems to be promoting (although for slightly different reasons).

Of course, I don't think this presents an 'objective' basis for morality, but it certain seems like a practical one.

bored after-dinner writing: a freudian easter

Ah, Easter. The season of Cadbury eggs, people in rabbit suits, and never ending replays of King of Kings. A time meant for reflection upon the almost unbelievable account of one man's victory over death itself, who Paul taunts by asking, "Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" But while Paul's words at 1 Cor 15:55 refer specifically to Jesus' resurrection, I see within them a deeper, existential challenge to the seemingly final end of life, and to the eternal emptiness that threateningly looms beyond.

At some deep, subconscious level, there's a constant fear of death buried within the human heart, a fear embedded in its deepest, darkest recesses by eons of evolution, an overwhelming instinct to survive. And this fear of death, of nonexistence, translates into love of life, a defiance of death, and a desire to live in some way forever, a desire for immortality. And in the story of Jesus' resurrection, we have the personification of this desire for immortality, and the promise of complete victory over death. It's a comforting image, and it's difficult not to appreciate that the idea of his resurrection resonates with many on a deeply emotional level regardless of its actual occurrence. I, too, find it a stirring tale.

On the other hand, as strange as it may seem on the face of it, I find a part of myself agreeing with Goethe's Mephistopheles in his preference for the promise of eternal emptiness:

A foolish word, bygone.
How so then, gone?
Gone, to sheer Nothing, past with null made one!
What matters creative endless toil,
When, at a snatch, oblivion ends the coil?
'It is bygone'— How shall this riddle run?
As good as if things never had begun,
Yet circle back, existence to possess:
I'd rather have Eternal Emptiness.

And this antithetical dichotomy of extreme positivism and negativism immediately brings to mind Freud's conception of Eros and Thanatos, love and death. The former, Eros, love, libido, or whatever you want to call it, was seen by Freud as a constructive and binding force, and corresponds to our innate drive to survive, our love of life, and in this case, our desire for immortality in the form of the resurrected Jesus. The latter, Thanatos or the death drive, which Freud thought the root of our aggressive and self-destructive tendencies, corresponds to Mephistopheles' poetic praise of eternal emptiness, of complete and utter annihilation, our self-destructive behaviour in the form of Judas, who betrayed Jesus, and the Roman soldiers who crucified him.

It may be a bit of a stretch, but I can't help thinking that a Hegelian or Marxist versed in Freud, or vice versa, might see these two conflicting forces in the context of a dialectical relationship, which can be seen as a mechanism for change and progression in both the individual as well as society, neither giving either force an absolute existence nor denying them completely. Perhaps these things are simply an expression of an ever-evolving consciousness in an ever-evolving universe, a reflection of the psychological contradictions that drive all human endeavors forward.

From this point of view, Judas and those who crucified God in the flesh are just as important as the resurrected Jesus himself, with each representing the opposing creative and destructive forces within ourselves; and our spiritual evolution requires the resolution of tensions between the two in the form of the risen Jesus. Easter, then, might be seen as a subconscious acknowledgement of the dialectical relationship between Eros and Thanatos, between life and death, between immortality and the void. And Jesus, who personifies a deified Eros, must rise from the dead so that Hades, who may be seen as a biblical personification of the death drive, never has the final say.

The focus is on Jesus simply because he plays a duel role in the relationship. As Eros, he represents the vitality of life and the desire for immortality, which is ultimately negated by death. But he also represents the synthesis in his resurrected form, the resolution of the tensions between the seeming futility of life and apparent finality of death, between the conflicting drives to create and to destroy. And his victory over death, his resurrection, represents life's struggle to survive, to replenish itself, to reproduce, to overcome, and which manifests in us as the otherworldly desire of eternal life, as well as the more mundane desire to live forever through our creations and offspring. In fact, the story of Jesus' resurrection can even be seen as an elaborate, mythologized affirmation of Dr. Ian Malcolm's (Jeff Goldblum) aphorism in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way."