"I don't need the job, but they need the food"
Everything considered, he was a man who surely loved his country and it's people, and I'm sure he'll be the outspoken Lion of Heaven.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
RIP Ted
Back when Mitt Romney was running for Ted Kennedy's senatorial seat, and while I was very young, the late senator said something in regards to why he won't bend to popular opinion on the rights of the poor that I'll never forget-
"I don't need the job, but they need the food"
Everything considered, he was a man who surely loved his country and it's people, and I'm sure he'll be the outspoken Lion of Heaven.
"I don't need the job, but they need the food"
Everything considered, he was a man who surely loved his country and it's people, and I'm sure he'll be the outspoken Lion of Heaven.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Friday, August 14, 2009
Empathy
It's been pretty rainy around here, and on top of the dog days of summer this has been one sopping week of wet canine. The good thing about that is the other day I faced one of the most serious dilemmas I have in months- to watch TV, read or write. I garnered up the motivation to not only blog, but email a few professors that would make solid letters of recommendation and drive to my university and have transcripts sent to the LSAC data assembly service. Which unnervingly haven't arrived. Must have something to do with the amount of wet dogness that's been going around. It's encouraging to feel that this blog takes at least some kind of precedence over the beautiful mind numbing powers of Verizon FiOS, because it's been my experience with writing, especially collections like this, that they fizzle out when NatGeo, Discovery Science, Current TV, G4 and the Daily Show/ Colbert Report power hour become a priority. I even missed my new guilty pleasure 'Raising the Bar' to help my friend move and drink a bottle of rum. Where are my priorities.
Since I've had nothing else to do, and it needs to be done before October so I can be done with all this nonsense by then, I've been spending a lot of time lately throwing together all of the necessary/required materials that will grant me admission to one of this nation's fine law schools. One of those items is a personal statement. And not entirely unrelated, another thing I've been spending a lot of time on is tossing around the idea of 'empathy'. What it really means, how it can be useful, and who has it. Something disconcerting about the notions of empathy I have is why it can be so decisively opposed by a single partisan as a quality in a Supreme Court justice. Wouldn't being able to holistically consider a unique set of circumstances be ideal in making such a staggering decision, as one presented to those 9 appointed judges, rather than blindly adhering to an arbitrary set of rules and dictum? What's so scary about understanding?
I'm going to find a way to work this into my personal essay, because since the first time I read this it has been ingrained into my consciousness, for better or worse.
While I'm no Atticus Finch, though one day aspire to be, since the first time I read To Kill a Mockingbird the idea of standing up for someone who is hated simply due to an infectious sense of stupendous ignorance has been incredibly appealing.
Because this blog (at least for now) is supposed to be about fooling around this beautiful language, and even though this passage is quite literal, I'd like to take a second to get into what Atticus was really trying to teach his daughter.
Atticus, from what I remember and can gather of TKaM, was a seasoned attorney who worked with legislation, who becomes a widower and the primary moral backbone for his children, who are growing up in a primordial racist cesspool of Alabama. (Basically his existence, not his job, is public defense). What I find most interesting about this quote, and this entire fucking chapter, is how this well versed idealistic crusader describes 'empathy' as a trick, then starts to directly explain what this trickery is by saying "You never really understand a person until you consider things form his point of view-" where he pauses, long enough for his daughter to inquire for the prestige of this rough magic from her brave and honorable father, then finishes "until you climb into his skin and walk around in it". Wow.
Now, the word trick is defined as "crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like, intended to deceive or cheat... an optical illusion... a clever or ingenious device or expedient (this word , in this context, should be noted as meaning 'a means to an end...resource')". If that word didn't just contradict itself, I need to look up what a contradiction is. Would a father really employ the idea of empathy for his daughter as a device of cruelty, in which she can manipulate and contrive human feelings to get what she wants? Well, no. She would probably learn that in high school. But in a world where the populace is out for blood because it's the easy answer and well, probably don't know any better, knowing better can be the only way for a sane individual to survive, and the good individual to do the right thing.
What he's saying is that even if you only appear that you understand someone else, you need to try. Put on a poker face, bluff if you have to, act; "all the world's a stage, and in his time a man plays many parts". Because even if you don't identify with someone, you'll probably wind up getting to know why someone is the way they are, and at the very least get to know another person as a person, who is flawed and scared and very human, with experience and skin and bones, just like you, despite what everyone else says (Shit, Atticus has another great quote about group v. individual conscious that'd be great here).
What he's saying is you don't have to believe what someone else is telling you, but you always have to believe in what you're saying. And you can't speak honestly about yourself, and certainly not someone else, without a little empathy.
I really enjoy the duality of how to read into Atticus' character. He's either a champion of righteousness or a smooth, surreptitious operator. That little use of the word 'trick' is a great example of that, and how regardless, the man is selfless and of dignified.
Speaking of ignorance and group mentality, I actually got into a discussion the other day with a friend of mine about education in this country, an approach to which we take differing approaches. Somewhere along the line we meandered into the question of this nation's religious identity, and why this nation became what it is in the first place. Both my friend and my roommate, who is has a degree in history, took the stance that this country came to be as a way of religious freedom, and escape from religious persecution, and to practice the religion of their liking.
If I've learned anything from LSATing all summer, it's that gross and sweeping generalizations make for very, very poor arguments (unless it's about principles, in which the application is generally specific).
So I disagreed. This nation came to be as a means of escaping the oppression of a tyrant. Of a King, one King James I, I think. Sure, God was involved, he always is with those sorts of things. He has to be. But there's more to it than religion. Again, there always is. There has to be. If it doesn't make money, it doesn't make sense, to roughly quote a rap song.
Most of the Pilgrims weren't religious people. Sure, they had beliefs. But a lot were poor, marginalized individuals seeking something, anything different from the heavy and swift judgment of their King. They found it. They did not continue a holier than thou ethos, but it was a prevalent attitude, as Hawthorne and the like remind us.
Many of the young women were pregnant on their voyage over and married either on a ship or here, or not at all. Many of our English dissenters were much less prudish than even the most liberal member of the FCC. While a lot of those Pilgrims (not Puritans, mind you) were empathetic and caring towards their fellow persons back then, I wonder how they would fare in parts of this country today. I mean, if this is such a religious country, why aren't we accepting of young women who have limited options? Our founding fathers were much cooler about it than we are. I am positive if McCain were elected, his judicial appointment (hopefully not, but not unrealistically, a Sessions [Alabama] like figure) would have made efforts to destroy Roe v. Wade. How about our drug addicts, deviants, and mentally unstable? Why is it so difficult to do something so inherently easy, and just care. Why is it necessary to lock someone away for life over a crime such as drugs that is essentially one of values? Or to throw a teenager in jail for making a mistake? We need more empathy in this country and, from what I can tell, especially in the legal system. Especially at home, on the streets, on a basic level.
I wonder what Atticus' closing argument would sound like on a case involving Roe V. Wade under McCain's admin. I hate to think it, but unfortunately, I doubt he'd get the chance to make it.
It's late, and I'm starting to forget the point.
"With God on our side...."
Since I've had nothing else to do, and it needs to be done before October so I can be done with all this nonsense by then, I've been spending a lot of time lately throwing together all of the necessary/required materials that will grant me admission to one of this nation's fine law schools. One of those items is a personal statement. And not entirely unrelated, another thing I've been spending a lot of time on is tossing around the idea of 'empathy'. What it really means, how it can be useful, and who has it. Something disconcerting about the notions of empathy I have is why it can be so decisively opposed by a single partisan as a quality in a Supreme Court justice. Wouldn't being able to holistically consider a unique set of circumstances be ideal in making such a staggering decision, as one presented to those 9 appointed judges, rather than blindly adhering to an arbitrary set of rules and dictum? What's so scary about understanding?
I'm going to find a way to work this into my personal essay, because since the first time I read this it has been ingrained into my consciousness, for better or worse.
"First of all," he said, "if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things form his point of view-"
"Sir?"
"-until you climb into his skin and walk around in it."
While I'm no Atticus Finch, though one day aspire to be, since the first time I read To Kill a Mockingbird the idea of standing up for someone who is hated simply due to an infectious sense of stupendous ignorance has been incredibly appealing.
Because this blog (at least for now) is supposed to be about fooling around this beautiful language, and even though this passage is quite literal, I'd like to take a second to get into what Atticus was really trying to teach his daughter.
Atticus, from what I remember and can gather of TKaM, was a seasoned attorney who worked with legislation, who becomes a widower and the primary moral backbone for his children, who are growing up in a primordial racist cesspool of Alabama. (Basically his existence, not his job, is public defense). What I find most interesting about this quote, and this entire fucking chapter, is how this well versed idealistic crusader describes 'empathy' as a trick, then starts to directly explain what this trickery is by saying "You never really understand a person until you consider things form his point of view-" where he pauses, long enough for his daughter to inquire for the prestige of this rough magic from her brave and honorable father, then finishes "until you climb into his skin and walk around in it". Wow.
Now, the word trick is defined as "crafty or underhanded device, maneuver, stratagem, or the like, intended to deceive or cheat... an optical illusion... a clever or ingenious device or expedient (this word , in this context, should be noted as meaning 'a means to an end...resource')". If that word didn't just contradict itself, I need to look up what a contradiction is. Would a father really employ the idea of empathy for his daughter as a device of cruelty, in which she can manipulate and contrive human feelings to get what she wants? Well, no. She would probably learn that in high school. But in a world where the populace is out for blood because it's the easy answer and well, probably don't know any better, knowing better can be the only way for a sane individual to survive, and the good individual to do the right thing.
What he's saying is that even if you only appear that you understand someone else, you need to try. Put on a poker face, bluff if you have to, act; "all the world's a stage, and in his time a man plays many parts". Because even if you don't identify with someone, you'll probably wind up getting to know why someone is the way they are, and at the very least get to know another person as a person, who is flawed and scared and very human, with experience and skin and bones, just like you, despite what everyone else says (Shit, Atticus has another great quote about group v. individual conscious that'd be great here).
What he's saying is you don't have to believe what someone else is telling you, but you always have to believe in what you're saying. And you can't speak honestly about yourself, and certainly not someone else, without a little empathy.
I really enjoy the duality of how to read into Atticus' character. He's either a champion of righteousness or a smooth, surreptitious operator. That little use of the word 'trick' is a great example of that, and how regardless, the man is selfless and of dignified.
Speaking of ignorance and group mentality, I actually got into a discussion the other day with a friend of mine about education in this country, an approach to which we take differing approaches. Somewhere along the line we meandered into the question of this nation's religious identity, and why this nation became what it is in the first place. Both my friend and my roommate, who is has a degree in history, took the stance that this country came to be as a way of religious freedom, and escape from religious persecution, and to practice the religion of their liking.
If I've learned anything from LSATing all summer, it's that gross and sweeping generalizations make for very, very poor arguments (unless it's about principles, in which the application is generally specific).
So I disagreed. This nation came to be as a means of escaping the oppression of a tyrant. Of a King, one King James I, I think. Sure, God was involved, he always is with those sorts of things. He has to be. But there's more to it than religion. Again, there always is. There has to be. If it doesn't make money, it doesn't make sense, to roughly quote a rap song.
Most of the Pilgrims weren't religious people. Sure, they had beliefs. But a lot were poor, marginalized individuals seeking something, anything different from the heavy and swift judgment of their King. They found it. They did not continue a holier than thou ethos, but it was a prevalent attitude, as Hawthorne and the like remind us.
Many of the young women were pregnant on their voyage over and married either on a ship or here, or not at all. Many of our English dissenters were much less prudish than even the most liberal member of the FCC. While a lot of those Pilgrims (not Puritans, mind you) were empathetic and caring towards their fellow persons back then, I wonder how they would fare in parts of this country today. I mean, if this is such a religious country, why aren't we accepting of young women who have limited options? Our founding fathers were much cooler about it than we are. I am positive if McCain were elected, his judicial appointment (hopefully not, but not unrealistically, a Sessions [Alabama] like figure) would have made efforts to destroy Roe v. Wade. How about our drug addicts, deviants, and mentally unstable? Why is it so difficult to do something so inherently easy, and just care. Why is it necessary to lock someone away for life over a crime such as drugs that is essentially one of values? Or to throw a teenager in jail for making a mistake? We need more empathy in this country and, from what I can tell, especially in the legal system. Especially at home, on the streets, on a basic level.
I wonder what Atticus' closing argument would sound like on a case involving Roe V. Wade under McCain's admin. I hate to think it, but unfortunately, I doubt he'd get the chance to make it.
It's late, and I'm starting to forget the point.
"With God on our side...."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Welcome: A Last First Time
I'm not a fan of long introductions. A summary or statement of some purpose seems inherently bizarre because of the sporadic and surprising nature of reality, which, fictitious or not, writing is supposed to be reflection of. Even the idea of a thesis statement can strip the enjoyment out of reading what could otherwise be an interesting essay. Where's the surprise? I'd rather slowly and thoroughly reveal the unknown than have it abridged, annotated and explained. This is kind of a long introduction about how anti-introduction I just proclaimed to be.
And that's kind of my point.
I love words. I enjoy long, passionate affairs with the ones I understand, and blind dates with ones I am interested in learning about. Finding expression through those words and their meanings through language and speaking is a type of performance I am naturally pulled towards.
One thing in particular that I can't seem to get enough of is how words can conjure ambivalent feelings. "Argue" comes with a combative connotation, while "debate" seems to sneak by as more elevated and dignified, though both words share a common goal towards revealing or showing a given reasoning in a matter at hand. You can argue a debate or debate an argument, but when push comes to shove, you're like John Lennon, asking for someone to give some truth. Truth. Now that's an entertaining word.
I've blogged before, but never behind the veil of anonymity. For once I'm going to take full advantage of the shadow language casts (which may be undermined by having a profile picture, albeit nondescript. The verdict is still out). I've dedicated 4 years of my life and applied $21,200.84 of state money (thanks tax payers) towards an education that was roughly 80% concerned with words, ideas about groups of words, history of words and their structure. Ironically enough, I can safely say now, just as I did in my all of my college admissions essays, that the words of Socrates resonate even more than ever before - "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." (I think he used this as an excuse to eat a lot and get so fat, for which he deserves kudos)
I can only be certain of my uncertainty. Of the unknown. All I really can know is that I can be sure that I can't know exactly what will come next, what truth will apply to each new situation. Which ideal or principle to fight for isn't predetermined.
In the face of a very equivocal world, knowing isn't difficult. The ability to make the right choice despite how much everyone else 'knows' is that hard part.
So while this post is lofty, and while I can't promise there won't be more of it's type, I can promise that my purpose in writing is to explore. Explore my day, my passions, discussions I've had, idea's I've entertained, foods I like, news I've watched; the list is for all intensive purposes endless. I could care less about autobiography, I don't desire to be remembered.
What matters to me is always searching, always standing up against any authority that claims dominion and absolute truth in a matter.
Til next time, "in defense of."
And that's kind of my point.
I love words. I enjoy long, passionate affairs with the ones I understand, and blind dates with ones I am interested in learning about. Finding expression through those words and their meanings through language and speaking is a type of performance I am naturally pulled towards.
One thing in particular that I can't seem to get enough of is how words can conjure ambivalent feelings. "Argue" comes with a combative connotation, while "debate" seems to sneak by as more elevated and dignified, though both words share a common goal towards revealing or showing a given reasoning in a matter at hand. You can argue a debate or debate an argument, but when push comes to shove, you're like John Lennon, asking for someone to give some truth. Truth. Now that's an entertaining word.
I've blogged before, but never behind the veil of anonymity. For once I'm going to take full advantage of the shadow language casts (which may be undermined by having a profile picture, albeit nondescript. The verdict is still out). I've dedicated 4 years of my life and applied $21,200.84 of state money (thanks tax payers) towards an education that was roughly 80% concerned with words, ideas about groups of words, history of words and their structure. Ironically enough, I can safely say now, just as I did in my all of my college admissions essays, that the words of Socrates resonate even more than ever before - "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance." (I think he used this as an excuse to eat a lot and get so fat, for which he deserves kudos)
I can only be certain of my uncertainty. Of the unknown. All I really can know is that I can be sure that I can't know exactly what will come next, what truth will apply to each new situation. Which ideal or principle to fight for isn't predetermined.
In the face of a very equivocal world, knowing isn't difficult. The ability to make the right choice despite how much everyone else 'knows' is that hard part.
So while this post is lofty, and while I can't promise there won't be more of it's type, I can promise that my purpose in writing is to explore. Explore my day, my passions, discussions I've had, idea's I've entertained, foods I like, news I've watched; the list is for all intensive purposes endless. I could care less about autobiography, I don't desire to be remembered.
What matters to me is always searching, always standing up against any authority that claims dominion and absolute truth in a matter.
Til next time, "in defense of."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
