Chris Hedges

If I believe I am right and you believe you are right, what is the correct answer?

1. I am right, you are wrong
2. You are right, I am wrong
3. Since both of us are cognizant and thoughtful humans, right must be somewhere between each of our positions
4. There is no absolute right, so both of us are wrong, or both of us are right. It just depends on how you define things
5. There is one right answer. Lets find it and then we will see where each of us is relative to that one right answer.
6. No one is perfect. Therefore, even though you may be mostly right, you are not completely right under some framework, so therefore you are wrong. And, even though I may be mostly wrong, under some framework I am somewhat right, so therefore I am right.
7. It depends on your track record with me. If you have my trust, then I will believe you are right. If not, I will believe you are wrong and I am right.

Flame on:

Here is my take on Chris Hedges

1. In the US, all citizens are equal under the law. Chris Hedges would make this "All people are equal under US law." How we treat a terrorist mastermind in Iraq should be no different than how we would treat a pastor in Vermont who double parked.
2. All nations are equal under international law. As anyone who lived through the OJ trial knows, court decisions may reflect issues other than the one in front of the court. Those who fear the big guy, the "abuse of power" will find for the little guy even when the little guy is wrong.
3. Trade, treaties, tariffs, foreign aid, social arrangements, business arrangements and diplomacy are also forms of conflict, where the strong can impose on the weak. Deaths and injuries occur differently with these, but to assume that they do not occur is simplistic. War is just the next step in imposing one's will.
4. One measure of a person is not how he treats his friends, but how he treats his enemies. The president is not "Bush" but "President Bush". The lack of politeness detracts from the impact of any message you are trying to deliver. Where in all your ethical readings did you come up with the belief that being impolite is good? This is one of the major failings of the left.
5. Mr. Hedges time horizon is quite short, and this is the typical problem with liberals. When all you have to go on is your feelings, they dry up quickly. A plan sometimes is better for long term goals. The correct answer is not somewhere between Sharia law and US law. The correct answer, as we know, is individual freedom without religious tests, human rights extended to all people. Anything less would be, well, uncivilized. Bringing civilization to the Israelites took 40 years, just about as long for the Ivory Coast, and probably as long for Afghanistan and Iraq. Patience is a virtue, and that can be said in a sound bite.
6. Mr. Hedges, everybody wants to rule the world. Be it fundamental Christians, Islamofascists, drug dealers, or white male liberals. If the answer is some type of unified world view, then the answer will be an amalgam of various ideas and principles, a melting pot of ideas, not a Balkanization of legal systems and rights and wrongs. Hopefully, it will not be a compromise so that everyone can feel good about their contribution, but a real system that optimizes the good of humanity, even if most of the concepts come from one source.
7. Lastly, I am quite aware that many people hate us and feel justification at either attacking us or cheering for our enemies. Guilt implies that, if the shoe were on the other foot, they would have treated us better. I do not see the evidence of that being so. I see that we have been as good, if not better, than others although admittedly not perfect. While good indeed is the enemy of the perfect, the best approach is to go from good to great, not to destroy or tear down good.

Flame out

I feel good!

When a person leaves the voting booth, they usually like to feel as if they are a good person. They want to be happy about how they have voted. While it can be as simple as voting their interests, often it is a vote for a candidate that represents what they believe is the best position on important issues. One of the main problems is the difference between feeling good and doing good.

If you came to DocBrain as a patient, would you want DocBrain to give you a treatment that DocBrain felt good about because of what pharmaceutical representatives told him, or one that, upon review of the available scientific research, he discovered to be most safe, best tolerated and most effective for your condition? If you trusted DocBrain and were unable or unwilling to check up on the treatment options yourself, it really wouldn't matter...you would be happy. But, let's assume that you really do care enough about your health to look into the science, to see what there is to learn. You might then become disappointed in DocBrain if his treatment did not seem to fit the best evidence for your condition. You would want some type of explanation.

DocBrain took science classes in college and had trouble with the words "political science". But, that was years ago, and now much data is available. One can look at the prescriptions politicians want us to take and see how they (and alternative ones) have worked in the past both here and elsewhere. Some sound really good, kind and compassionate, but just don't work. Some sound mean spirited and outright nasty, but work just fine.

If we, the public do not look at the evidence, we will be swayed by the "feel good" that might just be the wrong medicine. A bitter pill sometimes cures the illness that is worsened by the sweet. If you care enough to vote, please care enough to look and see what the true underlying problems are, what the proven effective treatments are, and don't vote for what sounds good...vote for what will be good.

For example, DocBrain heard about protesters who are protesting war. War is bad. It feels good to stand up and say that. However, looking deeper, wars occur when the wills of two groups are in direct conflict. If one group would just bow to the will of the other, there would be no war, no conflict. For example, if you believe that women should not have education or voting rights, that there should be religious and sectarian tests for public office, that the rule of law should be sectarian, that males and specific religious sects should have more judicial rights than others, you would bemoan the US trying to impose its will in Iraq. If you believe otherwise, you should protest against those who fight against our troops. If you believe that, if your neighbor is beating his wife, it is none of your business, how could you, as a good person, sleep at night with the screams in your ears? As Mickey Mouse says, It's a small world after all!

Time Horizon

DocBrain recently learned a new phrase: time horizon. As I understand it, this is the time frame in which you look at your life, not the dreaming time but the actual planning ahead and focusing time. It helps to explain much of the behavior of people that previously DocBrain just did not understand. DocBrain used to think people were just bad at math, but that did not explain everything. The concept of time horizon adds the missing piece. In addition, time horizons tend to have cultural underpinnings and explains much of the outcome of groups of people.

Some cultures have long time horizons as part of their nature. Jewish children learn by age 6 that, in 7 years, they will have to go through a rite of passage where they will be expected to have proficiency in a foreign language and in religious rules and literature, and will have to demonstrate this in front of a group of people. Over the years, many hours are spent in study instead of playing with friends. This habit of self-denial for a distant goal becomes a habit. Other groups have similar habits or traditions, leading to the focus on distant goals with shorter term sacrifice. This push can be in learning, investment, work, athletics or in the arts. The goal in each case is to take one's innate abilities and to make them of value to self and society.

Examples of the opposite are quite common. Most who resort to criminal activity do not have a long time horizon. Similarly for most addicts, depressives and people at the low end of the education and work pyramids.

Without parental and societal influence, children and teens have the most trouble with long time horizons. Those who are not pushed and prodded, aided and abetted by their parents and their subculture, often will not have the internal drive to persevere in pursuit of a long term goal. The habit of shorter term sacrifice for long term benefit is the underpinning of success, especially if continued throughout a lifetime.

Cho

From the outset, DocBrain wants to make it clear he feels very sorry for the students at VT and for Cho's family. If there ever was a lose-lose situation, this was it.

In the aftermath of this horrible event, there is much spin and heat. Here are a few talking points:

1. There are many angry and disturbed people in the world. DocBrain believes it is the combination of disturbed, compulsive thinking and impulsive actions that bring these people across the line to antisocial behavior. Cho was obviously obsessed with his inner thoughts which appear to have been filled with anger and a desire to do what he believed was right. When one is angry, one rarely says or does "what is right". This was his fatal flaw.
2. DocBrain has heard commentators compare this tragedy to 9-11 in terms of a backlash against Koreans. DocBrain believes there must be a dumbing down effect on commentators! First, there are people who already hate Koreans or other Asians and they will use any event or pretext to act perversely. Second, the Cho's family, the Korean community, and even Korea, have been mourning the victims, not cheering the acts of one mentally ill young man. This was not the reaction of the arab Muslims after 9-11, where celebrations in the streets were the rule.
3. Gun control again is a hot topic. Should we control all guns? Just handguns? Would Cho have been more or less dangerous with shotguns? What if he had just done the sniper thing with a high powered rifle, scope and silencer? What if he had made several Molotov cocktails and heaved them into several classrooms? Please see #1 above. Blaming guns is like blaming the victims.
4. Should people have recognized the warning signs and locked him up or drugged him up before he did this? This would be impossible in our society which protects individuals from the concept of "pre-crime", except for those who have consumed alcohol and are driving.
5. Here are DocBrain's four horsemen: conflict, suffering, ignorance and servitude. It is wrong to inflict any of these on another person. The solution for humanity is not about understanding but about breaking the chain of consequences, not reacting to the wrongs inflicted upon us by others. But, unlike the teachings of Jesus who admonished us to never break the chain and all will be fine, sometimes people need to stand up and push back against the wrongs we see among us. There will always be those who see their own power in creating conflict, their contentment in causing suffering, their intelligence in confounding the truth, and their superiority in making others bend to their will.

Red Dawn

DocBrain just watched the movie "Red Dawn". In case you have forgotten, it is about how communists take over part of the US, work through a puppet government, and how a group of feisty teenage freedom fighters fare against the enemy.

DocBrain couldn't help thinking about other conflicts, where the protagonist and antagonist are reversed: Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. In each of these circumstances we were the invading army and those who opposed us were the "freedom" fighters. In these circumstances, I use the word "freedom" loosely, as those opposing us were/are actually oppression fighters.

The 1984ish arguement that freedom is slavery is in direct opposition to what DocBrain believes is the purpose and destiny of humanity.

Religions are a good way to organize one's belief in God and to identify with something larger than oneself, but not a good way to separate good people from bad. Religious litmus tests and religious laws are useful within one religion but not useful in the world at large and certainly a bad way to run a nation.