Hey Cyberspace. It's another beautiful day in Halifax.
Today's topic is another that is borne of my reading of 1984. I'm sorry I just can't help it...there were a few themes in the book that really stuck with me...and this one is by far the scariest - history.
I've long been a supporter of the idea that both individuals and society must learn from their mistakes in order to move forward. We must use past mistakes as a template of what not to do. After all...trial and error will eventually give a workable solution to any problem as long as time and resources are available.
Having said that, it is extremely easy to make the argument that we as a society haven't learned anything from past civilizations. While we say we live in a democratic society, we live more in a world of corporatism. While this exact model hasn't necessarily been used before, the inherent problems that have ruined entire Empires (such as the Romans) still exist. The power and influence lies in the hands of a few...and those few are easily convinced to go against the wishes of the many. So have we really learned?
I don't know...but I also can't say for sure that the Romans ever even existed. I'm told that they did...I'm told that there is lots of evidence. But how do I know for sure? I don't write the history books. I don't have any connection to the people that do. And this is what's scary. I can sift through every single website on the internet and every book in the library that have to do with any subject - but I can't prove that those words are true. I mean, how could we ever learn from a society that never existed? Interesting thought if nothing else.
"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed – if all
records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became
truth. "Who controls the past," ran the Party slogan, "controls the
future: who controls the present controls the past." That is a quote from 1984...Book 1, Chapter 3, Paragraph 18.
It's a scary principle. I've done a lot of research into a lot of different things. After reading 1984, I began to question the very facts and ideas that have formed my personality. The idea that everything I know is completely manufactured...it scares the shit out of me.
Of course, I don't believe that our leaders have gone to such extremes at present (although I can't say so for sure)...but I can definitely see it happening in the future. I guess that my education concerning Public Relations is the reason that this idea bothers me so much. PR involves picking and choosing which information to release and when to release it...once the flow of information becomes controlled, how far are we really off of completely altering the facts? While I will concede that withholding the truth is not necessarily the same as lying, it becomes a very fine line - a line that will eventually be crossed.
While the internet remains an invaluable resource and forum for free thought and expression, legislation such as the SOPA bill in the US even being proposed show that our leaders are nervous about the spread of unedited and unfiltered information. And yes, I am aware that the SOPA bill's goal was to stop copyright infringement (yeah right)...but if I'm not mistaken, if passed it would have given the government the power to shut down ANY website.
The idea is scary...the "tangible" evidence for the enactment of such an idea is even scarier.
Just a few thoughts that I had to get out.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
I just had to share this idea.
Wednesday, 4 July 2012
Thursday, 28 June 2012
Beauty, Beauty Everywhere
Ola Cyberspace.
Last night as I sat out on my balcony in the post-rain sun, I thought to myself 'This is beautiful.' It may be because I've started reading Atlas Shrugged (I'm only 120 pages or so in) and it's really beginning to bring back some of what I gleaned from reading The Fountainhead, the only other Ayn Rand book I've read thus far.
If you're unfamiliar with Ayn Rand (and I'm no expert), she basically believes in human ingenuity. She believes that the act of creation is the pinnacle of our potential as humans. She appreciates competence and is quite contemptuous of laziness and mediocrity. I was shocked to find myself sitting inside of her shoes last night.
The view from my balcony isn't the greatest. There's a smaller apartment building that blocks most of what I would be able to see, but there is a small emptiness through which I can see the field of my daughter's school. I was watching the ultimate frisbee game that was going on when I began to marvel at the fact that we are even able to move (this happens to me at least once a week). I mean, it's absolutely incredible. The amount of organization required for our bodies to able to function is unfathomable...sure we kind of have an idea, but when you start to look into things like Reflexology, the interconnectedness of the different parts of our bodies is boggling.
I then moved on to the grass those frisbee-ers (I know...despicable) were running on...the trees surrounding the fields. The small droplets left over from the earlier rainfall glistening among the leaves were winking at me, the leaves were gently rustling in the breeze, the breeze was caressing my face...and I felt connected somehow. We may have pushed away our connection to nature, but it still exists. And it's beautiful.
Then the Ayn Rand that's floating around in my system began to kick in and I started to observe the unnatural. I looked at my car and thought to myself 'the internal combustion engine is genius.' The fact that as a species we have developed to such a point to be able to create alloys...to mould these alloys into objects...to assemble these objects in such a way that we literally create an explosion and harness the energy from it...that is beauty. That is ingenuity. Granted, it could be done much more efficiently, (like using magnets to suspend the pistons inside of the cylinder, which eliminates friction so we could actually harness all of the energy for example) cars are far from the best for the environment, but they are still an incredible invention. As are houses...apartment buildings...bicycles...baseball bats...it's all beautiful.
So what takes away from the beauty? Not only are we completely inundated with the fingerprints of humanity all over the planet, but imitation. The imitation actually perpetuates the inundation. Of course we don't think that house is beautiful - there's ten more of them that look exactly the same on the same block. It kills the beauty - the beauty is in the creation of something new...not in the erecting of a paint-by-number structure.
That's when I realized - there is also beauty in destruction. Explosions look awesome. Fire is mesmerizing. But aside from the medium of destruction...there is a certain poetic notion that I've begun to associate with death, be it the death of a structure, the death of a car's engine, the death of a pet - it's like an eraser removing the penciled-in lines of creation. The deconstruction that eventually leads to the decomposition that eventually turns all things back to the same basic elements.
There's beauty everywhere. Enjoy it...I am.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated.
Last night as I sat out on my balcony in the post-rain sun, I thought to myself 'This is beautiful.' It may be because I've started reading Atlas Shrugged (I'm only 120 pages or so in) and it's really beginning to bring back some of what I gleaned from reading The Fountainhead, the only other Ayn Rand book I've read thus far.
If you're unfamiliar with Ayn Rand (and I'm no expert), she basically believes in human ingenuity. She believes that the act of creation is the pinnacle of our potential as humans. She appreciates competence and is quite contemptuous of laziness and mediocrity. I was shocked to find myself sitting inside of her shoes last night.
The view from my balcony isn't the greatest. There's a smaller apartment building that blocks most of what I would be able to see, but there is a small emptiness through which I can see the field of my daughter's school. I was watching the ultimate frisbee game that was going on when I began to marvel at the fact that we are even able to move (this happens to me at least once a week). I mean, it's absolutely incredible. The amount of organization required for our bodies to able to function is unfathomable...sure we kind of have an idea, but when you start to look into things like Reflexology, the interconnectedness of the different parts of our bodies is boggling.
I then moved on to the grass those frisbee-ers (I know...despicable) were running on...the trees surrounding the fields. The small droplets left over from the earlier rainfall glistening among the leaves were winking at me, the leaves were gently rustling in the breeze, the breeze was caressing my face...and I felt connected somehow. We may have pushed away our connection to nature, but it still exists. And it's beautiful.
Then the Ayn Rand that's floating around in my system began to kick in and I started to observe the unnatural. I looked at my car and thought to myself 'the internal combustion engine is genius.' The fact that as a species we have developed to such a point to be able to create alloys...to mould these alloys into objects...to assemble these objects in such a way that we literally create an explosion and harness the energy from it...that is beauty. That is ingenuity. Granted, it could be done much more efficiently, (like using magnets to suspend the pistons inside of the cylinder, which eliminates friction so we could actually harness all of the energy for example) cars are far from the best for the environment, but they are still an incredible invention. As are houses...apartment buildings...bicycles...baseball bats...it's all beautiful.
So what takes away from the beauty? Not only are we completely inundated with the fingerprints of humanity all over the planet, but imitation. The imitation actually perpetuates the inundation. Of course we don't think that house is beautiful - there's ten more of them that look exactly the same on the same block. It kills the beauty - the beauty is in the creation of something new...not in the erecting of a paint-by-number structure.
That's when I realized - there is also beauty in destruction. Explosions look awesome. Fire is mesmerizing. But aside from the medium of destruction...there is a certain poetic notion that I've begun to associate with death, be it the death of a structure, the death of a car's engine, the death of a pet - it's like an eraser removing the penciled-in lines of creation. The deconstruction that eventually leads to the decomposition that eventually turns all things back to the same basic elements.
There's beauty everywhere. Enjoy it...I am.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated.
Friday, 22 June 2012
Nerves and Words
Hello Cyberspace.
It's been a little while since I've posted anything, so I decided that I should open the spigot of my thoughts for a moment.
We've been working on presentations in class recently, including reading excerpts - practicing reading things aloud to an audience and having it not sound like a grocery list. So far I've selected the tipping conversation from Reservoir Dogs, an excerpt from 1984 (the same one I blogged), the mirror scene from Casino Jack and a scene from Forrest Gump. It's really very interesting to see how different people react under the pressure of public speaking, even among a small group of fellow pupils.
The first time I remember doing any public speaking whatsoever was in Grade 4. All of the classes in my school had to write a four line poem about why we loved Canada (I think it was a Canada day thing)...then we're having an assembly and suddenly my teacher taps on the shoulder, pulls me aside and says "You have to go up on stage and read this." I almost shit myself. A giant iceball formed in my stomach, and walking out in front of that audience made it explode through my entire body. I approached the microphone, feeling as though my bladder would let go at any second. My arms, legs...even my voice was shaking. I turned around and tried to walk off stage...but then I was lifted off the ground and placed back in front of the microphone. I read it...and I survived.
I can understand the fear of public speaking - it seems as though you are automatically being judged on absolutely everything about yourself, especially if you are reading or presenting your own idea. Walking in front of a group of people that you don't know and just putting yourself out there. I liken it to what it must feel like for a tightrope walker to step out onto that rope for the first time without a safety net. You're out there...all alone.
Having said this, I feel as though I've beat my fear. That first experience was probably a huge contributing factor in the fact that even in junior high I seemed to be infinitely less nervous than my classmates. I can get up in front of a crowd and perform (I did a few plays in high school - we even had a performance at the Rebecca Cohn), read or whatever.
But that doesn't mean I'm not still nervous. And I think that this where the secret to public speaking lies. I've seen and heard it over and over again - courage is not the absence of fear, but the will to overcome it. I think that most of us still get those butterflies...still feel ourselves shaking a little bit. But good public speakers know that this is not Biblical times. You will not be crucified for making a mistake. Sure, it may be embarrassing at the time...but chances are there will be no actual repercussion. Hell, a year later you'll probably laugh about it.
So if you've got to do some public speaking...just remember - the audience is made of people who are just like you.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!!
It's been a little while since I've posted anything, so I decided that I should open the spigot of my thoughts for a moment.
We've been working on presentations in class recently, including reading excerpts - practicing reading things aloud to an audience and having it not sound like a grocery list. So far I've selected the tipping conversation from Reservoir Dogs, an excerpt from 1984 (the same one I blogged), the mirror scene from Casino Jack and a scene from Forrest Gump. It's really very interesting to see how different people react under the pressure of public speaking, even among a small group of fellow pupils.
The first time I remember doing any public speaking whatsoever was in Grade 4. All of the classes in my school had to write a four line poem about why we loved Canada (I think it was a Canada day thing)...then we're having an assembly and suddenly my teacher taps on the shoulder, pulls me aside and says "You have to go up on stage and read this." I almost shit myself. A giant iceball formed in my stomach, and walking out in front of that audience made it explode through my entire body. I approached the microphone, feeling as though my bladder would let go at any second. My arms, legs...even my voice was shaking. I turned around and tried to walk off stage...but then I was lifted off the ground and placed back in front of the microphone. I read it...and I survived.
I can understand the fear of public speaking - it seems as though you are automatically being judged on absolutely everything about yourself, especially if you are reading or presenting your own idea. Walking in front of a group of people that you don't know and just putting yourself out there. I liken it to what it must feel like for a tightrope walker to step out onto that rope for the first time without a safety net. You're out there...all alone.
Having said this, I feel as though I've beat my fear. That first experience was probably a huge contributing factor in the fact that even in junior high I seemed to be infinitely less nervous than my classmates. I can get up in front of a crowd and perform (I did a few plays in high school - we even had a performance at the Rebecca Cohn), read or whatever.
But that doesn't mean I'm not still nervous. And I think that this where the secret to public speaking lies. I've seen and heard it over and over again - courage is not the absence of fear, but the will to overcome it. I think that most of us still get those butterflies...still feel ourselves shaking a little bit. But good public speakers know that this is not Biblical times. You will not be crucified for making a mistake. Sure, it may be embarrassing at the time...but chances are there will be no actual repercussion. Hell, a year later you'll probably laugh about it.
So if you've got to do some public speaking...just remember - the audience is made of people who are just like you.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!!
Thursday, 14 June 2012
George Orwell - The Oracle?
Hey there Cyberspace.
I've been reading 1984 by George Orwell. It is fantastic. It's a great story and so far as I can tell it has a great message to the reader. I hate it. It seems to me that Orwell wrote one of the greatest books of the 20th century...and in doing so, printed a guidebook to government oppression. His foresight is incredible - I can't believe how much of what is in in the police state of Oceania is in practice right now.
There have been several times when I've wanted to quote this book in my posts. Today I couldn't resist.
"How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilisations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, expect the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
"...It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism."
"...That is the world that we are preparing, Winston. A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power. You are beginning, I can see, to realise what the world will be like. But in the end you will do more than understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it."
The two quotes at the bottom are taken from a paragraph after Winston refuses to respond to the first long quote...I was just way too lazy to type out the whole thing, plus there are a lot of references that don't make sense outside the context of the story.I just felt that these words were important in their implications...take from it what you will.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
I've been reading 1984 by George Orwell. It is fantastic. It's a great story and so far as I can tell it has a great message to the reader. I hate it. It seems to me that Orwell wrote one of the greatest books of the 20th century...and in doing so, printed a guidebook to government oppression. His foresight is incredible - I can't believe how much of what is in in the police state of Oceania is in practice right now.
There have been several times when I've wanted to quote this book in my posts. Today I couldn't resist.
"How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?"
Winston thought. "By making him suffer," he said.
"Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilisations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy - everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, expect the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always - do not forget this, Winston - always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever."
"...It will be a world of terror as much as a world of triumph. The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism."
"...That is the world that we are preparing, Winston. A world of victory after victory, triumph after triumph after triumph: an endless pressing, pressing, pressing upon the nerve of power. You are beginning, I can see, to realise what the world will be like. But in the end you will do more than understand it. You will accept it, welcome it, become part of it."
The two quotes at the bottom are taken from a paragraph after Winston refuses to respond to the first long quote...I was just way too lazy to type out the whole thing, plus there are a lot of references that don't make sense outside the context of the story.I just felt that these words were important in their implications...take from it what you will.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
Thursday, 7 June 2012
Intangibly Successful
Good Morrow Cyberspace.
I come to you today with no previous agenda. I come to you today with no specific topic in mind, but in the mood to write. So write I will. I'm just not quite sure what about yet...so I'm just gonna write and see where it goes.
I realized something yesterday. A couple of weeks ago I had a discussion with a friend about success. His contention was that he had always been somewhat afraid of it. Afterwards, I found myself returning over and over to this point. The fear of success...a very interesting idea.
It makes perfect sense. I assume it's much the same as what I experienced after I finally saw a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert (you can read about it here). I don't think I would necessarily classify this feeling as a 'fear of success,' but more of a loss of direction.
We are told throughout our childhood to pick our goals...to give our life an aim; a purpose; a path to travel. But nobody prepares us for reaching whatever destination it is we have set for ourselves. Whenever I have scored a victory against circumstance and achieved one of my many goals, I've been left with a sense of "Now What?"
While I was thinking these thoughts yesterday, I realized something. My life is pretty much perfect. The only thing that's amiss is that I don't have a career, but I'm working toward it. Sure, my car needs a piece of the exhaust welded...I want a house...I still want to travel to exotic places. However, I have an incredible relationship with an amazing and beautiful woman...I have an extremely smart daughter who is also hilarious and unbelievably gorgeous...I have friends and family that I can count on when I need to. The only problem in my life is money - and in less than a year I'm more than confident that will cease to be an issue.
I don't know how I feel about all of this. Once I officially start my career, I will literally have everything I want. Of course, I was raised in a capitalist society, soooo I will probably want more by that time. As of right now, there are only two things left on my bucket list - get started in a successful career and publish a novel...and I feel now that I can reach both of these pinnacles with a relative level of ease. Maybe I'm just cocky.
Either way, I guess my point is this - how much do we really need to be happy? My happiness does not live in the tangible realm of our existence...it lives in the same metaphysical place as my consciousness. Everything that actually impacts my life, aside from the quest for sustenance, is governed entirely by things that I can't see or touch. Is it the same for you?
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
I come to you today with no previous agenda. I come to you today with no specific topic in mind, but in the mood to write. So write I will. I'm just not quite sure what about yet...so I'm just gonna write and see where it goes.
I realized something yesterday. A couple of weeks ago I had a discussion with a friend about success. His contention was that he had always been somewhat afraid of it. Afterwards, I found myself returning over and over to this point. The fear of success...a very interesting idea.
It makes perfect sense. I assume it's much the same as what I experienced after I finally saw a Red Hot Chili Peppers concert (you can read about it here). I don't think I would necessarily classify this feeling as a 'fear of success,' but more of a loss of direction.
We are told throughout our childhood to pick our goals...to give our life an aim; a purpose; a path to travel. But nobody prepares us for reaching whatever destination it is we have set for ourselves. Whenever I have scored a victory against circumstance and achieved one of my many goals, I've been left with a sense of "Now What?"
While I was thinking these thoughts yesterday, I realized something. My life is pretty much perfect. The only thing that's amiss is that I don't have a career, but I'm working toward it. Sure, my car needs a piece of the exhaust welded...I want a house...I still want to travel to exotic places. However, I have an incredible relationship with an amazing and beautiful woman...I have an extremely smart daughter who is also hilarious and unbelievably gorgeous...I have friends and family that I can count on when I need to. The only problem in my life is money - and in less than a year I'm more than confident that will cease to be an issue.
I don't know how I feel about all of this. Once I officially start my career, I will literally have everything I want. Of course, I was raised in a capitalist society, soooo I will probably want more by that time. As of right now, there are only two things left on my bucket list - get started in a successful career and publish a novel...and I feel now that I can reach both of these pinnacles with a relative level of ease. Maybe I'm just cocky.
Either way, I guess my point is this - how much do we really need to be happy? My happiness does not live in the tangible realm of our existence...it lives in the same metaphysical place as my consciousness. Everything that actually impacts my life, aside from the quest for sustenance, is governed entirely by things that I can't see or touch. Is it the same for you?
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
Wednesday, 6 June 2012
Murder is Wrong...Right? Part 2
Hello Again Cyberspace.
In the wake of yesterday's murder post, I received a couple of texts and a comment on the actual post. Pretty much everyone said the same thing - murder is always wrong. I'm not going to get back into that specific debate, but this is somewhat of a continuation. What I want to talk about today is a recurring theme in the feedback I've received...sanity.
As any of you can see if you look at the comment on yesterday's blog (thank you Anonymous), the general thought seems to be that murder committed by a "sane" person is wrong. I ask you this...how do you measure sanity?
Sure, there are psychologists and psychiatrists out there, and they have their own criteria. And some people that are dubbed "unfit" are definitely not right in the head. But who is? Just by the small amount of research I've done, I have both psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies, I am a definite candidate for bipolarism and OCD. I have definitely been depressed as well. Does this make me clinically insane? Or are the 'symptoms' of 'insanity' just much too broad? Is it only a diagnosis that is preventing our society from just standing up and saying "Murder is now acceptable?" I don't know...but I do know that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable.
Let's talk about war for a second. War...murder in the name of your country. These people not only get away with murder...they are revered for committing the act. Keeping our country safe. Kill them before they kill us. Is this a form of murder that is acceptable? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that the general population doesn't want to think of its military as a giant group of lunatics carrying weapons.
So why is it allowed to continue? Just because it fuels most of the world's economy? Then we are condoning murder for profit. This is a fact...it is indisputable. I mean, how many times have you seen that bumper sticker - the camouflaged ribbon that says "Support Our Troops"...or the one that says "If you don't support our troops feel free to stand in front of them"?
I know you want to make the PTSD argument. This is an article taken from CBC last summer, which really shows how our government feels about the mindset of our troops - Soliders With PTSD Redeployed.
I don't think that murder should be ok for those of us that society deems "insane." Take the guy who chopped off some guy's head on the bus in Alberta...he's getting out, just four years after committing such a heinous act. This says to me that the more insane your crime is, the less you will be punished.
And just one last quick thought before I wrap this up...look at how our society runs. It is insane. Issues like poverty and hunger are so commonplace that we are able to turn a blind eye - I read an article somewhere recently that claimed that world hunger could be solved with less than 50 billion dollars. It sounds plausible to me. But who wants to spend money if it doesn't eventually turn into profit? Profit is all that matters judging by our society. I guess that money is the most common reason for murder to be ok.
And that is not only wrong, but also insane.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
PS - Thank you to all who have commented thus far...keep it comin'!!!
In the wake of yesterday's murder post, I received a couple of texts and a comment on the actual post. Pretty much everyone said the same thing - murder is always wrong. I'm not going to get back into that specific debate, but this is somewhat of a continuation. What I want to talk about today is a recurring theme in the feedback I've received...sanity.
As any of you can see if you look at the comment on yesterday's blog (thank you Anonymous), the general thought seems to be that murder committed by a "sane" person is wrong. I ask you this...how do you measure sanity?
Sure, there are psychologists and psychiatrists out there, and they have their own criteria. And some people that are dubbed "unfit" are definitely not right in the head. But who is? Just by the small amount of research I've done, I have both psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies, I am a definite candidate for bipolarism and OCD. I have definitely been depressed as well. Does this make me clinically insane? Or are the 'symptoms' of 'insanity' just much too broad? Is it only a diagnosis that is preventing our society from just standing up and saying "Murder is now acceptable?" I don't know...but I do know that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most profitable.
Let's talk about war for a second. War...murder in the name of your country. These people not only get away with murder...they are revered for committing the act. Keeping our country safe. Kill them before they kill us. Is this a form of murder that is acceptable? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet that the general population doesn't want to think of its military as a giant group of lunatics carrying weapons.
So why is it allowed to continue? Just because it fuels most of the world's economy? Then we are condoning murder for profit. This is a fact...it is indisputable. I mean, how many times have you seen that bumper sticker - the camouflaged ribbon that says "Support Our Troops"...or the one that says "If you don't support our troops feel free to stand in front of them"?
I know you want to make the PTSD argument. This is an article taken from CBC last summer, which really shows how our government feels about the mindset of our troops - Soliders With PTSD Redeployed.
I don't think that murder should be ok for those of us that society deems "insane." Take the guy who chopped off some guy's head on the bus in Alberta...he's getting out, just four years after committing such a heinous act. This says to me that the more insane your crime is, the less you will be punished.
And just one last quick thought before I wrap this up...look at how our society runs. It is insane. Issues like poverty and hunger are so commonplace that we are able to turn a blind eye - I read an article somewhere recently that claimed that world hunger could be solved with less than 50 billion dollars. It sounds plausible to me. But who wants to spend money if it doesn't eventually turn into profit? Profit is all that matters judging by our society. I guess that money is the most common reason for murder to be ok.
And that is not only wrong, but also insane.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
PS - Thank you to all who have commented thus far...keep it comin'!!!
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Murder is Wrong...Right?
Good Day Cyberspace.
First of all, I'll ask you to reserve judgement until the end of my post. As you know, I live in Halifax. Halifax has the highest unsolved murder rate (per capita of course) of anywhere in Canada. With all of the hoopla recently surrounding the gun violence in Halifax, which has resulted in two murders in two weeks. I'm also watching Oz, an old HBO TV show about a maximum security prison, so there is plenty of murder in it as well. The topic that I would like to address today is this - when, if ever, is homicide justifiable?
There seem to be two clear views on this issue - murder is murder and is therefore always unforgivable, or there are times when someone can be absolved of their deed.
When I think of what someone would have to do to me or my family for me to commit murder, it's not long before I can imagine a scenario. For example, in Oz, one prisoner has his son kidnap another prisoner's young children, one of whom is killed. If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered my child, you're damn right I'd murder them.
How about a person who has spent their entire existence selling drugs, robbing people, committing random acts of violence and causing suffering to the majority of people their life touches? Is this person a candidate for a justifiable homicide? This rope is a little bit tighter to walk, but is it a tragedy if there is nobody mourning? Interesting question.
I know what most of you are thinking. Murder is wrong...violence is wrong. Someone I brought this subject up to went so far as to say "There is never a time when murder, or violence of any type, is acceptable." So if I see a young girl being raped and choose to intervene, how am I supposed to do that without violence? Call the police? The police will use "necessary force" (yeah right) to detain anyone even suspected of a crime.
Which leads my next point. The death penalty. Obviously, this is where the issue is most apparent. There are vehement supporters on each side of the argument. Should the government have the power to dictate whether someone lives or dies? I think it depends on circumstance. If there is a murderer who has been convicted of killing an entire family, should that person be put to death? What if they've done it again and again? I would argue that it's much more humane to sentence someone to murder by the state than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives...I would much rather die than spend 25 years being cooped up and being stripped of my humanity.
Or how about euthanasia? I've said it often myself...I would rather be killed than survive in a vegetative state. I believe that if it is somebody's wish, then by all means we should be allowed to obey them. I mean, a Will is one of the most important documents that we can have - our last wishes, written down and carried out by someone of our choosing. This is a case of murder that is definitely justifiable - who are you to force me to live miserably if I just want to die?
One more example. Food. How many animals are slaughtered everyday for consumption? The number is beyond comprehension. But we have to eat right? Yes, maybe we could survive off of just plants (we do anyway....it's called the food chain), but we are omnivores by nature. Would you be pissed off at a lion for eating a gazelle? It is justifiable to kill for food, nobody will convince me differently. After all, plants are alive too...we can only eat things that we have to kill.
Anyway, I must go...but this is just some food for thought. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
First of all, I'll ask you to reserve judgement until the end of my post. As you know, I live in Halifax. Halifax has the highest unsolved murder rate (per capita of course) of anywhere in Canada. With all of the hoopla recently surrounding the gun violence in Halifax, which has resulted in two murders in two weeks. I'm also watching Oz, an old HBO TV show about a maximum security prison, so there is plenty of murder in it as well. The topic that I would like to address today is this - when, if ever, is homicide justifiable?
There seem to be two clear views on this issue - murder is murder and is therefore always unforgivable, or there are times when someone can be absolved of their deed.
When I think of what someone would have to do to me or my family for me to commit murder, it's not long before I can imagine a scenario. For example, in Oz, one prisoner has his son kidnap another prisoner's young children, one of whom is killed. If someone has kidnapped, tortured and murdered my child, you're damn right I'd murder them.
How about a person who has spent their entire existence selling drugs, robbing people, committing random acts of violence and causing suffering to the majority of people their life touches? Is this person a candidate for a justifiable homicide? This rope is a little bit tighter to walk, but is it a tragedy if there is nobody mourning? Interesting question.
I know what most of you are thinking. Murder is wrong...violence is wrong. Someone I brought this subject up to went so far as to say "There is never a time when murder, or violence of any type, is acceptable." So if I see a young girl being raped and choose to intervene, how am I supposed to do that without violence? Call the police? The police will use "necessary force" (yeah right) to detain anyone even suspected of a crime.
Which leads my next point. The death penalty. Obviously, this is where the issue is most apparent. There are vehement supporters on each side of the argument. Should the government have the power to dictate whether someone lives or dies? I think it depends on circumstance. If there is a murderer who has been convicted of killing an entire family, should that person be put to death? What if they've done it again and again? I would argue that it's much more humane to sentence someone to murder by the state than to incarcerate them for the rest of their lives...I would much rather die than spend 25 years being cooped up and being stripped of my humanity.
Or how about euthanasia? I've said it often myself...I would rather be killed than survive in a vegetative state. I believe that if it is somebody's wish, then by all means we should be allowed to obey them. I mean, a Will is one of the most important documents that we can have - our last wishes, written down and carried out by someone of our choosing. This is a case of murder that is definitely justifiable - who are you to force me to live miserably if I just want to die?
One more example. Food. How many animals are slaughtered everyday for consumption? The number is beyond comprehension. But we have to eat right? Yes, maybe we could survive off of just plants (we do anyway....it's called the food chain), but we are omnivores by nature. Would you be pissed off at a lion for eating a gazelle? It is justifiable to kill for food, nobody will convince me differently. After all, plants are alive too...we can only eat things that we have to kill.
Anyway, I must go...but this is just some food for thought. I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Peace and Love
The Critical Stranger
As always thoughts, comments and suggestions are encouraged and appreciated!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)