Grad student friends, do not take this personally, but I've begun to realize that many current grad students I know have, while in grad school, undergone a transformation towards a somewhat cold, aloof, detached, haughty demeanor, losing some ability to connect with people on a simple, warm level. I think some would insist that it's because their intelligence has exceeded the ignorant throngs who are unable to withstand that level of intellectual expansion and analytical prowess, but while I see some reason in that, I don't think that's the whole story.
I think too many find ideas they'd not considered and, because they're so new and different from how they've always thought, put far too much faith in those limited philosophies which are novel to them but have long since been assimilated, debated, and tempered by the whole of society and academia. Part of the reason I think this is because my friends and acquaintances who have entered graduate school a little later in life haven't undergone this transformation into a cold, jaded cynic nearly as much as those who have gone straight into graduate school in their early-to-mid twenties, at more impressionable, less experienced, more emotionally and intellectually volatile times in their lives.
Of course, there's also a difference between going into grad school for engineering or business and studying the humanities or social sciences, the latter of which are far more loaded with a particularly antireligious or relativistic sentiment and philosophy which tends to send people who previously believed in rigidly dogmatic belief systems into an intellectual tailspin or complete overhaul of sorts rather than integrating aspects of those philosophies into the defensible parts of their existing "world view". Of course, it could be argued the older folks are more set in their ways and less capable of abandoning their old paradigms, so it's not that they're more stable and able to synthesize disparate philosophies but that they're more crusty and closed-minded. But I suspect it's more the former. But I recognize that may be self-flattery, since I'm in the "older" camp. :-)
Anyway, my friends are all, of course, wonderful people who aren't soulless and cold and who care about ethical and productive living even if they don't subscribe to certain religious traditions of morality. Fear not, friends, I'm not saying you're awful people, though some of you show very minor signs of this aloofness disease. :-) I'm not "afraid" I'd become some monster if I went to grad school, but I'm just saying if I do go to grad school, I want to be careful not to confirm unnecessary stigmatization on the part of other people. ...or maybe I am a little afraid because I've seen this trend in myself in the past.
Um...I'm done thinking about this. I just got bored with it. If any of you are reading this, I'm surprised you didn't get bored with it in the first paragraph. Way to endure. :-)
29 March 2010
28 March 2010
22 March 2010
A Few Thoughts On Reform Reactions
1. I don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't read the massive bill. I don't know all of its nuances and legal loopholes. I can only go from what I've heard from news media (mostly NPR, Fox News, and CNN), a couple of friends in medical fields, a handful of friends who have had trouble finding medical care, and lots of friends and family who act like they know what they're talking about but who mostly get their information from specific news agencies and radio talk shows. Honestly, I haven't researched it that much. I am interested in the practicalities, but I'm more focused on the principles of government and economics.
2. Republicans and conservatives and whoever else doesn't like it can mitch and boan endlessly about how awful this is, but it's done. It's passed. Raise the caution flags if you feel obligated by your conscience to make sure we don't all blindly accept it and jump on a bandwagon to hell. Speak out about what must be done to remedy the situation. That's good and well and necessary. But for goodness' sake, set aside your bleeping need to sound indignant and incensed so that ten years from now, when the government surely is collapsing because of Obama, you can say, "See? I told you so!" Whine about how wrong it was if you must, but unless you're going to propose action to make it better, I'm sure there's something more productive you can do with your time, like researching solutions to the possible damage it will cause and electing representatives who will make the decisions you support, or spending quality time with a loved one or developing a talent or actually learning about the issues from both sides of the spectrum so you don't sound like a left- or right-wing talk show drone...or an ignorant, wishy washy moderate *sheepish shrug*.
3. I know that, for many of you who didn't support the bill, when you hear someone say, "At least it's something," you're thinking how ignorant and short-sighted that sounds, how lacking in wisdom and resigned to defeat. Let me try to articulate what I think many people mean when they say that: our government has been pretty gridlocked for some time. Republicans and Democrats refuse to truly cooperate and opt instead for power grabs and force. Republicans had many, many years to make meaningful change. They didn't. Democrats had a shot now. They did it. They didn't do it extremely well, nor did they do it ethically, as far as my nodding acquaintance can tell. But the thing I like most about the fact that they did it is that now the Republicans might be spurred into action, sparking actual progress unless both sides entrench and refuse cooperation. Goodness knows that if the American public is as unsure about this bill as the polls seem to indicate, this will actually help Republicans in the elections (probably their goal, at least subconsciously, in all their self-righteous soap-boxing), and competition can kick in to achieve some balance and whatever course correction is needed.
4. Would it have been better to hold off and find a better, more complete, less financially dicey, maybe more privatized solution? As far as I can tell, I'm pretty sure my response is "yes". But would that solution ever be reached if one side or the other didn't cram something through? Unfortunately, in today's political climate, I don't see it happening. That doesn't in any way justify cramming it through, if that's what was done, but if opponents of the bill will kindly get over themselves and get their posturing and grandstanding and damned self-righteous indignation out of the way (as if the disease of unethical and corrupt tactics is unique to the left) and get off their butts and do something about the problems they say are surely coming, I'd appreciate it. Dialog. Research. Elect ethical representatives. Whatever it takes. Maybe they'll take a lesson from this: if you don't do it yourself, someone else is going to do it their way, and you're probably not going to like it.
5. Democrats and Republicans, no matter how convinced you are that your righteous cause overrides the will of the people, if you again pull sh!# like even considering "deem and pass" on or cramming through such major legislation without clear public support, I am poised to personally come cut off your balls one by one, and maybe that'll tame you. Yes, that includes you, Pelosi.
2. Republicans and conservatives and whoever else doesn't like it can mitch and boan endlessly about how awful this is, but it's done. It's passed. Raise the caution flags if you feel obligated by your conscience to make sure we don't all blindly accept it and jump on a bandwagon to hell. Speak out about what must be done to remedy the situation. That's good and well and necessary. But for goodness' sake, set aside your bleeping need to sound indignant and incensed so that ten years from now, when the government surely is collapsing because of Obama, you can say, "See? I told you so!" Whine about how wrong it was if you must, but unless you're going to propose action to make it better, I'm sure there's something more productive you can do with your time, like researching solutions to the possible damage it will cause and electing representatives who will make the decisions you support, or spending quality time with a loved one or developing a talent or actually learning about the issues from both sides of the spectrum so you don't sound like a left- or right-wing talk show drone...or an ignorant, wishy washy moderate *sheepish shrug*.
3. I know that, for many of you who didn't support the bill, when you hear someone say, "At least it's something," you're thinking how ignorant and short-sighted that sounds, how lacking in wisdom and resigned to defeat. Let me try to articulate what I think many people mean when they say that: our government has been pretty gridlocked for some time. Republicans and Democrats refuse to truly cooperate and opt instead for power grabs and force. Republicans had many, many years to make meaningful change. They didn't. Democrats had a shot now. They did it. They didn't do it extremely well, nor did they do it ethically, as far as my nodding acquaintance can tell. But the thing I like most about the fact that they did it is that now the Republicans might be spurred into action, sparking actual progress unless both sides entrench and refuse cooperation. Goodness knows that if the American public is as unsure about this bill as the polls seem to indicate, this will actually help Republicans in the elections (probably their goal, at least subconsciously, in all their self-righteous soap-boxing), and competition can kick in to achieve some balance and whatever course correction is needed.
4. Would it have been better to hold off and find a better, more complete, less financially dicey, maybe more privatized solution? As far as I can tell, I'm pretty sure my response is "yes". But would that solution ever be reached if one side or the other didn't cram something through? Unfortunately, in today's political climate, I don't see it happening. That doesn't in any way justify cramming it through, if that's what was done, but if opponents of the bill will kindly get over themselves and get their posturing and grandstanding and damned self-righteous indignation out of the way (as if the disease of unethical and corrupt tactics is unique to the left) and get off their butts and do something about the problems they say are surely coming, I'd appreciate it. Dialog. Research. Elect ethical representatives. Whatever it takes. Maybe they'll take a lesson from this: if you don't do it yourself, someone else is going to do it their way, and you're probably not going to like it.
5. Democrats and Republicans, no matter how convinced you are that your righteous cause overrides the will of the people, if you again pull sh!# like even considering "deem and pass" on or cramming through such major legislation without clear public support, I am poised to personally come cut off your balls one by one, and maybe that'll tame you. Yes, that includes you, Pelosi.
21 March 2010
Racial And Sexual Slurs In More Than Word
A friend posted a link to a story about the amazingly abhorrent and ignorant actions of certain tea party protesters on Facebook today. There are many, many similar stories throughout the news media yesterday and today. I read the story and was absolutely amazed that people could be so idiotic...except that I know there are such people.
I haven't heard the word "nigger" used in a long time, but I have witnessed drive-by shoutings of "faggot!" now and then, usually by teenage or college-age asses who obviously have lives so uninteresting that yelling at strangers gives them a boost. I keep hoping one of them will get so distracted by their yelling that they'll hit something large and unyielding with their toolish sports car or pick-up truck and save the world from the proliferation of their genetic code and social upbringing. But so far that hasn't happened, so I just join most others on the street in regarding them as pathetic little boys and hope they have some redeeming qualities and will one day learn how ridiculous and extraordinarily stupid they'd been, and I move on with my life. We've all been stupid, we've all been jerks, and fortunately, most of us grow out of most of it. OK, so I'd rather they grow out of it and have a chance to learn the error of their thinking and behavior than smash into something.
So anyway, I know the reaction I have about that kind of behavior, and from the article above, it's clear many in the media and in the democratic party are similarly expressing disgust. It's also become a punching bag for decrying the supposed redneck bigotry of the Tea Party movement. I'm pretty sure most of the Tea Party folks are not racist, homophobic haters, but I must admit I cringed as I thought of the probable response to this from the right: cries of media bias and speculation that it was only one or two people shouting the slurs. As I searched for news results, I found an article I expected would be exactly that. It mostly was. But it's more firm in its denunciation of the slurs than I thought it would be, and the author points out that the coverage of the protests has focused almost exclusively on those shouts rather than the substance of what the majority of protesters were really there for: political demonstration and strength in (large) numbers. But I still have a problem with the title and with the fact that the article clearly deliberately attempts to steer attention from the bigoted shouts to media bias and to another random, isolated slur against the Tea Party folks.
Fortunately, other articles have surfaced today regarding Republican and Tea Party leader denunciation of the racial slurs. They're unequivocally stating their opposition to it. I don't have a TV at home, so I don't know if Fox News is whining about media bias and insisting the whole thing is being blown out of proportion, afraid to alienate their more bigoted watchers, but I hope they're not. Hopefully, they're reporting responsibly and not slapping wrists for gross bigotry while giving quiet, good-ol'-boy pats on the back for political ballsiness.
Think I'm completely out of line in supposing that happens, let alone among those who matter? What about Rep. Steve King's response in which he likens it to "a lot of places in this country that I couldn't walk through," as if two wrongs (assuming he's even right about his statement) make "I just don't think it's anything," or the justification offered by Rep. Devin Nunes? I think many liberals are taking his comments out of context and ranting overzealously, but really, Nunes? Even beginning to excuse those comments or blame the government for their behavior? I suppose you would, then, proclaim that U.S. foreign policy is to blame for the 9-11 attacks? I know you said the word "crazy" but not directly referring to these specific people. You then went on to say "smearing" (in no specific reference) is "not appropriate", then going right into a "but" about the left wing? Classy. I can see why you're in office.
I don't think for a moment racism is finished in this country. I happen to live in a place where it is, I believe, relatively rare, but I've heard some really ignorant and even vitriolic comments, around work and social events, about a prominent ethnic minority here. And I'm pretty sure it's nothing compared to some regions of the country where history and culture wars keep tensions high. I don't think, for a moment, homophobic bigotry and discrimination based on sexual orientation is finished in this country. With recent and upcoming political wars, understanding is sacrificed to battle cries and vilification. Of course, I also don't think religious discrimination is a thing of the past. Discrimination in all its forms is alive, probably kept in check both by law and by the decency of people who make the difficult effort to challenge their own paradigms and open their ears and hearts and minds.
We act shocked when someone yells "nigger" or "faggot", but I've witnessed people yelling those things not in those words but in their actions and attitudes. Some idiots in the Tea Party protests have yelled nasty words, and that cannot be excused and should be vehemently denounced. But they were, as far as I can tell, a small minority of the group, denounced by the party's leadership. And yes, there's been bigger news to focus on than that, with sweeping reform immediately underway, but I want to remember that acting incidentally indignant over these relatively few people who shouted nasty words is fine and well and might make me look good for a moment, but I'll try to remember my feelings about them the next time I'm talking about minority groups in my community or the politics around immigration or marriage or civil rights and try to make sure I'm not doing the same thing as those idiots in my speech and demeanor, just without using those particular words.
I haven't heard the word "nigger" used in a long time, but I have witnessed drive-by shoutings of "faggot!" now and then, usually by teenage or college-age asses who obviously have lives so uninteresting that yelling at strangers gives them a boost. I keep hoping one of them will get so distracted by their yelling that they'll hit something large and unyielding with their toolish sports car or pick-up truck and save the world from the proliferation of their genetic code and social upbringing. But so far that hasn't happened, so I just join most others on the street in regarding them as pathetic little boys and hope they have some redeeming qualities and will one day learn how ridiculous and extraordinarily stupid they'd been, and I move on with my life. We've all been stupid, we've all been jerks, and fortunately, most of us grow out of most of it. OK, so I'd rather they grow out of it and have a chance to learn the error of their thinking and behavior than smash into something.
So anyway, I know the reaction I have about that kind of behavior, and from the article above, it's clear many in the media and in the democratic party are similarly expressing disgust. It's also become a punching bag for decrying the supposed redneck bigotry of the Tea Party movement. I'm pretty sure most of the Tea Party folks are not racist, homophobic haters, but I must admit I cringed as I thought of the probable response to this from the right: cries of media bias and speculation that it was only one or two people shouting the slurs. As I searched for news results, I found an article I expected would be exactly that. It mostly was. But it's more firm in its denunciation of the slurs than I thought it would be, and the author points out that the coverage of the protests has focused almost exclusively on those shouts rather than the substance of what the majority of protesters were really there for: political demonstration and strength in (large) numbers. But I still have a problem with the title and with the fact that the article clearly deliberately attempts to steer attention from the bigoted shouts to media bias and to another random, isolated slur against the Tea Party folks.
Fortunately, other articles have surfaced today regarding Republican and Tea Party leader denunciation of the racial slurs. They're unequivocally stating their opposition to it. I don't have a TV at home, so I don't know if Fox News is whining about media bias and insisting the whole thing is being blown out of proportion, afraid to alienate their more bigoted watchers, but I hope they're not. Hopefully, they're reporting responsibly and not slapping wrists for gross bigotry while giving quiet, good-ol'-boy pats on the back for political ballsiness.
Think I'm completely out of line in supposing that happens, let alone among those who matter? What about Rep. Steve King's response in which he likens it to "a lot of places in this country that I couldn't walk through," as if two wrongs (assuming he's even right about his statement) make "I just don't think it's anything," or the justification offered by Rep. Devin Nunes? I think many liberals are taking his comments out of context and ranting overzealously, but really, Nunes? Even beginning to excuse those comments or blame the government for their behavior? I suppose you would, then, proclaim that U.S. foreign policy is to blame for the 9-11 attacks? I know you said the word "crazy" but not directly referring to these specific people. You then went on to say "smearing" (in no specific reference) is "not appropriate", then going right into a "but" about the left wing? Classy. I can see why you're in office.
I don't think for a moment racism is finished in this country. I happen to live in a place where it is, I believe, relatively rare, but I've heard some really ignorant and even vitriolic comments, around work and social events, about a prominent ethnic minority here. And I'm pretty sure it's nothing compared to some regions of the country where history and culture wars keep tensions high. I don't think, for a moment, homophobic bigotry and discrimination based on sexual orientation is finished in this country. With recent and upcoming political wars, understanding is sacrificed to battle cries and vilification. Of course, I also don't think religious discrimination is a thing of the past. Discrimination in all its forms is alive, probably kept in check both by law and by the decency of people who make the difficult effort to challenge their own paradigms and open their ears and hearts and minds.
We act shocked when someone yells "nigger" or "faggot", but I've witnessed people yelling those things not in those words but in their actions and attitudes. Some idiots in the Tea Party protests have yelled nasty words, and that cannot be excused and should be vehemently denounced. But they were, as far as I can tell, a small minority of the group, denounced by the party's leadership. And yes, there's been bigger news to focus on than that, with sweeping reform immediately underway, but I want to remember that acting incidentally indignant over these relatively few people who shouted nasty words is fine and well and might make me look good for a moment, but I'll try to remember my feelings about them the next time I'm talking about minority groups in my community or the politics around immigration or marriage or civil rights and try to make sure I'm not doing the same thing as those idiots in my speech and demeanor, just without using those particular words.
19 March 2010
Understandable
Important distinction I make in life: saying something is "understandable" is not the same as saying it's "OK" or "justified". Just sayin'...
16 March 2010
"Salt Lake: The Seedier Side"
One morning, I was walking down the oversaturated street in Salt Lake...
...and I saw a can on the ground that gave me an idea for a very Utah-style series of photos. ...maybe one day I'll get around to taking enough pics for such a series: "Salt Lake: the seedier side".
...and I saw a can on the ground that gave me an idea for a very Utah-style series of photos. ...maybe one day I'll get around to taking enough pics for such a series: "Salt Lake: the seedier side".
10 March 2010
When "Appropriate" Is Beyond Definition
A friend of mine recently posted, on Facebook, some photos he took at an old Nazi concentration camp. As far as I know, he's been really interested in the history around those camps and in the writings and theory of Victor Frankl regarding logotherapy. The photos are sensitively taken and beautiful. Which is what sparked this post. Despite some of those who suffered taking away what they could from the unimaginable suffering, whatever positive could be gleaned from a profoundly negative situation, how are you supposed to admire or give cute little electronic "thumbs ups" to photos of a place of horror and ultimate degradation of humanity? It doesn't feel right somehow, not even when considering the glimmers of enduring, indomitable humanity which came out of it.
It takes me back to a couple of years ago, when I toured Dachau. It's so hard to describe the mix of emotions one feels when approaching an old concentration camp, and it seemed trite to try when I was writing my blog entry about it, so I just kept it casual, which also seemed trite but at least not pandering or patronizing. The truth is that when you're standing in that place, there's nothing, no treatment or response that seems appropriate, nothing that seems respectful other than silence. Neither laughter nor excessive somberness seemed quite right or natural for me, for reasons I'll not try to describe here and now. Standing where it happened, it seemed disgustingly insufficient to say atrocities took place, ignorant or insensitive to speak of the positive way some dealt with it, cold and clinical to speak of the historical aspects of it. It even seemed almost hideous for me to be questioning or analyzing my own emotional reaction because to do so was to distract from and severely disrespect those whose experiences I was merely imagining.
It seems like only one who was there has any right to speak of what it must have been like to be there. Only one who lost their dearest loved ones there has any right to say what the personal impact was or how to deal with such situations. Most experiences in life are like that, I suppose, but with something of this magnitude, I just don't even know what to do with it. The more I try to articulate this, the more inadequate and fumbling it seems. I don't intend to disrespect or offend in doing so, but I recognize that even publishing this just doesn't seem completely appropriate in some ways...but what is?
Some lines from a scene from The Reader came to mind as all of these thoughts flashed through my mind today in response to seeing those photos my friend took. The scene is a conversation between a Jewish woman who survived the camps and a male friend of a former female SS guard who, along with her fellow guards, was tried for leaving many Jews locked in a burning building during evacuation of a camp. Upon her death, the former SS guard leaves money to this Jewish woman, and the male friend has come to deliver the money to her. During the course of the conversation, she says the following to him:
Upon entering Dachau, I had a very distinct, clear impression: the magnitude of the evil which shadowed it was beyond my comprehension, and no "lessons" should ever have to be learned in a way even remotely approaching it. I experienced a strange dissonance between my desire to "make it real" and never forget and my desire to respect the dead by not gawking like a tourist at such...sacred?...hallowed?...evil?...haunted?...ground. I thought of having read about the holocaust and "learning lessons" from the experiences I read about, and being there on that ground, it seemed so utterly trifling to even think about "lessons learned". Standing in the camp, imagining the terrible situation and incomprehensible magnitude of the lives affected there, even trying to be sensitive to the shadows of the past and the lives which ended or were permanently scarred, even looking on a sculptural monument to their memory, I couldn't help but question whether I should even be there in the first place, whether anyone not directly connected or affected had any right setting foot there. But then, to forbid it would be to keep it from becoming real to people for whom it might not otherwise.
I do think the camp was respectfully managed, not some sort of voyeuristic tourist trap. And I certainly wouldn't tell people they shouldn't go. I think they should, if only to let the reality of the past sink in for themselves, as much as visiting the shadows can do. I still question my reaction, my dissonance of conscience. But there are no words. There's nothing that's not trite. In order for words not to be hollow and disrespectful, it seems they must be spoken on a historical basis, which has its time and place, but analyzing the historical ramifications and "lessons" of it while standing where it took place seems callous and inhumane, wildly inappropriate in the face of their lives and memories... It's difficult to describe. The only place I've heard similar thoughts expressed is in the movie The History Boys, where two professors (T1 and T2) of differing instruction styles and a group of students (S1-S6) are all sitting together:
All that said, after my long-winded attempt to explain my thoughts, I'm back to sensing that there are just some things for which...there are no words. They must be experienced to be known, whether or not they are understood. Those things are sacred in their own way.
It takes me back to a couple of years ago, when I toured Dachau. It's so hard to describe the mix of emotions one feels when approaching an old concentration camp, and it seemed trite to try when I was writing my blog entry about it, so I just kept it casual, which also seemed trite but at least not pandering or patronizing. The truth is that when you're standing in that place, there's nothing, no treatment or response that seems appropriate, nothing that seems respectful other than silence. Neither laughter nor excessive somberness seemed quite right or natural for me, for reasons I'll not try to describe here and now. Standing where it happened, it seemed disgustingly insufficient to say atrocities took place, ignorant or insensitive to speak of the positive way some dealt with it, cold and clinical to speak of the historical aspects of it. It even seemed almost hideous for me to be questioning or analyzing my own emotional reaction because to do so was to distract from and severely disrespect those whose experiences I was merely imagining.
It seems like only one who was there has any right to speak of what it must have been like to be there. Only one who lost their dearest loved ones there has any right to say what the personal impact was or how to deal with such situations. Most experiences in life are like that, I suppose, but with something of this magnitude, I just don't even know what to do with it. The more I try to articulate this, the more inadequate and fumbling it seems. I don't intend to disrespect or offend in doing so, but I recognize that even publishing this just doesn't seem completely appropriate in some ways...but what is?
Some lines from a scene from The Reader came to mind as all of these thoughts flashed through my mind today in response to seeing those photos my friend took. The scene is a conversation between a Jewish woman who survived the camps and a male friend of a former female SS guard who, along with her fellow guards, was tried for leaving many Jews locked in a burning building during evacuation of a camp. Upon her death, the former SS guard leaves money to this Jewish woman, and the male friend has come to deliver the money to her. During the course of the conversation, she says the following to him:
"I'm not sure I can help you, Mr. Berg. Or rather, even if I could I'm not willing to.
...
People ask all the time what I learned in the camps. But the camps weren't therapy. What do you think these places were? Universities? We didn't go there to learn. One becomes very clear about these things.
...
What are you asking for? Forgiveness for her? Or do you just want to feel better yourself? My advice, go to the theatre, if you want catharsis. Please. Go to literature. Don't go to the camps. Nothing comes out of the camps. Nothing.
...
There's nothing I can do with this money. If I give it to anything associated with the extermination of the Jews, then to me it will seem like absolution and that is something I'm neither willing nor in a position to grant."
Upon entering Dachau, I had a very distinct, clear impression: the magnitude of the evil which shadowed it was beyond my comprehension, and no "lessons" should ever have to be learned in a way even remotely approaching it. I experienced a strange dissonance between my desire to "make it real" and never forget and my desire to respect the dead by not gawking like a tourist at such...sacred?...hallowed?...evil?...haunted?...ground. I thought of having read about the holocaust and "learning lessons" from the experiences I read about, and being there on that ground, it seemed so utterly trifling to even think about "lessons learned". Standing in the camp, imagining the terrible situation and incomprehensible magnitude of the lives affected there, even trying to be sensitive to the shadows of the past and the lives which ended or were permanently scarred, even looking on a sculptural monument to their memory, I couldn't help but question whether I should even be there in the first place, whether anyone not directly connected or affected had any right setting foot there. But then, to forbid it would be to keep it from becoming real to people for whom it might not otherwise.
I do think the camp was respectfully managed, not some sort of voyeuristic tourist trap. And I certainly wouldn't tell people they shouldn't go. I think they should, if only to let the reality of the past sink in for themselves, as much as visiting the shadows can do. I still question my reaction, my dissonance of conscience. But there are no words. There's nothing that's not trite. In order for words not to be hollow and disrespectful, it seems they must be spoken on a historical basis, which has its time and place, but analyzing the historical ramifications and "lessons" of it while standing where it took place seems callous and inhumane, wildly inappropriate in the face of their lives and memories... It's difficult to describe. The only place I've heard similar thoughts expressed is in the movie The History Boys, where two professors (T1 and T2) of differing instruction styles and a group of students (S1-S6) are all sitting together:
T1: I thought we might talk about the Holocaust.
T2: Good gracious! How can you teach the Holocaust?
T1: That would do as a question. Can you, should you, teach the Holocaust? Anybody? Come on.
S1: It has origins, it has consequences. It's a subject like any other.
S2: Not like any other, surely. Not like any other at all.
S1: No, but it's a topic.
T2: They go on school trips there nowadays, don't they? Auschwitz, Dachau. What's always concerned me is where do they have their sandwiches, drink their Cokes?
S3: The visitors' centre. It's like anywhere else.
T2: Yeah, but do they take pictures of each other there? Are they smiling? Do they hold hands? Nothing is appropriate.
S1: What if you were to write this was so far beyond one's experience, silence is the only proper response?
S4: Mr Hector's answer to lots of questions, though, wouldn't it, sir?
T2: Er, yes. Yes, Dakin, it is.
S4: "Whereof one cannot speak,thereof one must be silent." That's right, isn't it, sir? Wittgenstein.
T1: Yes, that's good.
T2: No, it's not good. It's flip, it's glib, it's journalism.
S4: It's you that taught us it.
T2: I didn't teach you. And Wittgenstein did not screw it out of his very guts
(stutters) in order for you to turn it into a dinky formula. Why can't we simply just condemn the camps outright as an unprecedented horror?
S3: There's no point, sir. Everybody will do that. "The camp's an event unlike any other." "The evil unprecedented." Et cetera, et cetera.
T2: No! Can't you see that even to say "et cetera" is... monstrous? "Et cetera" is what the Nazis would have said. The dead reduced to mere verbal abbreviation.
S3: All right, not et cetera. But given that the death camps are generally thought of as unique, wouldn't another approach be to show precedents? Put them, well, in proportion.
S2: Proportion?!
S4: Not proportion, then, but putting them in context.
S5: But to put something in context is a step towards saying it can be understood and explained. And if it can be explained, then it can be explained away.
S6: Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.
T1: That's good, Posner.
S5: It isn't good! I mean it, sir.
S4: But when we talk about putting them in context, it's only the same as the dissolution of the monasteries. After all, monasteries had been dissolved before Henry VIII, dozens of them.
S5: Yes, but the difference is I didn't lose any relatives in the dissolution of the monasteries.
T1: Good point.
S2: You keep saying, "good point". Not 'good point', sir. True! To you, th-the Holocaust is just another topic on which we may or may not get a question.
T1: No! No! But this is history. Distance yourselves. Our perspective on the past alters. And looking back, immediately in front of us is dead ground - we don't see it. And because we don't see it, this means there is no period so remote as the recent past. And one of the historian's jobs is to anticipate what our perspective of that period will be. Even on the Holocaust.
(bell rings)
All that said, after my long-winded attempt to explain my thoughts, I'm back to sensing that there are just some things for which...there are no words. They must be experienced to be known, whether or not they are understood. Those things are sacred in their own way.
08 March 2010
Alone at Smitty's
I had brunch/lunch with a friend at Smitty's on Broadway...that's in Idaho Falls. During the course of lunch, I noticed the clientele was mostly decidedly higher in age than myself. There were groups and couples of elderly people, and a few pairings of friends. And then there was the fellow who sort of hobbled in and was greeted by name enthusiastically by the hostess, who asked him which of the girls he'd like to serve him today. I smiled wryly.
Then there was the elderly woman sitting at a table by herself. She smiled when speaking with her server, and when she was just sitting there, she just looked...quiet. She seemed like a regular from my casual observation. I wondered if this was part of her daily or Monday routine. No wedding ring, I wondered if she at least had family or friends in the area. Perhaps she did have friends and family and generally saw them a few times a week, and this just happened to be one of the few times she had to herself to enjoy a peaceful meal. But she had a sort of resigned look about her which I couldn't help but wonder about. Was she lonely? Was this what her social interaction was like? Did she live alone and go to the diner as her way of being around people? Did she look around the room at the happy groupings of people connecting and laughing together and push away feelings of loneliness? Had she been single all her life and was all-too-familiar with loneliness, numb by now? I chose to stop wondering because I didn't know what I could do even if she was lonely, and I didn't want to speculate.
But one thing I do know: when I talk to people who are lonely, or when I see people I know don't have family or friends, especially elderly people spending the sunset of their lives alone, my heart aches so much, and I wish I could do something to help them. There are few things that tug at my ol' heart strings more than people genuinely feeling unloved or unlovable or resigning themselves to life without meaningful connection. I know I can't fill the void or fix a lifetime of neglect of or ineptitude in relationships. I don't feel responsible for anyone's happiness, and I know those who care about me wouldn't want me feeling obligated or tied down on their account, but I want to do what I can to keep anyone I care about from being utterly lonely or just having nobody to go to lunch or dinner with.
Then there was the elderly woman sitting at a table by herself. She smiled when speaking with her server, and when she was just sitting there, she just looked...quiet. She seemed like a regular from my casual observation. I wondered if this was part of her daily or Monday routine. No wedding ring, I wondered if she at least had family or friends in the area. Perhaps she did have friends and family and generally saw them a few times a week, and this just happened to be one of the few times she had to herself to enjoy a peaceful meal. But she had a sort of resigned look about her which I couldn't help but wonder about. Was she lonely? Was this what her social interaction was like? Did she live alone and go to the diner as her way of being around people? Did she look around the room at the happy groupings of people connecting and laughing together and push away feelings of loneliness? Had she been single all her life and was all-too-familiar with loneliness, numb by now? I chose to stop wondering because I didn't know what I could do even if she was lonely, and I didn't want to speculate.
But one thing I do know: when I talk to people who are lonely, or when I see people I know don't have family or friends, especially elderly people spending the sunset of their lives alone, my heart aches so much, and I wish I could do something to help them. There are few things that tug at my ol' heart strings more than people genuinely feeling unloved or unlovable or resigning themselves to life without meaningful connection. I know I can't fill the void or fix a lifetime of neglect of or ineptitude in relationships. I don't feel responsible for anyone's happiness, and I know those who care about me wouldn't want me feeling obligated or tied down on their account, but I want to do what I can to keep anyone I care about from being utterly lonely or just having nobody to go to lunch or dinner with.
07 March 2010
Tidbits About Me
While I believe there's a time and place to practice discretion, I don't have any qualms about talking about the bathroom, or letting you know I'm going to use it. I might even tell you which number. And I don't understand why so many people can't handle any form of discussion connected to the most basic reality that everyone poops.
On a related note, in order to feel really intimate with someone, we're going to have to be able to fart in front of each other. If you can't eventually fart freely around me, we're probably not going to be super close, but we can still be friends.
On a related note, in order to feel really intimate with someone, we're going to have to be able to fart in front of each other. If you can't eventually fart freely around me, we're probably not going to be super close, but we can still be friends.
Sister-In-Law Is Right About Anchovies
...they do swim all over the pizza even if they were only put on half.
...but I'll add my additional theory: they only swim when nobody's looking. If you eat a pizza, half with anchovies, at the restaurant, the non-anchovy half might be OK because the anchovies have been watched and could therefore not commit their acts of flagrancy. But as soon as a box lid closes over them, and nobody can witness their misbehavior, they're swimming all over the blasted pizza, tainting everything in their path. Nasty, fuzzy, swimming anchovies. She was so right about them.
...but I'll add my additional theory: they only swim when nobody's looking. If you eat a pizza, half with anchovies, at the restaurant, the non-anchovy half might be OK because the anchovies have been watched and could therefore not commit their acts of flagrancy. But as soon as a box lid closes over them, and nobody can witness their misbehavior, they're swimming all over the blasted pizza, tainting everything in their path. Nasty, fuzzy, swimming anchovies. She was so right about them.
04 March 2010
Do You Know What It's Like?
Sometimes, cheesy musicals make people cry unexpectedly. Or maybe just me. Tonight, I was reminded of such a musical I saw last year in Seattle: Zanna Don't. I enjoyed it much more than I expected I would, but I'm not going to post music from it because to be honest, I don't think it's especially...great, but it's one of those things that works in context, and there's one part in particular that got me: yes, I got all teary. I was so surprised to hear my thoughts articulated in a way I hadn't ever heard from anyone else that it was kind of like a sucker punch to the gut, sending me right back into that situation:
It may be that you have to truly sympathize with those lyrics to understand my reaction as this was sung to a character who had just expressed their love and the pain and difficulty of coming to terms with it not being fully returned. But even tonight, as I read them for the first time in many months, it choked me up a bit because I couldn't help but go back to when that was all fresh, when I didn't know what to say, felt so confused about what I was and was not feeling, and wondered how many I'd end up so caring for but hurting in the end. Fortunately, the one or two I'd have said this to, if I'd known how to say it, have found happiness with others since, and I'm genuinely happy for them. Looking back, even though my story is still unclear, and I don't believe all similar situations must have the same outcome, I'm glad things have worked out the way they have. But it still "gets me", stupid sappy musical. Good thing the musical didn't take itself too seriously and went right back into silliness right after this song, or I would probably resent it and never admit to its ability to elicit an emotional response. :-)
Do you know what it's like
Not to be in love with you,
Not to have my heart obey
What my mind wants to be true?
Do you know what it's like
Not to be in love with you,
But to like you, love you, cherish you,
idolize you and protect you?
Do you know what it's like to look into your eyes
And see what I know you don't see in mine
Though I pray it might be so the whole night through?
Do you know what it's like
to have to let go of your hand
and to start another life, a life I don't understand,
and live the rest of my life knowing how much I've hurt you?
Oh, do you know?
It may be that you have to truly sympathize with those lyrics to understand my reaction as this was sung to a character who had just expressed their love and the pain and difficulty of coming to terms with it not being fully returned. But even tonight, as I read them for the first time in many months, it choked me up a bit because I couldn't help but go back to when that was all fresh, when I didn't know what to say, felt so confused about what I was and was not feeling, and wondered how many I'd end up so caring for but hurting in the end. Fortunately, the one or two I'd have said this to, if I'd known how to say it, have found happiness with others since, and I'm genuinely happy for them. Looking back, even though my story is still unclear, and I don't believe all similar situations must have the same outcome, I'm glad things have worked out the way they have. But it still "gets me", stupid sappy musical. Good thing the musical didn't take itself too seriously and went right back into silliness right after this song, or I would probably resent it and never admit to its ability to elicit an emotional response. :-)
03 March 2010
Word of Caution to Republicans
Wanna see a country ripe for socialism? Elect gun-waving, rightwing, "yee-haw" good ol' boys (or gals) to the White House as some sort of retribution in backlash of the Obamanation. After four years of that, Obama could look positively moderate, and the door will be wide open. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)