if....

Many things have happened of late, least of which is graduating from law school. In a retrospective analysis, I think most of my goals have been met from the process.

I came in because I wanted to change the world - to make it a better place. I've definitely left with a deeper understanding of that goal. The most difficult lesson I've learned is that change is slow and difficult. Why? Because most people believe it has to be slow and difficult.

Part of facing the daunting task of change is figuring out where to start and what to end up with. There are many people out there with a clear picture, but the goal starts to look bigger and bigger each time one looks at it. The end result is a behemoth that some tackle with zeal.

However, most people look at the monster in front of them and start to slow down because they think change must be slower because they've always been told change is slow. Then, various side issues in life start to come into play, and tackling that monster seems to be more of a long term goal rather than something that delves into it.

The problem is that so many people think that this is okay, so not much gets done. This goes back a bit towards what one of my friends refers to as micro-change. He views change as being something that takes place on the individual and community level, eventually resulting in a global, aggregate shift towards some positive end.

I don't think the world is that simple. Change can be made on the individual and local level, but not everyone follows in that path. The result is a termination by some physical or social boundary.

Change must be drastic and breaking. It has to jar people from their traditional mindset and challenge their views. They must analyze and reconcile.

Strangely enough, this has melded well with a film I just saw. I've recently delved back into film a bit more seriously now that I force myself to stop studying at a certain point each day since I need to retain information for the California bar.

I just finished watching if...., which has Malcom McDowell. It delves into some issues of rebellion and revolution, but in a much more destructive way that is necessary. However, it highlights a key misconception of revolution needing to be purely destructive and violent.

Especially in figuring out what step to take now that I have another degree as a tool, I've come to understand that change doesn't have to destroy everything or even most things. Instead, change simply needs to come from outside of the system.

That right there - change from outside of the system - is where I think most people fail. In trying to prepare themselves for the next step, people find themselves as part of the system, continually preparing themselves for that revolutionary moment. Others believe in working within the system to make the micro-change that eventually has a macro-effect.

But aren't both of these failings? A system usually has a difficult time reforming itself. History has few, if any, examples of a contained culture that internally regulated. There has always been some external catalyst that pushed everything to a completely new level.

I'm left with a variety of career options that I've got to explore with the understanding that the people I will most likely work for will assign me a role in the system. Do I play along as a prepare myself for the next step? Or do stick to some "pure act" and stay outside the system to maximize my impact?

Leaving law school, I'm definitely more idealistic, but I'm also more pragmatic. I'm definitely not the same person I was when entering school. The changes have magnified those core philosophies in my life. The result is that each of those sides produce a stronger battle in each big decision I make.

Options, experience, and passion don't make choices easier. They make them more difficult because there is a deeper understanding of what those choices mean and bring. These days, an uprising of any sort doesn't seem so grand.

The Answer is Blowin' in the Wind

The world is connected in convoluted and insightful ways. The individual filaments that comprise its whole are woven together in an indescribable pattern. To appreciate it, you must see enough to simply understand that it exists.

The beauty captured in the stitch is elusive, requiring a constant and active search. For the past several months, I don't think I have been trying to look for it. I was silent because I couldn't ask the right questions that the world could answer.

I've started to understand why Mary Schmich stated in her column (transformed by Baz Luhrmann into song form) "Advice, like youth, probably just wasted on the young", that you can live somewhere, but "leave before it makes you soft." I think I need to pay attention in some form or another to those words.

This city is wonderful city. It has music, a politically active community, and a combination of many different cultures. These things don't stifle the search for a pattern, but a preoccupation with them does. Aldous Huxley explained the situation well in Brave New World, where Helmholtz Watson expresses the need to go somewhere similar to the Falkland Islands so that his creative side had a chance to unfurl against the stresses of nature.

Sometimes, if you are lucky, creative nature comes to you. The past several months have brought viewings of The Wrestler, Redbelt; readings and re-rereadings of Watchmen and Peresopolis; and an attendance to the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States (I did go to the freezing nature in this case, but the tickets came to me).

I feel urged to look through the lens of a post-September 11 world. Since the crashes, there has been an obsession with heroes. First, it was firefighters and the police. Then, it was the victims of domestic terrorism. But as we moved further away from being victimized individually and our government took over the responsibility of defending our society, I think we as individuals never recovered. Instead of relaxing under the protective umbrella of government, people huddled in fear of a drop of what seemed like terrorism, foreign extremism, international anti-American sentiment, and now economic failure.

The Dark Knight, Watchmen, the Spider-Man series, Hancock (check out the numbers on that one...), the Matrix sequels - all of these films focus on individuals not empowering themselves. Rather, select individuals take on a role to save the weak masses. They become people operating outside of the law, doing that which needs to be done without the restraints of a mundane daily life.

I believe film reflects society. There are smart people in Hollywood, and they know how to play to the crowd's wants and needs. But even if you don't buy the film argument, look at the resurgence of superhero comics. Comic Con has been swarmed the last few years, with people no longer able to buy tickets on-site. Television is going the same way, with shows that start with regular people that are given powers to deal with their lives. Even the many crime shows play on this theme, featuring police that aren't afraid to bend the law to their needs.

The scary part is where this translates over into the political world. Obama seems to be idealized as the savior of American society, the super-man of government. Washington, D.C. was filled with mindless drones at the inauguration, putting all of their hope and energy into our new President. But recent trends, such as the relabeling of detainees and the support of the state secrets argument, beg the now age-old question - who watches the watchmen?

We have the players, we have the problems, but where are the solutions? I think Obama tried to hint at one in his inaugural speech based on responsibility. We must hold ourselves accountable. But Obama himself is far from the words of President Harry S. Truman: "The buck stops here."

I think that the idealism of responsibility can be dangerous. Where do we draw the line as to for what we are responsible? Do we hold it to ourselves solely and completely, singing Sweet Child O' Mine to the end? Do we hold ourselves accountable for all of society in a utilitarian philosophy, telling future generations to "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair"? Where is the middle ground, and is that ground acceptable?

I think Marjane Satrapi's Peresopolis starts to approach an answer. Our ideals, of responsibility or otherwise, will collide with the world. There is a great cost to maintaining ourselves in the ensuing struggle. Some things can can anchor us pragmatically, like family or friends, providing a framework to balance who we need to be with for what we need to be responsible.

Should the price paid hold us back? I don't think the cost of holding ourselves responsible is ever too high. That shifts the burden to the mythical hero and leads to a mentality of helplessness. We are accountable to ourselves for ourselves. Beyond that, for what are we responsible? To limit responsibility to one's self allows for subjectivism to destroy all benefits of being responsible in a world with other people. Holding to our own path in life shows an integrity to something, but nothing more.

Compromise. It always comes down to that - balancing the ends and the means or choosing one over the other. To each their own? All I know is that I'm finally able to ask the questions again.

Through the Night

There are very few good romance films that are big releases in the United States these days. The instant reference I get when I bring up the subject is often The Notebook. It's sad that this movie is actually considered of any worth since it is boring, dry, and predictable. I know that much because I've watched the first 30 minutes three times and have repeatedly stopped the movie at that point for fear I would lapse into a permanent coma.

When I think of excellent romance films, I somehow always run over the bump of Somewhere In Time. The film brings out a forlorn contemplation, tearing away possibilities and replacing them with moribund reality. Strangely enough, the feeling is similar to those last few minutes of 12 Monkey's or Infernal Affairs, tearing our whatever emotion lies inside of you and leaving nothing but a void.

The theme that binds these films focuses on a failure to escape a world constantly pursuing the main character(s). However, in each situation, the situation is one that is chosen - not forced upon them.

Maybe that is why the films are so devastating - they are tragedies in which the characters try to fight a destiny they can feel pulling them deeper and deeper. Self-destruction is far more complete when a person knowingly walks along a path towards it because it is the only choice that can be fathomed.

In that same step, idealism has to be followed through with, despite its obvious failings. Choices must be made in the belief that something good will come of them, otherwise there is no point in moving forward. That step forward, into danger, is what generates hope.

People seem to forget that pushing forward always involves risk. The massive potential for change can only be present because of the darkness of the current situation. The question needs to be placed in the context of what can be lost, not what can be gained. Importance lies in how great the cost is to us and the decisions we make to avoid or minimize that cost.

Placed, in a more concrete example of this election, we face dangers abroad and at home. Fundamentalist religious revivals, declining standards of freedom, increased militaristic tensions, and a precarious global finance and trading market are elements of the day. To see the world plummet downwards from any or all of these is a great cost to bear.

This places the United States at a critical decision point, between McCain and Obama. Both have promised to lead America forward through the darkness. Because of this promise, both must be evaluated in terms of the cost that we face in the future, not the benefit that either may bring. Which candidate can minimize or maybe even avoid the exploding costs of healthcare, social security, poverty, education, military casualties, international instability, worker exploitation and genocide?

There is an excellent quote from Batman: The Dark Knight, where Harvey Dent states optimistically, "The night is darkest just before the dawn." So many people forget that after the dawn the night will come again. Our path out of darkness will be a path into darkness once again.

The rhetoric of the presidential candidates reflects a benefit-analysis, primarily to set the bar low. They characterize themselves as agents of change, deviating from the path that America, not only our President, has chosen for the past two terms. In doing so, both Obama and McCain argue to try to address the present and future costs, but are unwilling to go so far as to say they will solve for them.

The resulting resolve is one that compromised both politicians. Voters admired each of these men for characteristics they thought would help deal with the travails ahead. In response, Obama handed over the idealism of a radical candidate that pushed him so far though the Democratic party. McCain let got of much of his lauded honesty and ethics in selecting his vice-presidential candidate and recent endorsement of smear campaigning.

Done to reduce expectations and increase mainstream support, both candidates established a message that they would try to address the costs - that they would change the current political scene of the United States. But the political scene isn't the problem, it's the impacts of the political scene. When you distill the message of each candidate, we are left with a promise to try to change the costs.

"Do or do not - there is no try," said Yoda. If failure isn't an option, why do our proposed leaders hold themselves back in fear of it? Lead us forwards or don't lead us - failure is not an option.

This Little Flame of Mine

Yesterday was one of those days in which several seemingly unrelated events occurred. Slowly, as the day progressed, a pattern started to emerge as new occurrences continued the thoughts of previous ones. Finally, by 11:30 PM everything clicked together in a shiny, colorfully wrapped package suitable for all audiences.

I decided to break with my nocturnal ways and woke up at the forsaken hour of 10 AM. My sociology professor required a chapter of reading before class, and I had been fairly distracted the night before, exploring the various solitary late-night joys of my town. The subject matter of the reading was post-Cold War sociological modeling - indicating how each of the former models failed and that a civilization-based model provided an excellent basis for analysis. None of this material was new, since this first chapter of reading was simply summarizing the material I had learned in an introductory class from the same professor.

However, right after my required reading, I decided to read the news. I happened across several prominent stories. From my last posting, you understand my lamentations over the failures of the press to correctly emphasize that which is important. Today they did a bit better, with The New York Times and The Washington Post both providing good coverage of the travels of the Olympic torch across France.

Apparently, the torch has already gone out several times, due to unprecedented protests along the elected path. Several people commented on the incredible organization and violence of these protests, unlike those of previous Games wherein a very small group of protesters deemed it necessary to act. The focus of these protests are to signify the dissatisfaction over China's human rights, especially those in the cases of Tibet and Darfur. I assume Darfur seeing as it has been a long term issue, while the articles I linked above specify only Tibet.

Protesters have been arrested after fairly aggressive actions. On the sinistro hand, I do laud the sentiment of protesting something which one finds to be morally repugnant. On the other hand, the violence of such actions is also repugnant. Either way, such actions are occurring and are a clear statement of ill will towards the Beijing Games.

At this point, I got ready for class and ate breakfast. I skipped eating my Patriot Flakes, substituting them for a hippie Cliff Bar. This may have been my problem, the results of my day rooted in a severe jingoistic deficiency.

The lecture hit a major point in discussing the classification of China in present day society. It could be considered as a semi-peripheral country, having a large workforce and developed industrial market, with a large natural resource market. This is partially at odds with China's political power, as it has a seat on the U.N. Security Council and greatly influences foreign policy domestically and abroad. China can maintain this structure since it is an economic dependency for many countries - exerting political control through the sheer breadth of its economy. The money appears! Of course, all we need to do is follow Detective Lester Freamon's suggestion and "follow the money".

The lecture eventually came to a halt, without any questions over two hours because I go to school with the willfully ignorant. Our tax dollars at waste. The insightful person that first observed that "the children are our future" must have also believed in conscious societal suicide. Case and point - SPQR. By this time, I'm guessing that most people have stopped reading or are just skimming for the keywords.

I rushed to catch the bus home and started up an episode of Boston Legal while I ate my lunch, an episode that happened to involve a major plot line about a man attempting to sue the U.S. government for its policy of positive inaction towards Sudan.

The Sudanese government, based in Khartoum, provides weapons and supplies to the Janjaweed, who are slaughtering the ethnic Africans of Darfur without any international hindrance. Khartoum, a Muslim government, simply restricted A.U. action to that of observation and rejected any and all U.N. action.

Where does Khartoum get the weapons and supplies given to the Janjaweed? From China, which provides Khartoum with money, weapons, and supplies in exchange for access to their natural resources, specifically oil. Follow the money.

The worst part about the genocide in Darfur is that everyone knows about it and doesn't act. The legal case in the Boston Legal episode was created to generate media exposure. Sadly, the writers of the show were blunt about the situation, explicitly stating that there had been much media coverage of the events in Darfur and the result was simple - the American public decided it didn't care about genocide in Africa.

China is using the 2008 Olympics to develop its positive image of globalization and good will. As a result, many people, seeing the disparity between the Olympic ideals and China's support of genocide in Darfur and continued human rights abuses in Tibet, refuse to idly and ignorantly support the Beijing Games. Even mainstream politicians are removing their support, such as Hillary Clinton who has called for Bush to boycott the Opening Ceremonies in line with her strong track record of acknowledging the genocide in Darfur.

With all of this in my head, I decided to go see Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who! While I don't want to give away the plot line, it resounds with any idealistic movement or unheard group battling against the pragmatism of, in the case of the film, the jungle. In short, although this post has been anything but, I saw the people of Whoville as the slaughtered of Darfur. Being partly geared towards children, the movie ends in song and dance. I hope to whatever deity that any of you believe in that the real situation does not meet a similar fate.

However, the pragmatist within me expects the U.S. to utter the ubiquitous "Denny Crane" and simply wash away the issue of Darfur as belonging to a remote other. We have to deal with our own urban genocides before we can solve problems abroad, because urban violence and decay are not deeply rooted, systemic problems. We can solve all of these problems by simply increasing the number of police on the streets. It is so easy - I can't imagine why no one thought of this before!

Yes, I agree, this is not an American problem at the moment. It is problem for the entire human race.