The Path To Salvation Is hard

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I stepped away from reading news. I don't mean that I just decreased what I read. For over two whole months, I did not absorb any significant news.

Part of it was due to increased focus on the bar exam, but most of it was a conscious effort to walk away from the world for a bit and hide in my lair. In that time, I moved in with roommates, read several books, built a computer, played lots of computer games, and generally embraced a selfish style of life. Knowing myself, it wasn't enough for me, particularly after reading "The Razor's Edge" by Maugham.

I read "The Idiot" by Dostoyevsky a while back, and Maugham's work brought back what I found to be the essence of Dostoyevsky's Prince Myshkin. For those who haven't read "The Idiot", Myshkin is an epileptic that was raised far away from his native Russia. His way of thinking and interacting with others are thought to be naive and like that of an idiot.  However, Myshkin acts with a thoughtfulness, respect, and kindness that others just cannot comprehend, branding him an outcast in a society that wishes to embrace it's convoluted, self-interested ways.

Maugham's Larry Darrell is a similar character - a messianic figure of sorts that showed a different way of life that conflicted with society. Darrell has the chance to embrace a life of wealth and happiness with a childhood love, but runs away from it in search of self-discovery. By no means is he selfish. Instead, he helps all of those he encounters. He simply walks away from a life of materialistic comfort to seek a life of spiritual peace.

With school over and choices ahead of me, I've been able to think a bit about what path I want to take. Most people I know are content to ride along a standard path that so many people equate with success - a job, a house, a stable relationship. I find it hard to accept that this is all there is after decades of education where we have been given the chance to expand our minds to utilize tools to which most in the world will never have access.

In fact, I can say it would be a failure of potential and responsibility at this point to simply progress forward on that common, obvious track. Frost's poem "The Road Not Taken" hints that the road less traveled will be more interesting, but it will also be fraught with struggle and confusion. There may be no success at the end, but unlike many others, we have the tools to embark upon that path.

For the first time in my life, I can say that the path ahead of me isn't clear. Worst of all, I'm starting to realize that it's not going to be an easy one. It's not about finding a job or paying rent, but it's about pursuing a responsibility that can't be put aside in the name of simplicity, comfort, and ease.

In this mindset, I started to pay attention to the world around me several days ago. I gently started to read, think, and write. In reading, I realize that the world has become a more confusing place in the few months I've been away. Then again, that is the way of the world. It stops for no one.

In some ways, it was appropriate that I started to enter the world again on the tenth anniversary of the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001. I remember waking up to the a description of the World Trade Center being hit by planes. I watched as the Pentagon burned from the plane that crashed into it. But, as always, life went on.

I wish I could say this is where the U.S. dealt with adversity, conquered it's enemy, and made the world a safer place. But the world stops for no one, and the world got to be a more confusing place.

As I read through what goes on today, I realize that we have embraced a world of fear. We act because we fear poverty, terrorism, unemployment, government, or solitude. When I talk to those around me, I realize we don't have hope anymore. No one talks honestly of a brighter tomorrow that is safe, comfortable, and peaceful. Instead, there is simply living in the present because the future is just ahead of us, inevitably bringing it's consequences of success and failure. We accept the future for what it is, embracing that fear as a part of life.

I think it's easy to pretend otherwise. It's easy to ignore the problems of the world, to say they aren't ours to worry about. How can an individual affect the lives of starving children in some far away country? Why should I be responsible for the failures of those around me, those that are doomed to a life of poverty? Why must I care about the racism and bigotry around me when I am not the target of such actions?

These questions are rooted in fear and blossom with ignorance. They have become a part of life we can ignore, like the filthy, smelly man sitting on the sidewalk, repeatedly asking for change.

That's not the life I wanted. That's not that society I looked forward to joining as a child. I refuse to live in a world that reacts in fear of our failures. I refuse to look away and ignore.

Losing the Dialectic

A friend reminded me recently that I've always resisted doing something simply because I was told or expected to do that thing. I think actions must be deliberate and require thought. There must be a reason to act, not simply a lack of a reason to not do it. With that thought, a life has purpose. Without that purpose, what is there to life but drifting?

That independence of thought causes more trouble than anything else. Because I have a reason to act, I am more invested in acting than those who act without thought or regard. Unfortunately, those that refuse to think initially often refuse to think when confronted with an opposing view. Challenging the way someone thinks, or acts in the case of stupid people, can be a vicious struggle.

That struggle, while it isn't always between idealism and pragmatism, does reflect different thoughts working towards resolution, either by compromise or by one side being defeated. Many people fail to understand that an argument can, and should, be devoid of personal attack. Instead, the goal is a battle of ideas to generate the best idea.

The process is lost upon people who tie their ego to their argument, refusing to give up when they are proven wrong. These people are difficult to work with and pervert the best of intentions because of narcissism.

One of the hardest things I've had to learn is admitting that I am wrong. It is difficult, but arguing in the face of being proven wrong or irrelevant is stupid and egotistical. However, I do think that I am better for it. Of course, I still argue stupid points, but I do so less frequently.

I find that most people haven't learned and do not care to learn this lesson. Being wrong isn't a sign of losing, it's a sign of progression and education. If you are wrong and learn you are wrong, you are better for it. You have learned something new and better. If you learn you are wrong and continue to argue in support of that wrong idea, you are promoting ignorance and preventing a better outcome.

This is a fairly academic distinction if you are working with a very small group of intelligent people with good communication skills. I'm discovering this optimum solution is rarely present. Instead, there are many larger groups, full of people with their own ideas, unwilling to realize that their idea may be wrong or that there may be a better idea that isn't theirs.

Consequently, I'm regularly demonized as the obstinate one. Yes, I will argue my point until we are forced to make a decision. Yes, I will not compromise my argument. Yet, I will change my argument or give it up completely if it can be proven wrong or inefficient.

In the end, I've realized it often isn't even about the argument. It's about people being petty. The argument and it's pursuit is the ideal. Dealing with the person is the pragmatic element, because people need to be placated and made to feel that they are necessary.

So what is the solution? Do we attempt to ignore the person for the argument? I think that isn't possible in most situations. Whatever action must be taken may be taken without compromise and efficiently in the instant case. But what about the next time you must interact with that person or those people?

Do we attempt to focus on the person instead of the argument? I think this is the flaw that many leaders make. In an attempt to placate the person, the argument for the action is lost. This simply dilutes the meaning of the action, leading to co-option, corruption, and perversion. It gives voice to an element that works against better solutions, legitimizing it for another day and another argument.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Words Will Kill Us All

After reading an op-ed piece by Henry Giroux, I'm reminded that I live in a very segmented part of the U.S. While this can tout it's egalitarian and holier-than-thou lines, when it comes down to it, it's just as racist as the rest of America. A great example is the fear that pervades the minds of those that refuse to set foot in the poorest central part of the city, which has a vibrant minority community and some of the best ethnic food in the city. To a different degree, parts of the culturally Hispanic area are similar. It's easy to say that these parts of the city are avoided due to crime, but the crimes that take place are those against property, not random individuals.

In a larger application to all U.S. citizens, Giroux's calls for a stand against the growing separation. He goes back to his language about the invisible people who are disposable. They are exploited and trampled by larger social, political, or economic structures. As Americans search for an answer to the problems they see or are deceived into thinking exist, the framework for their answer results in the disposal of these people.

There are people mobilizing ignorant, and/or stupid, citizens into thinking their problems can be solved by a return to "American" values. It sounds patriotic until you realize American is built upon immigrants. It sounds independent and fiscally responsible until you realize that your tax cut comes at the cost of the suffering and death of the poor. It sounds secure until you realize that your neighbors are afraid to pray in public in a country that was founded upon religious freedom. These words are simply a vehicle for hatred fueled by hatred simple xenophobia. When the issues are analyzed discretely, that hatred is legitimized.

That's a good look at the problem, but what do we do about it? Do we sit contently, reading or writing about the subject in a closed forum, waiting for the problem to solve itself?

We have a responsibility to do something about the problems we see - locally, nationally, and internationally. Apathy is not acceptable.

The Cost of Morality

It never ceases to amaze me that supposedly mature individuals of substantial accomplishment and mental ability act like morons, casting aside logic in favor of tactics arising from schoolyard interactions.

In recent situations, I feel that I have been forced to make a decision that compromises my loyalties to individuals and my self-integrity, whether it be a calm approach to life or treating others with respect. For the first time, I have started to understand the cost of loyalty to friends.

I remember getting into an argument over Bill Richardson's support of Obama. Richardson had previously been a member of the Clinton administration, which appointed him to several positions and boosted his political career, eventually resulting in his winning the gubernatorial race for New Mexico. After coming out in support of Obama, many individuals criticized Richardson as a traitor for not supporting Hillary Clinton.

I never understood this. Why should an individual be castigated for doing what is right? Loyalty does not transcend doing the right thing, may it be political or moral. The "betrayal" of a friend should not be considered a sin that outweighs integrity. To accept loyalty as the winner, we justify the oft heard defense of those committing the worst crimes known to humanity: "I was just following orders."

This post was started several weeks ago, and I am only completing it now because I didn't feel as if I was viewing the situation subjectively. Since then, I have lost what I thought I would lose, gaining nothing from my actions. All I can see is that I have maintained the morals I have defined.

One side of me wishes that I hadn't acted. I would have lost nothing but a sliver of my beliefs. However, that small cut would be something with which I would have to live. If I could bear losing that sliver, maybe I could give a bit more.

Walking any path in life starts with the smallest of steps, the tiniest of choices. The person I could become would be the person I am. The person I am would not see a need to go back, or if he did, might not be able to go back.

I do not like the consequences of what I did. I am not happy with what I did. I most likely cannot obtain what I lost.

Now, I understand the issue of loyalty and doing what I feel to be right. I have to live with my choice. That, I can and will do.

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.

Who Are You? What Have You Sacrificed?

Obama won. Why did it feel so anti-climactic?

As I simultaneously watched a station with a clear liberal bias and another with a clear conservative bias, screens came up stating Obama won the requisite number of electoral votes immediately at 8 PM PST. My glance at the screen in the midst of a discussion caused me to state evenly, "Hey, look. He won."

With that calm fact, every history book was outdated and needed a completely new section on the progression of racial issues. It hasn't hit me, and I don't think it will. For many of my generation, the racial issue doesn't matter. The fact that the country elected an intelligent idealist far outweighs the color of his skin.

The gloss of the victory wears off quickly. With the promises and goals he has stated, Obama's work has just begun. Implementation, the real challenge, looms overhead. Even with a Democratic majority, there will be intense battles. The Democratic party does not have a history of unity and teamwork.

The expectation of Democratic control to allow a drastic shift in American policy is unrealistic. The leadership shifted, and that might cause a fundamental change in operation. But, most of the same legislators that voted for attacking Saddam, the Patriot Act, FISA still hold their seats. Many of the members of Congress that appointed Roberts and Alito are still present.

To lay the responsibility of the government's actions over the past several years at the feet of an individual, an administration, or a party is ignorant. Legislation was passed and judges were confirmed, counting more than just Republicans among their numbers. Blaming Bush is a folly, one that ignores the individual responsibilities of all those involved from top to bottom in the democratic process. Our country does not operate only by simple majority, but by a simple majority with the complicity of a sizable minority. If there are actions that faulted, we are all at fault.

We have an individual responsibility to act. Someone I know once criticized the poor quality of public defenders in the United States. I asked him if he was going to change that and become a public defender. His reply was one of shock and disgust that I would even suggest such a thing. What use does the world have for people that simply identify a problem, doing nothing to resolve it?

Similarly, if a government acts in a manner with which people do not agree, there must be clear and immediate action against that action. Many people I know that lamented about the illegality of the war in Iraq or the violations of human and civil rights committed by the government. Yet, most did nothing but talk about the situation. They did not participate in rallies, write to their Congressional representatives, or even fund groups protesting these actions on legal and social fronts.

This strange attitude extends to many levels. Yet, many people ignore them. The change has to start with individuals. There can't be a casual relationship approaching these issues. The responsibility to act starts and ends with the individual, especially those with access to resources. There is no justification. There is only the excuse, the mask of apathy.

Sound esoteric? These events take place in every community. Homelessness, drug abuse, domestic violence - all of these issues need some resolution. Yet, people complain at time lost while helping the homeless while they protest against the people sleeping in doorways. People decry the effects of gang violence, but people don't stop buying marijuana or help fund and run drug abuse clinics. Domestic abuse is condemned, but few individuals become social works or public defenders. Few want to involve themselves with non-profits to fight to change society or the system that suppresses individuals that seek and/or need help. Why?

Part of the problem is liberal laziness. It is the comfortable situation where one knows that many others agree with a certain position, so there is no pressing need to act themselves. Someone else will do it. One of my friends pointed out that this applies to many more people than liberals. I agree to that point, but I think that progressive liberals need to take issue with this problem. They want change. It doesn't come by someone else acting. You don't see conservative groups sitting back on their laurels. Proposition 8 and Amendment 2 passed.

While even these problems may seem somewhat distant, take an issue that I am facing right now. A friend of mine (friend A) is torn between letting her friend (friend B) stay over the week of Thanksgiving because friend A fears that the friend B might distract her from studying that week for her law school finals. Friend B is homeless, living out of a car. The reason friend B want to stay over is to volunteer in the kitchens in the area during Thanksgiving. Friend A will also be gone during Thanksgiving to visit with her family and does occasionally volunteer in a homeless shelter.

To celebrate Thanksgiving by denying a homeless friend a couch to sleep on so that they can help feed the homeless contradicts every fiber of my nature. But when you realize the importance of first year law school grades and the cost of law school, the issue starts to enter a gray area for many people.

Why is there a gray area, in this situation or any other? Why is there a balancing interest that opposes the change you want to see in the world? The responsibility to act does not lie with anyone else but yourself. Ghandi said "Be the change you want to see in the world." Act or shut up.