Strange Legacy

An Intelligent Position on Iraq (Finally!)

I read a very interesting article in Newsweek yesterday, and I highly recommend it to anyone who is concerned about events in Iraq. This article gives a hypothetical position that Barack Obama could take on our involvement in Iraq, and the speech he could use to explain it. This article represents some of the most fair and rational analysis I’ve read about the war, and parallels many of my personal opinions on this issue. Check it out by clicking on the link below:

What Obama Should Say On Iraq

Generally speaking, I’ve been very impressed by the articles written by this author, Fareed Zakaria. Mr. Zakaria shows a grasp of the issues that transcends the typical black-and white, right v. left diatribes spewed by ideologues like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann. As someone who finds himself stranded on an island between these two extremes it’s refreshing to read opinions that are bold, yet intelligent and rational. I believe that conversation like this is essential if we are to overcome the challenges, both foreign and domestic, which face our nation.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

The Ongoing Struggle of Babies v. Politics

Here’s an interesting video of a discussion on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” about an attack ad being run by Moveon.org against John McCain. When election season begins to heat up it always seems that our children are being held hostage by the very possibility that one politician or another might get elected. I have to agree with the pundits that this particular advertisement overreaches – the emotional impact swallowed up by a feeling of “camp”. Take a look and decide for yourself.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Descending to the Ninth Circle

While in college I had the opportunity to take a class on famous works of literature which greatly impacted Western civilization. Among these were Moore’s Utopia, Machiavelli’s The Prince, Homer’s Iliad, and Dante’s Divine Comedy. The Divine Comedy stood out in my mind as perhaps the most compelling and disturbing of these works.

The Divine Comedy is an epic poem written by Dante about his guided tour of Hell, Purgatory, and Heaven. This poem reveals Dante’s religious and political sympathies. According to Dante, the lowest circle of Hell – the ninth circle – is a place reserved for the vilest of sinners. It is here that the Devil himself, a great beast, is encased in ice. This beast has three mouths, wherein he perpetually devours the worst sinners to ever live: Gaius Cassius Longinus, Marcus Brutus, and in the center mouth, Judas Iscariot. Cassius and Brutus are made famous by Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, and were the two chief conspirators in Caesar’s assassination. Judas Iscariot needs no introduction.

What is the common thread which binds these three, and according to Dante, condemns them to the greatest tortures of the Inferno? Betrayal. For Dante, this is the worst trespass any human being can commit against another. When I first read the Divine Comedy I was a little under-whelmed by this assertion; after all, can one really claim betrayal to be worse than murder or unprovoked violence? Nevertheless, as time has passed I think I’ve begun to grasp Dante’s intent, and I find myself becoming more sympathetic toward his argument.

To understand the potency of betrayal, I think we first have to understand a thing or two about the nature of human intelligence and human relationships. As I have often said, human beings are unique to all other creatures on Earth in our capacity to analyze our actions, and place them within a greater context (I refer to this as the “strange legacy” of our species). Our intelligence endows our species with a tremendous capacity for survival, but also burdens us with enormous responsibility. Our consciousness gives rise to empathy, and allows us to understand how our actions affect those around us.

To say that betrayal is the greatest human sin does not mean that remorseless killers or the brutally violent are somehow off the hook. Indeed, the worst forms of betrayal may involve such horrifying deeds. Nevertheless, there is a marked difference between those crimes which are perpetrated by a total stranger, and those inflicted by a trusted acquaintance. Betrayal occurs when the malevolent personality seeks first to secure the confidence of an unwitting victim before inflicting harm. Those who perform random acts of violence descend below their human heritage and become little more than animals – but those who betray the trust of others are the very embodiment of evil itself.

Perhaps the reason a breach of trust is so contemptible is because trust itself is so essential to the survival of our species. Trust is the agent which binds human beings together. Without trust, we cannot form cooperative relationships and labor for the common good. Without trust, life is (as Hobbes once put it) nasty, brutal, and short. All human beings who enjoy the perks of civilization reap substantial benefit from the trust of others.

Among the devout, the belief that God blesses us through the actions of our fellow human beings is common. Thus, the trust that the religious place in others is synonymous with the trust they give to God himself. Even for the irreligious, the faith granted another is no less meaningful or potent. Trust is at once the most powerful, and yet the most fragile and tender of human expressions. To trust is to make oneself vulnerable. It is in such moments of vulnerability that we see man’s nobility, and it is in their abuse that his treachery is laid bare.

Not all betrayal is equal. Certainly those who purposely set out to abuse the confidence of others for personal gain are guilty of the greatest malevolence. Nevertheless, for most of us the act of betrayal is far more subtle. It comes through tiny words or actions – listening to our own “little devils” – to secure advantage over those with whom we claim kinship. Regardless of whether the full impact of a negative suggestion or act was premeditated, little things can deliver startling results. Those who seek to live honorable lives would do well to constantly analyze their motives, and reconcile them with the principles to which they subscribe.

Any who have experienced the sting of betrayal can attest to its devastating consequences. More than the measurable damage which can be quantifiable assessed, it is often the emotional toll which is most severe. Such betrayal can handicap an individual’s capacity for trust; to lose all trust in one’s fellow human beings is to lose any hope for peace and happiness. Perhaps this is the reason that those who inflict such loss are greeted with the sad refrain, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here” upon entering Dante’s prescribed eternal habitation.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Don’t Lend Money to a Friend

This is a lesson I learned a long time ago. I’ve had the fortune of learning this lesson through the experience of others, and I am perpetually amazed at how many people seem to fall into this trap.

If you want to help a friend who is struggling financially, it is okay to give money. Don’t harbor any expectation what-so-ever of seeing it again. If your friend decides to pay you back, wonderful – but don’t hold a grudge if he/she doesn’t. If you aren’t willing to part with your money permanently this is simply one form of assistance you cannot provide.

Obviously, things are relative. Spotting your friend $50 isn’t a big deal; but when you get to more significant amounts – particular four-figures or higher – watch out. If your friend is struggling with debt issues you are going to be near the bottom of obligations that he/she is going to pay back. This is logical – you can’t really report an unofficial, personal loan to the credit bureau. There is a lot more pressure for your friend to pay back more structured, official debts. Even once these other obligations are resolved it can be incredibly tempting for your friend to “reward” himself/herself for surviving a difficult financial struggle, and he/she will want to start spending again before paying you back.

Nothing will destroy a friendship more quickly than unresolved debt (except, perhaps a mutual interest in the same member of the opposite sex). If you feel your friend is procrastinating repayment, you will become increasingly hostile toward that individual. Likewise, your friend will perceive your hostility and start avoiding you. Whether it ends with a whimper or bang, such a relationship is doomed. I can’t say it more clearly than this – do not lend money to a friend! Giving is fine, but mixing money with friendship in any other capacity is a recipe for disaster.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Everyone Believes in God

Everyone believes in God. How’s that for a controversial statement? As I set out to write this article I can’t escape the feeling that I’m poking a stick in a hornet’s nest; this is a very touchy subject where emotions run high for both the religiously devout and the atheist alike. My assertion that the religious and the irreligious have far more in common than either realize is sure to provoke a strong response; nevertheless, it’s true.

I have stated before that all human beings are essentially religious creatures. Today, we’ll tackle the sensitive issue of divine faith, and the common human need to find meaning in our thoughts and actions. The easiest way to to begin our discussion is to approach this issue is from the atheist’s viewpoint.

If God is, in fact, a figment of human imagination, the fascinating question we must ask ourselves is why our species originally adopted this delusion. One of the obvious answers is to explain the unexplainable. Ancient man saw the sun rise and set and couldn’t explain it – so he decided that God must carry the sun on his back. Periods of feast or famine were blamed on the pleasure or anger of the gods. As mankind tried to understand the world, unexplainable phenomena were assigned supernatural explanations.

Many point to the Renaissance as the period when this began to change. Brilliant minds such as Copernicus, Galileo and even Newton helped us to understand the connection between the earth and the heavens in scientific, mathematical terms. Science has since played such a large role in the evolution of human technology that we no longer look to God to answer our remaining questions about the physical universe; we believe that the answers can and will be discovered through science. Nevertheless, for all the answers science has given us there is one question it has never really answered: morally speaking, what is right and what is wrong?

Ask any religiously devout Christian why he or she believes that something is either good or evil – in many cases the response you’ll get is, “Because God (or the Bible) says so.” To anyone who does not share these religious convictions this answer is easily ridiculed. Yet, ask an atheist why he or she believes that certain things are either right or wrong and the answer will ultimately sound as shallow. Horrendous human acts such as murder, rape, or child abusive are universally condemned as evil – but try to answer the question of why. Consider murder: what makes murder wrong? Death is a natural part of life, and in nature the strong hold dominion over the weak – besides, what makes human life so valuable anyway? Some may try to offer elaborate explanations, but each of these can be defeated by continually probing with, “but why is that important?” Eventually, anyone who is continually pressed with such an inquiry will throw up his or her hands in frustration and exclaim, “It just is!” When you arrive at the “just is” you come face to face with the god you worship.

It is important to note that when I say everyone believes in God, I don’t mean to suggest that everyone believes in traditional ideas about God. The deity you worship needn’t be a robed figure sitting atop a throne, or even a conscious entity. For some, God is simply the concept of “common sense” they refer to when explaining the obvious “rightness” or “wrongness” of a particular act or idea. For both the religiously devout and atheist alike, God serves as the answer to important moral questions – the source of things we believe which lie just beyond the reach of reason. I may not be able to explain exactly why murder is wrong, but I believe that it is. Though not readily apparent in our perceived reality, I believe that this truth extends from some unseen realm where it is as constant as the law of gravity. It is this devotion to principles which cannot be logically proven that I would define as the very nature of worship itself.

I would further suggest that God is not merely the source of all moral truth, but of all divinity as well. As a parent, I am amazed by the love I have for my children. Nevertheless, science alone would indicate that this bond is nothing more than a series of genetically programmed neural impulses. To believe that there is something significant about these emotions – to assign any value to them – I must look beyond logic or the things I can prove. To justify my belief in the divine nature of love I must again journey to that realm beyond reason’s reach. Divinity must originate from a source unburdened by the limitations of our physical universe – I can’t think of a better definition of God than this.

As absurd as some religious doctrines may appear (does anyone still believe that the Earth is being carried on the back of a turtle?), they pale in comparison to the overwhelming absurdity in which we all partake – the belief that human life has any meaning what-so-ever in a mundane universe which offers no supporting evidence for that assumption. Ultimately, all human beings are creatures of faith. We believe in things we cannot prove; indeed, this faith is the cornerstone for nearly every conscious action we take. Thus, the barriers between the religiously devout and the atheist begin to break down. While our belief systems may differ, it seems that our basic operating software remains the same. The debates about the value of one theology versus another aren’t likely to end anytime soon, but understanding our common need for meaning can provide us with greater sensitivity and tolerance for one another – and the gods we worship.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Quick Thought: True Freedom

True freedom is an illusionary concept – all men and women serve a master of one sort or another. Whether we are servants to duty and honor, subjects of logic and reason, or slaves to pleasure and base impulse, no man or woman can claim to act independently. Freedom as a perfect principle can only exist in a vacuum – not merely a vacuum of external pressure and influence, but of emotion, opinion, bias or care. Perfect freedom is oblivion.

Personal fulfillment and happiness are not to be found in the pursuit of absolute liberty, but in the active recognition of the masters we serve and a reconciliation with the principles to which we wish to subscribe.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

The Deathwatch Comes to an End

This last weekend the Senator Clinton Campaign Deathwatch officially came to an end. Hillary has conceded the primary, and the questions swirling about in everyone’s minds are whether she will be Obama’s choice for veep, and how she managed to lose the primary when she had such a promising start. I’ve already shared my opinion on the unlikely nature of an Obama/Clinton ticket (I think she thoroughly burned that bridge over the last few weeks); as to the question of how she lost, I’ll leave that up to the many news pundits who’ve analyzed her downfall ad nauseam. Click on the articles below for some interesting thoughts on this.

Hillary Clinton: What Went Wrong – And Right

For Clinton, a Key Group Didn’t Hold

Crawling Through the Wreckage: A Postmortem on Hillary Clinton, Also Ran

Obviously the Clinton/Obama feud has provided ample fodder for news pundits and the blogosphere alike, and will be sorely missed by many. Expect stories to continue trickling in for the next few weeks on Clinton’s possible VP aspirations, as well as her lingering campaign debt. An interesting article on her debt can be found through the link below:

For Clinton, Millions in Debt and Few Options

Only time will tell if Obama v. McCain proves to be as interesting as Obama v. Clinton.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

Picking Vice Presidents

With the primaries for the Republican and Democratic nominations now over, and the candidates for each party chosen, it’s time to turn our attention to the next big topic on the horizon for the 2008 election: who will McCain and Obama pick as their running mates?

Let’s start with John McCain – for the past few months McCain has been rubbing elbows with several GOP vice presidential hopefuls (many of them his vanquished adversaries from the primaries). I’m going to have to throw my hat in with the prevailing opinion that McCain should, and probably will, pick Mike Huckabee. Huckabee deserves a lot of the credit for shutting down McCain’s biggest rival, Mitt Romney, on “Super Tuesday”, thus solidifying McCain’s ascendance. Simply put, McCain owes him – big. Beyond this debt is the fact that Huckabee could give McCain some much needed support from deeply conservative Republicans, many of whom are less-than-enthusiastic about McCain’s centrist tendencies.

As for Barack Obama, I disagree with the prevailing sentiment that he should pick Hillary for his veep. There has been too much bad blood between the Clinton and Obama camps, and while some speculate that this merger would console angry Hillary supporters, her continued presence in this election will only serve to keep the memory of her battle with Obama alive. Furthermore, I think Obama faces a very real danger of being painted as a far-left liberal – someone out of touch with America – and Hillary (universally reviled by Republicans) won’t be able to offset this perception. All things considered, Barack would do well to court the new Virginia Senator, Jim Webb, as his running mate. Webb’s record of military service, as well as his conservative attitude on several issues, will increase Obama’s appeal to independent voters. Webb would also help Obama project an image of strength where military policy is concerned.  This is who Obama should pick – as to who he probably will pick, I’d put my money on a former primary competitor such as Joe Biden or Bill Richardson (John Edwards has stated that he isn’t interested).

These are my thoughts about who the candidates should, and will, pick for their running mates. It should be noted that my criteria for who the candidates should pick is based soley on who is most likely to help them win. What do you think?

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

To Senator Clinton: Deal or No Deal?

I recently watched a rerun of the 100th episode of the wildly popular NBC game show Deal or No Deal. Part of the show’s appeal is its habit of throwing surprise twists at its audience, and this particular episode was no different. For their 100th show, the producers decided to give a previous contestant, arguably the biggest loser in the show’s history, a chance at redemption. During his previous attempt at the game this contestant had the opportunity to walk away with over $200,000; nevertheless, he ended up with only $10 for his trouble. His was the classic case of someone who didn’t know when to quit, and bares some remarkable similarities to Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign for the Democratic nomination.

For those not familiar with Deal or No Deal, contestants are asked to choose a particular briefcase from a set of twenty-six.  Each case represents an amount of money ranging from 1¢ to $1,000,000. The value of each briefcase remains secret until it is opened; thus a player chooses a particular case without knowing its true value. This case represents a guaranteed opportunity – the player can hold on to the case until the very end of the game, open it, and receive whatever dollar amount is displayed inside. However, before this happens the player has the opportunity to open the remaining cases one-by-one to try and get an idea of what his/her own case might be worth. As these other cases are opened, the show’s “banker” will offer the player various amounts of money to buy his/her case. If a player is fortunate enough to open cases with low dollar amounts (thus increasing the odds that his/her own case contains a high amount) the bid goes up. If a player has the misfortune of opening cases with high dollar amounts (thus increasing the odds that his/her own case contains a low amount) the bid goes down. At any time a player can surrender his/her case (sight unseen) and take the banker’s offer instead. It’s pretty common to see players work their way up to a really good bid from the banker, only to continually shout, “No deal!” and persist in opening cases to try and secure higher and higher bids; inevitably they start opening all the wrong cases and walk away from the show with almost nothing.

I can’t help but draw some analogies between these game show contestants and Senator Clinton’s primary campaign. Hillary was the initial frontrunner for the Democratic nomination – Barack Obama’s candidacy got some early attention, but most agreed that he was a long-shot at best. Fast-forward to the present, and Barack has enjoyed the title of presumptive nominee for quite some time. Despite Obama’s persistent lead in pledged delegates, Clinton has run a very strong campaign and has been right on Obama’s heals. This close race has effectively split the Democratic party between pro-Barack and pro-Hillary supporters, and created a lot of animosity between both sides. Democratic leaders are terrified that they may not be able to heal this schism and unite the party in time to defeat the Republican nominee in November.

This concern for party unity has given Clinton tremendous leverage and influence. Despite Barack’s lead in pledged delegates, Hillary has enjoyed a lead in superdelegates for most of primary race. Furthermore, outstanding questions about what to do with the controversial primary votes of Florida and Michigan (where Clinton defeated Obama) suggested that she had a chance to catch up with Barack. All these things gave her continued campaign legitimacy; to drop out of the race when she still had a strong, fighting chance would constitute a tremendous act of self-sacrifice. Senator Clinton could have easily parlayed such sacrifice for substantial political favors among the Democratic elite – perhaps even a position on the ticket as Vice President.

Let’s compare the recent blows to Senator Clinton’s political leverage to a game of Deal or No Deal. By holding out as long as possible before conceding, and attempting to make the Democratic Party as desperate as possible, perhaps Hillary was hoping to drive up the banker’s bid (aka promised political favors) to higher and higher levels. Unfortunately, these last few weeks have opened all of the wrong briefcases. First, she opened the briefcase of defeat in North Carolina and only marginal victory in Indiana – breaking her comeback momentum. Then, she opened the briefcase of losing her lead in committed superdelegates. Next she opened the briefcase wherein John Edwards’ perfect smile gave his endorsement to Barack Obama. And finally, she has just opened the briefcase wherein Florida and Michigan will only be awarded half-votes for their delegates, thus eliminating any possibility for a Clinton victory. Given the absence of any remaining legitimacy for her campaign I strongly suspect that Hillary will not be able to secure the same favors for relinquishing her own briefcase (aka her presidential aspirations) that she might have enjoyed just three or four weeks ago.

Recent news reports suggest that Hillary will make an announcement tonight acknowledging that Obama has enough delegates to clinch the nomination (although her campaign continues to insist she’s not conceding). Rather than a noble act of party loyalty, this admission will only be seen as an acknowledgment of the inevitable. Much like the game show contestant who failed to take the offer of $200,000 and only ended up with enough to buy a cheap lunch, Senator Clinton would have been well advised to push the big, red button and yell, “Deal!” several briefcases ago.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!

When Good People Lie: A Tough Truth for Managers

I recently spoke with a frustrated friend who works as a manager at his company. This friend was struggling with feelings of betrayal; he had confronted one of his subordinates about some suspicious behavior – rumors were spreading that this individual was looking for a new job – yet, this subordinate adamantly denied these allegations and pledged his loyalty to his current occupation. As you might guess, a short time later this person handed over his resignation – an act that my friend interpreted as malicious dishonesty and infidelity. Along with the burden of suddenly scrambling to try and replace the skills of the departing employee, my friend was also coping with feelings of betrayal and lost faith in the rest of his subordinates.

Having experienced similar dilemmas in my own managerial experience, I am nothing if not sympathetic for what my friend is feeling; nevertheless, I stop short of assigning the worst motives and harshest labels to employees who are sometimes less-than-honest in a declaration of loyalty to their jobs. I’ve discovered that this dishonesty is generally not a product of malice, but simply a natural result of the inequality that exists in the relationship between managers and the people they lead.

This dilemma is easy to understand when we approach it from a practical point-of-view. Managers wield tremendous power regarding the professional fortunes of their people. All the states in the U.S. (with the exception of Montana) adhere to an “at will” employment doctrine; this doctrine generally allows companies to hire and fire people as they please. Thus, an employee who is testing the waters for better opportunities in the job market has good reason to be fearful of the impact this search could have on his relationship with his current employer. If his boss has reason to doubt his loyalty or commitment, and if he (the subordinate) is unable to secure a new job, such an employee may find his opportunities with his current employer significantly diminished – some employers will even go so far as to mistreat or fire employees they believe to be disloyal.

To prevent unpleasant surprises, many managers will go out of their way to assure their people that their motives for enquiring about a subordinate’s loyalty are completely benign. They insist that employees can freely share their thoughts about leaving the company without any fear of reprisal. Nevertheless, such assurance can seem hollow when compared with the practical reality that managers don’t actually need to state a clear reason for firing or mistreating a disloyal employee. Ultimately, there is very little an employee can do to hold his/her manager accountable for any broken promises in this regard.

This dilemma prevails beyond simple employer/employee relationships – I believe it applies to most relationships in life: pure honesty and trust are almost impossible to cultivate in any relationship where one party can exercise clear power and dominion over the other. Regardless of how responsibly this power is used (or not used) its mere existence will generally serve as a barrier to absolute fidelity. This is not to suggest that loyalty can’t exist between managers and their people, but managers should take care not to harbor unreasonable expectations of the how far this loyalty should apply. The loss or betryal of a valued and trusted employee can be a bitter pill for any manager to digest; nevertheless, it is simply one of the periodic burdens endured by those who aspire to leadership and authority.

I’m interested in what you have to say about this article! Whether you agree or disagree, please feel free to leave a comment. If you are reading this article from the main page, you can get to the comments area by clicking on the “Comment” link seen below; otherwise, just type your comment in the box displayed below. You can also use any of the social networking links below to recommend this article to others. I look forward to hearing from you!