Monday, November 14, 2011

Domain Changes

Change is good, you know. And over the past several months, I've spent more and more time on what was originally meant to stand in as a side-project to this blog, with the result being that the cerebral decantation action is now very much over on tumblr and not here on blogger at all.

Partly this is due to the speed and ease of tumblr, where I've found editing and uploading to be a far easier task, and also due to my own obvious falling away from penning longer essays and turning towards dense shorter pieces and utilizing quotes and links for non-cultural criticism. I have every reason to suspect this switch in tactics has much to do with the fact that in a few weeks our son will turn one year old. In a way, I'm amazed that I've managed to actually increase my writing output since his birth and since I took over the reins as his full-time caregiver, but I also recognize that this came at a price. Word counts fell, even if quality rose.

So with this in  mind, I've taken the step of switching the titles of the blog and tumblr sites, to better reflect the fact that, if anything, it's the blog that has become the side-project or maybe even the afterthought. With less time to do anything, much less crank out essays, I have no regrets accepting the fact that I no longer wish to spend excess time pondering the often depressing and nearly always infuriating realm of cultural/political emerging stories. Thinking about them can be defeating enough. I'd rather spend a few minutes assembling quotations and offering a bit of context via related comments than take the whole morning to immerse myself in the philosophies of Herman Cain. Attempting to understand why art and cultural artifacts enrich my life seems a much healthier and beneficial way to keep the synapses firing as a stay-at-home father.

So, watch this space, I guess, although don't watch it too hard. And know that over on tumblr, Cerebral Decanting pushes on.

http://decanting-cerebral.tumblr.com/

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

This And That: Blog & Tumblr

Most visitors here are aware that I split my time between this space and the more streamlined tumblr site, which has seen more action as of late, especially in the realm of music reviews, which have turned into a regular feature each Wednesday. Whether or not I'll ever get around to tweaking the title to reflect the fact that the listening notes are no longer "ultra-brief" remains to be seen.

So, each Wednesday, six newly released recordings, two strongly recommended, two less strongly recommended, two to avoid.

There's always a link for the tumblr on the upper right side of this blog. But old-school blog layouts being what they are, it can get missed. Direct link for the most recent post below for those interested.

http://decanting-cerebral.tumblr.com/post/10771169030/listening-notes-ultra-brief-pt-14


Tuesday, September 27, 2011

The Madness Of Crowds: Or, Which Side Are You On?




Though some may cry "relativism," morality remains an intensely personal concept, far from any universal agreed-upon standards. And the construction of a personal morality isn't something that happens overnight. Just like any thoughtful human being, my political and philosophical beliefs are precious to me precisely because they were hard-won, concepts I grappled with over the course of years and continue to tinker with to this day. Just as somebody who has never lived anywhere but the town or region they were born in will never understand the difficulties and pleasures of the peripatetic lifestyle, so, too, do those who have never wavered in their beliefs often fail to understand why the world might best be viewed through a decidedly gray prism rather than a fixed black and white lens.

Gray shouldn't be considered a pejorative term - the central nervous system functions to a large extent thanks to gray matter. But certain strands of ideologues will steadfastly insist that to assign any issue or argument a gray hue is to toss reason aside and join the ranks of the savages. Interestingly enough, many of these same ideologues will tell you from time to time that they aren't interested in politics or philosophy, that they avoid the stuff precisely because they "know what they believe". The problem with such stances (there is more than one) is that it defies logic, claiming personal beliefs exist in some formaldehyde chamber using chemical compounds to neutralize the petty bickerings between national political parties - the notion that politics exist apart from our daily lives and only within the halls of government buildings and across radio bandwidths.

I long ago stopped apologizing for my political and moral beliefs, not because I think everybody should think the way I do or that anybody who does not is a demon, but because removing those beliefs from daily conversation seemed intellectually feeble and dishonest. These beliefs do not get trumpeted to the world via bumper stickers or megaphones, and I don't saunter into working-class bars to pick fights with patrons over why FOX News is on the flatscreen overhead. But I've managed to hold many civil conversations on a variety of topics that ordinarily epitomize the "I don't want to talk about politics" mindset, conversations that unfold calmly precisely because neither party felt the need to apologize for their beliefs while also never once stooped to hyperbole or accusation. In most cases, there was also rarely if ever an attempt to "convert" the other, a rather hopeless cause for any single conversation, even if points and counter-arguments remained lodged in both brains for some time afterwards.

Maybe only those of us who have undergone some type of gentle conversion process are able to easily transcend labels and mingle with opposing sides, if only because we can recall how self-sustaining our old beliefs and opinions really were. Political conversions also tend to unfold slowly - not baptisms in fire, but small incidents spilling over into one or two dark nights of the soul. No doubt, if my experiences with those taking issue with spouted opinions back in the formative years of high school had manifested itself through red-faced shouting matches, I might have proven less pliable. But the handful of incidents in which I clearly saw that my words or opinions had wounded, confounded, or disappointed others made their impact thanks to the calm manner in which the response unfolded - the look on a friend's face when I aped some line I'd heard about building a wall around Mexico, the gentle suggestion by an English teacher that I was probably a bit too smart to really agree with some stock phrase I tossed out, or the quiet hour-long discussion I had with an unfairly demonized religious instructor who took issue with a handful of thoughtless slurs I'd peppered a paper with simply to gain attention. In all three cases (there may have been more, but these three stick out), it was the absence of judgement and anger that forced me to confront why exactly I was saying the things I was saying, to question what reason, if any, such opinions were things I held dear. In nearly every case, the startling discovery was made that a large bulk of my political assumptions were at odds with my moral and philosophical beliefs - that I was lazily referencing what I heard at home without questioning whether they actually applied to my worldview. Things fell very rapidly into place once I squared my morality with my politics.



This very long stroll down memory lane is really just an excuse to step back and reflect upon how grateful I am to have undergone this type of conversion experience, because there are times when I wonder if specific causes I've allied myself with are hopeless, or wrong-headed, or pointless. When I read reports of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, I recoil at the documented evidence of police brutality, yet also shake my head at the sheer empty-headed cluelessness permeating a crowd that perfectly personifies the toothless utopian dreams of the politically unsophisticated. From the literally meaningless signs hoisted into the air (personal favorite - "Even If The World Were To End Tomorrow I'd Still Plant A Tree Today") to the confusion manifested in a crowd bringing Apple products to a protest against global capitalism, I understand the desire yet cannot get behind the political naivete. In the eyes of some, this makes me a traitor, a term that perfectly summarizes the conformist mindset of too many decent, driven people. But I've also incurred the wrath of activists before by telling them to leave their damn "Free Mumia" signs at home next time they come to protest an illegal war. 

All this wavering on the edges and sidelines, then, can lead to concerns about the very relativism I noted at the opening of this essay - the concern that seeing multiple sides to any issue is really just a spineless or lazy attempt to shrug off making hard decisions. But I easily recall the way it feels to bask in the pleasure of a black-and-white belief, the way endorphins rush through the body as one delivers a sermon choked with certainty much as if one had just devoured an entire block of chocolate. This is something only rarely remarked upon by those who wish to understand differences in moral reasoning - it feels good to be sure about something. And the more confounding the issue - the more perilous taking a stance may prove - the better it feels to cast doubt aside and embrace certainty. And so when I see or hear or read reports of audience behavior at recent political debates (behavior I'm highlighting below in an attempt to remind myself and anybody interested that clear moral differences exist between worldviews, in which the responses of the actual politicians being questioned have been removed because the crowd speaks ever so much more loudly than they could) - behavior that shocks and appalls many even if it warms the hearts of others, I don't marvel so much at what seems to me their cold-heartedness or absence of empathy or indeed possibly even their complete lack of humanity. I marvel instead at how easy it is to express disturbing or even unthinkable opinions as long as one has anonymity within a crowd who will back you up. That, too, feels good. Nobody ever said politics or morality was easy.


***********************************************************************************


1.  


September 7, 2011 


Brian Williams, moderator:


Governor Perry, a question about Texas. Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times. Have you -


Audience:


[applause, whistles]






***********************************************************************************


2.


September 12, 2011


Wolf Blitzer, moderator:


You're a physician, Ron Paul. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question. A healthy, 30 year old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, You know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy; I don't need it. But you know, something terrible happens; all of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it, if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for it?


Ron Paul:


Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.


Wolf Blitzer:


Well, what do you want?


Ron Paul:


What he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not before -


Wolf Blitzer:


But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?


Ron Paul:


That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.


Audience:


[cheers, applause]


Ron Paul:


This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody -


Audience:


[applause]


Wolf Blitzer:


But Congressman, are you saying that society should let him die?


Audience Member :


Yeah!


Ron Paul:


No -


Audience Member:


Yeah!


Additional Audience Member:


Yes!


Audience:


[applause]






***************************************************************************************




3.


Sept. 22, 2011


Stephen Hill, soldier serving in Iraq:


In 2010, when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was, because I'm a gay soldier, and I didn't want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that's been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?


Audience:


[several loud boos]

Thursday, September 22, 2011

The Dangers of Satisfaction: Thoughts On The Death Penalty, Troy Davis, And Guilty Versus Innocent




Even somebody with only a handful of facts about the case (ie, me) suspects that a massive injustice went down in Georgia last night, when, despite last-minute appeals to the Supreme Court, and despite a whole host of irregularities during both the original investigation and the ensuing trial, Troy Davis was executed by the state of Georgia for the killing of a Savannah police officer twenty-two years prior. The case attracted extraordinary attention both in this country and worldwide, leading to strong condemnations and pleas for clemency. In the end, doubts were cast aside and the lethal injection made its way down the intravenous tubing.

Interestingly enough, on the same night Davis’ final appeal was rejected, a man named Lawrence Russell Brewer was executed by the state of Texas, also by lethal injection. There were no large groups of protesters assembled to plea on Brewer’s behalf, other than a few scattered members of his own family. Worldwide concern and condemnation did not rain down upon East Texas as it did Central Georgia. And this is not surprising. Brewer was one of several white supremacists who chained a black man named James Byrd to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him to his death along a rural road soaked in blood and body parts. Clearly guilty, and clearly motivated by race hatred in his crime, the likes of Brewer do not often inspire death penalty opponents to make their case.

 But here is where things get very complicated. I remain firmly opposed to the death penalty, a stance I slowly arrived at and have continued to ponder. Cases like Troy Davis are the ones that tend to rope in both the party faithful and less-committed outsiders, those who remain unconvinced of the inherent barbarity of capital punishment but are roused to action when it involves an innocent life. However, this seems to me a somewhat dangerous exercise – or if that’s too strong a word, a morally ambiguous band-aid for a larger problem.

I actually shy away from making the you-may-be-killing-an-innocent-person argument when I speak against the death penalty, partly because it doesn't get to the heart of what's wrong with it in my eyes. Obviously, killing an innocent individual is a monstrous deed, and most people would agree with that – indeed, anybody who would not should be asked to leave the discussion (Such people, I am led to believe, do actually exist). But if we construct our opposition to the death penalty along guilty versus innocent arguments, a slippery debate ensues over varying levels and degrees of outrage, which eventually leads to people making decisions on what is and is not a crime worthy of capital punishment. We begin to weigh certain factors and cast aside particular circumstances – we enter the perilous realm of counting stab wounds to tally up an atrocity ballot.

For me, the issue comes down to (among many other things) the fact that execution flies in the face of all our other societal approaches to law and punishment. The concept of revenge has effectively been removed from the court of law as a justified course of action - we deal with reparations, monetary payments, removal from active society, etc. Given the possibility of life without parole and a guarantee that predators and monsters would pose no threat to any other innocent soul, execution's only reason for existence is to allow victim's families a sense of closure, which manifests itself as revenge.

 In no other aspect of our contemporary society do we allow revenge to play this kind of a state-sanctioned and legal role. It's understandable that victim's families might want to see killers receive the ultimate sentence - it's a basic and primal human urge. But courts and the law exist to pursue punishment rather than leaving it up to the aggrieved. The fact that so many death penalty proponents point to victim's families as the reason they support the death penalty suggests they understand very well that the primary motivation for capital punishment is revenge for impacted parties. It makes sense - and yet it's a perversion of justice.

The New York Times, among other news sources, has reported that, “One of the witnesses, a radio reporter from WSB in Atlanta, said it appeared that the MacPhail family ‘seemed to get some satisfaction’ from the execution”. Again, I don’t question or condemn the family for these feelings or urges. To be sure, some extraordinary individuals in other cases have urged for mercy on the grounds of forgiveness or a desire to end the spiral of violence. But we recognize this as extraordinary because we also suspect that such efforts come from a deeper well of morality or inner strength than many of us probably possess. Left alone in a room with an individual we suspect or are convinced murdered our child or spouse or sibling, many of us, no doubt, would rush to tear them to literal pieces. This is why the law does not place victim’s families alone in rooms with accused murderers. I refuse to begrudge the family of Mark MacPhail for seeming to “get some satisfaction” from Troy Davis’ death. But I begrudge the state of Georgia and our own deeply flawed and unjust system for placing vengeful satisfaction above every other corrective to those who would have or might have done harm. 

Thursday, September 1, 2011