Just South of Crazy.
Have you ever heard of the Political Compass? In a nutshell, you take this test and it evaluates your answers and generates a number that can be plotted on a chart with axis including Authoritarian, Libertarian, Left, and Right. That is to say that the Compass itself is more than a linear measure of where you fall between left, right and moderate...After all, both Stalin and Gandhi were leftists, so obviously a linear model isn't all that helpful.
Here's a link to the test. It takes about 3 or 5 minutes to finish the whole thing and it's really interesting. At the end, you can see a chart of the 2008 presidential candidates and where
they fall on the chart. You may be shocked. I sort of thought I knew where I was going to fall, but I was still surprised when I compared my placement to theirs!
Ok - go take the test right now and come back before you read any further. I don't want to spoil it for you!
Alright - so where did I land? I landed near Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. Which is a little embarrassing because most people think they are crazyhorses. But, even in 2004, whenever I
took a "find the candidate whose views match yours" quiz, good old [teeny] Kucinich was right at the top of my results. The thing is, I'm not embarrassed. I think most of my democrat friends would fall into the same general area. He and Gravel are the two candidates who acknowledge that gay marriage is an equality issue and that
of course it should be legal. The only thing I really disagree with Kucinich about is Israel - which is a big enough deal to me to send my vote elsewhere. Other than that, he gets my whole Star Trek mentality - hell, he even has the ears.
What I am
actually embarrassed about is where all of the other
democratic candidates fall within the chart. Apparently, whether their answers depict their actual positions or their what-they-think-will-get-them-elected positions, all but the two supposed crazies are right of center. Which is weird to me.
Not surprising, but weird. I really think that Hillary knows better. I doubt she believes in a god and I doubt she thinks gay marriage is wrong. I just think she - and Bill, too - are too intellectual and philosophical to believe otherwise. Not that people who do believe in a god and/or don't believe in gay marriage are dumb and shallow - you all know what I mean.
So??? Where did you fall on the chart?! Please tell us in the comments - I'm dying to know!
Nine.Eleven
So what are we supposed to make of 9/11 these days? Today is the sixth anniversary and the biggest thing that struck me is that nothing really struck me (at least until about five minutes ago -- more on that in a sec). I'm a big sap and tend to obsess and overwhelm myself with information when 'sad' things happen. Six years ago Sandy had to beg me to turn off the television in the days and weeks after the attacks because I just couldn't look away and was letting it all get to me. That continued even past the one year anniversary -- I'd hear "Amazing Grace" in a totally unrelated context and it would bring all the emotions back. All of this and I didn't even have a connection to the tragedies. I lived in Charlottesville at the time and didn't personally know anyone who was a victim or even anyone who was directly related to a victim (I seriously and wholeheartedly apologize to anyone I am overlooking or who I didn't realize had such a connection).
I remember at the time of the events, I was so sure that it would change the world and people would never be able to fully move on. I felt that 9/11 would always stay with us and change the everything. It hasn't. Not at all. Not for me or my friends or family. I think today confirmed just what kind of culture we have. It is the sixth anniversary of arguably the worst tragedy in our history ("our" referring to being an American) and no one seemed to acknowledge it. I drive past the Pentagon on my way to and from work and just a few years after having to go past armed Hummers on that drive I saw a lone police car giving someone a speeding ticket. The only non-internet media reference I heard all day was a moment of silence on Eliott in the Morning on my drive in at the moment that one of the planes took off. Nothing else on the radio. Even the internet was shockingly quiet about the anniversary. Sure cnn.com had a couple of stories and even deadspin did a post, but it really seemed to be a non-story everywhere I looked. Tonight on television there aren't any specials or retrospectives or memorials. Just reruns.
I was beginning to think that all of this is actually a good thing. Not to be cheesy, but it shows our resilience and that we are back to normal as a society. The past six years have been very good to me and fortunately not even 9/11 could put a roadblock in my way. Of course there are thousands of people being affected by by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and I certainly feel for them, but frankly this stuff doesn't touch me and I guess I'm grateful for that. I was thinking that it was good that we have returned to a state of complacency because we shouldn't let terrorists or fundamentalists or anyone else change the way we are. But I was struggling with that notion. It didn't feel right. It felt like 9/11 should still matter and should still affect me.
I guess by coincidence then, Sandy called me at the last minute and asked me to run an errand that she wasn't going to have time to do. So I got in the car, ran to the store and on my way back had NPR on. And finally they were discussing 9/11 in that reserved poignant way that only NPR can. The commentators were discussing a group of victims' families who were pushing peace. They were discussing a woman who testified on behalf of Moussoui and is credited with getting him a life sentence instead of the death penalty. She was proud despite her obviously mixed emotions. Next were the words of a woman who told of coming home to a message from her son who was in the World Trade Center and was leaving a message to say goodbye. That got to me and brought everything back. I'm not over 9/11 and I never want to be. I will continue to struggle with this as the tragedy is politicized and commercialized and ignored. I want to move on, but I don't.
And I guess that will be the legacy of 9/11 for me. The conflicts, both internal and external. Good versus evil, but so much more than that. The struggle between whether to be happy, sad or indifferent on 9/11/08. The conflict between wanting to be hit over the head with memorials and to want see that reruns mean that we can move on. The struggle between making a Debbie Downer joke in the middle of this post or being serious, because that is what a post like this supposed to be. The struggle between typing this post and keeping it all inside.
I won't ramble any more. I hope that everyone remembers and no one forgets each in their own way. But I also hope that everyone can move on when they are ready or linger with their thoughts if that is what feels right. Thanks for indulging me.
New Feature: Eurich's Emails!
Eurich Griffin is a brilliant and crazy. Think Doc Brown meets Thurgood Marshall meets your crazy uncle. One day someone is going to write a very interesting book about this man. Born in D.C. in the late 1930s, Eurich went on to graduate from Harvard Law School. But I'm not here to write that book now. I'm here to share Eurich's glory.
Eurich has added me to his list of people who get his email forwards. I'm not complaining, but it is a bit strange since I know Eurich through Sandy's family, but neither Sandy or her mother get these emails. It appears to be me and 9 other people. I consider myself lucky.
So starting today, I'm going to post the emails that Eurich sends me. I'm going to copy and paste them and maybe put them in bold, but otherwise you get them how I get them (with names and email addresses deleted). They aren't all clean and they aren't all funny, but I'm merely the messenger. I actually got two (!) yesterday, so I will share them both.
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: -----------To: --------------Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:59:05 -0700Subject: FW: Grammar Lesson
Harry is getting along in years (50 or so) and finds that he is unable to perform sexually. He finally goes to his doctor, who tries a few things but nothing seems to work. So the doctor refers him to an American Indian medicine man.
The medicine man says, "I can cure this." That said, he throws a white powder in a flame, and there is a flash with billowing blue smoke.
Then he says, "This is powerful medicine. You can only use it once a year. All you have to do is say '123' and it shall rise for as long as you wish!"
Harry then asks, "What happens when it's over, and I don't want to continue?"
The medicine man replies: "All you or your partner has to say is 1234, and it will go down. But be warned -- it will not work again for another year!"
Harry rushes home, eager to try out his new powers and prowess. That night he is ready to surprise his wife. He showers, shaves, and puts on his most exotic shaving lotion. He gets into bed, and lying next to her says, "123."
He suddenly becomes more aroused than anytime in his life ... just as the medicine man had promised.
His wife, who had been facing away, turns over and asks, "What did you say 123 for?"
And that, my friends, is why you should not end a sentence with a preposition.
__________________________________________________________
---------- Forwarded message ----------From: ----------To: eurich griffin Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:51:20 -0700 (PDT)Subject: Re: Fwd: good advice, funny, read this LOLGOOD ADVICE !!!eurich griffin <ezgriffin38@yahoo.com> wrote: Note: forwarded message attached.
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles.Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.From: SurfinNChattin@aol.comDate: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:57:29 EDTSubject: good advice, funny, read this LOLTo: undisclosed-recipients:;
| Handle every situation like a dog does; If you can't eat it or screw it, piss on it and walk away. |
Roddenberry for President.
Tonight I'd like to explain to you why I think Gene Roddenberry was smarter than George W. Bush. Arguably, Tom Arnold is also smarter than W. But, then again, I think we can all agree that if we made a list of people whose mental prowess exceeds that of our commander in chief, few people would fail to make the cut. I see that. But let's just focus on Gene for a second and how
Star Trek is the answer to our foreign policy woes.
Don't stop reading. I realize that I'm probably the only person any of you know who is infatuated enough with the idea of space travel - and the future in general, really - to be way into
Star Trek [specifically
The Next Generation and, recently,
Enterprise]. Wait - despite all evidence to the contrary, you still thought I was cool? Ha.
But I digress.
The point I'm trying to make doesn't actually require any knowledge of
Star Trek. All you need is a quick overview. I'll keep it short since you're far less nerdy than me:
In the future that
Star Trek paints for us, there exists an alliance of a bunch of different worlds called the United Federation of Planets. And Starfleet is sort of the Federation's military - only it is about more than just defense: it's mostly about exploration, research, diplomacy, and reaching out to hitherto undiscovered civilizations. As such, Starfleet, this fictional team of FAKE planets, has enough sense to prepare itself for this type of genuinely universe-changing work by thinking out what its intended purpose is - and what standards it ought to hold itself to. This is more than a mission statement - it supersedes and governs ALL missions. It's called the Prime Directive.
Think of it this way. There are all types of dilemmas associated with medical ethics, right? Well, "First, do no harm" doesn't necessarily solve these dilemmas, telling us whether or not we should clone organs, for example, but it provides doctors with a guiding principle - a north star by which they can find the way to what's right. The Prime Directive does the same thing. It's the Federation's guiding principle.
So, you ask, what does it say, this new-fangled Prime Directive? Well, it's simple. It mainly says that you can't interfere with the internal affairs of other cultures and civilizations. And more specifically, you can't expose "primitive" cultures to anything that makes them aware of technology they've never seen or even to the fact that life exists outside of their little world. To do so would mean altering the natural course of their development. You can't even help them when they're in trouble - even if their lives are in danger - if it means making contact before they are ready. Imagine
Marty McFly leaving his iPhone at the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance in 1955. Bad news.
I have decided that the United States [a member, by the way, of a little federation I like to call the United Nations] should adopt said Prime Directive as its foreign policy. I think the idea of live-and-let-live [hmmm...maybe that's oversimplifying] is pretty straight-forward. I also believe that, should The Decider happen across this post [not that he reads or visits websites other than "the google"], he may automatically decide, as history suggests, that if the definition of "primitive" determines whether or not our grubby little imperialist hands can spread democracy to a country, then we are the most un-primitive country there is, so everyone else qualifies for invasion.
So how do we decide who is "primitive" without being national supremacists? [Call Dennis Kucinich and tell him I coined a term he'll probably want to adopt.] I don't really know. Maybe the fact that we're interested in reaching out to, trading with, and visiting other countries makes us "advanced" [as opposed to primitive].
Of course, good old Gene has it all figured out in his fake universe. There, you're a primitive culture if you haven't yet thought to or figured out how to travel at warp speed, which is many times the speed of light. I guess it would take you and entire lifetime just to get all the way out into deep space if you were traveling slower than that - so you'd have to have warp drive to even get to a far away enough place to have a chance at bumping into a neighbor two.
So Gene says, basically, that a culture's technological advancement is the litmus test for determining whether or not it's appropriate to try to make friends. Get it? - If they are capable of getting in a starship and traveling toward us, then they have conceived of us. Therefore, we can introduce ourselves without blowing their minds.
Remember my Kucinich-ish term "national supremacy" - It would lead us to believe that democracy is our litmus test. Or maybe that's all wrong - maybe it's capitalism. Maybe that means that, if we're following Gene's rules, we can actively give and take resources with capitalists and we can swap war stories with fellow democracies [wait - we're a republic], but we shouldn't force our square pegs in dissimilar societies' round holes, if you know what I mean.
But what if they ask for it? There are lots of other questions like this. I mean, there are a lot of people on any given planet. Who do we talk to first? And how far do we take this Prime Directive? What if lives are at stake?
There are lots of good examples of how the Directive has been applied in tough situations. And even my favorite of the Enterprise captains, Jean-Luc Picard, violated it 9 times, each time for a different, but seemingly understandable reason. But I think the best example of a tough situation that required pretty strict adherence to the Prime Directive took place before the Directive itself even existed.
The last ST series produced,
Enterprise, is like the prequel to the original
Star Trek series and is set just as Earth begins to explore deep space - before they figure out they need a Prime Directive - before there's even a Federation of Planets. I'd call them the George W. Years, but I think it was more like an age of innocence than one of ignorance. Plus that'd be pretty insulting to Captain Archer - I mean Sam - I mean Scott Bakula.
Anyway, back in those days, the Enterprise found a planet that was populated by two different species. One was more advanced than the other - they had technology, although it wasn't as advanced as the Federation's. The second species was much less advanced and acted as laborers for the first. The stronger species gave the weaker ones food and other necessities while the weaker did all of the manual labor, etc. The more advanced of the two also had a serious genetic problem - they were all getting pretty ill and the symptoms and death rates were growing with each century. They were becoming extinct. The Enterprise crew could have made a cure that would save the species - one that the dying people themselves could never have come up with - but they didn't. It appeared that the secondary species was pretty intelligent when not dominated by the first - and their genetics would triumph over that of their stronger cousins. If the Enterprise had freely given away a cure, it would have completely changed the natural course of evolution on the planet. They did, compassionate earthlings that they were, create, replicate, and dispense a drug that would ease some of the dying people's pain. Aww.
Should the same type of logic be extended here on our planet? When the fledgling US went through its Civil War, did any one of the long established countries - if not empires - intercede? What would they have had to gain from picking a side and helping - or even arming them? What if someone had given the south phase pistols and tricorders? I'm just saying - how does our country decide who to make "first contact" with when we decide to get all imperialist and democracy-happy? How do we decide who is right? The Sunnis, or the Shiites? And how do we know if they are members of a federation that we don't know about? You know, like the Federation of the Entire Muslim World Which Is Huge that seemed like just a blip on the radar 6 years ago.
I guess the most important part of
Star Trek-ish-ness that I would love for our country to internalize is self-awareness. Before the Prime Directive existed, Starfleet officers were guided by a gut feeling - and a little bit of welcomed Vulcan influence. They knew they needed to temper their potentially hasty actions, so they devised a plan, learned from their successes and failures, and optimized for good results. And by
The Next Generation, they were best buddies with their old foes the Klingons and the Cardassians.
And what did we do? We lost track of history. About 100 years ago, this guy named McKinley got the itch that is greed [undoubtedly agitated by prime canal real estate and sugar crop envy], started the Spanish-American War, and took over a bunch of Spain's annexed territories. He had the choice: give these countries [and the people] their sovereignty and try to make friends, or take them over. You guessed it - we took them over - but "for their own good." And what made McKinley's decision? Yep, you guessed it again - God told him to. Sound familiar? And just like Al Gore's prescient rants on global warming and Louisiana levies weren't heard until it was either too late or fashionable, McKinley had his own alter ego in Mark Twain. I'm not sure if I'm more pissed at W for not learning from McKinley - or at Gore for not learning from Twain. Or at Twain
and Gore for not breaking through the noise. 'Cause it's all happening again.
One hundred years is a lot more today than it will be by the time we meet the Vulcans. I'm just pretty frustrated that - not only do we not seem to understand our place in the universe - we can't look back to just 8 years before my grandma was born and decide that maybe we needed a guiding principle by which to judge our future foreign policy decisions - or even inclinations. I want a Prime Directive and I want it to be a good one - and I want it now since we couldn't manage to write or follow one 100 or even 6 years ago, really.
And with that, I nominate [the probably cryogenically frozen head of] Gene Roddenberry to be the 2008 Democratic candidate for President. Do I hear a second?
took a "find the candidate whose views match yours" quiz, good old [teeny] Kucinich was right at the top of my results. The thing is, I'm not embarrassed. I think most of my democrat friends would fall into the same general area. He and Gravel are the two candidates who acknowledge that gay marriage is an equality issue and that of course it should be legal. The only thing I really disagree with Kucinich about is Israel - which is a big enough deal to me to send my vote elsewhere. Other than that, he gets my whole Star Trek mentality - hell, he even has the ears.
Not surprising, but weird. I really think that Hillary knows better. I doubt she believes in a god and I doubt she thinks gay marriage is wrong. I just think she - and Bill, too - are too intellectual and philosophical to believe otherwise. Not that people who do believe in a god and/or don't believe in gay marriage are dumb and shallow - you all know what I mean.
