Two Sides of Injustice

Recently stories came out detailing a pretty terrible scheme happening at Disney Land.  Prior to their visits, families have been hiring persons with disabilities to be their guides, then while in the park, posing as family of the guides, thereby receiving special treatment and front-of-the-line privileges because they are all visiting together.  In the article, a group of investigators went undercover, searched Craigslist, found people advertising their abilities to be guides for Disney Land, hired the individuals, then interviewed the guides after-the-fact to get their takes on what was happening.  In these interviews, neither of the guides expressed remorse or ill-feelings about what was happening – they even said they would continue to do it because it was simply creative capitalism.

If you would like to read the whole story (short and worth reading), please click here.

With that being said, the part about this story that I find so interesting is the official comments made by Disney and the president and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities (found in the article).  Let me reiterate those statements:

Disney – “We find it deplorable that people would hire the disabled to abuse accommodations that were designed to permit our guests with disabilities to enjoy their time in our parks. We have initiated a review of this abuse and will take appropriate steps to deter this type of unacceptable activity.”

American Association of People with Disabilities – “While Disney must move swiftly to train their employees to recognize and stop this abuse, it’s important to note that Disney has a great track record on accommodating people with disabilities. It’s disturbing that nondisabled visitors would take advantage of these accommodations. This situation goes to show that money may buy a lot, but apparently civility and respect are not among those things.”

Let me take a step back for a moment to talk about Aristotle.  In his work “Nicomachean Ethics“, among other topics worth reading on, Aristotle spends a lofty amount of time speaking about justice.  He defines what justice and injustice are, and more specifically, what it takes for someone to truly be considered unjust or wicked, two words he uses fairly synonymously throughout the section.  Of note, Aristotle said:

“If [a person] does [harm] in knowledge, but without previous deliberation, it is an act of injustice; this is true, for instance, of actions caused by spirit and other feelings that are natural or necessary for human beings.  For when someone inflicts these harms and commits these errors, he does injustice and these are acts of injustice; but he is not hereby unjust or wicked, since it is not vice that causes him to inflict the harm.  But whenever his decision is the cause, he is unjust and vicious” (taken from the Terence Irwin translation, pg. 80).

An attempt to paraphrase in simple terms: someone can be unjust, or can do injustice, it all depends on forethought and intent.

An attempt at an example: a thief steals a valuable watch, then turns around and sells it so someone, someone who is aware it is stolen.  In this case, the thief is clearly unjust, as his decision (and action) caused someone else (the original watch owner) harm.  The buyer does not suffer from any sort of vice in the decision to purchase the watch; the buyer sees a good deal and a transaction that will make all parties (thief and buyer) better off.  Therefore, the buyer simply commits injustice, but is not necessarily unjust from that transaction.

Now, having said that, let’s reexamine the Disney Land debacle through the lens of justice.  The situation: people are walking around the park, receiving special treatment because they have a person with a disability – someone they are paying – in their group.  This person does not know the group, the guide is simply posing as a family member to imbue special opportunities to the group.  Clearly, something is wrong with this scenario.

To examine the injustice in this scenario, the manner in which this situation matriculated must be examined.  Therefore, I propose two options to explain how the situation could have arisen:

Option 1: the family solicited that it was looking for a guide to be paid to stand-in as a family member to give the family special treatment.  A potential guide responded to the solicitation, was paid accordingly upon providing services, then disembarked.

Option 2: the guide solicited an ability to imbue special treatment to a family, provided proper payment.  A family responded to the solicitation, paid the guide accordingly, then disembarked.

In both options, it is clear that the act which coordinates the harm/inconvenience to others – hence, what should result in the assignment of “unjust” – is the initial solicitation.  The solicitor establishes the grounds for the bargain, poses the idea, and seeks out a way to complete the action.  It is also apparent, then, that the responding party is committing, at the very least, an act of injustice, through taking the less-then-respectable offer and seeing it through.  Hence, both parties are to blame for both instances, and the assignment of “unjust” falls accordingly depending on the coordinator at a minimum (possibly both depending on intent).  Now, applying this logic to the articles’ exact situations, where both guides posted their potential services onto a solicitation website, then the guides can be considered unjust, and (at a minimum) the families committed acts of injustice.  I am not suggesting that this is how it always works – I’m willing to entertain the notion that this could be an isolated incident – however it is how it went in this particular situation.

However, the statements above made by Disney and the AAPD make it seem as if the assignment of injustice should completely fall upon the families hiring the guides: the “deplorable” actions of the families; the “disturbing” decisions for nondisabled persons to “take advantage” of disabled privileges; “money can’t buy” civility and respect.  Nowhere in the statements does it even suggest the possibility that the guides may, too, have been committing “deplorable” and “disturbing” acts through their advertisement of their services or through responding to someone looking for a guide for the said purpose.

Let the record show, I am not suggesting that the actions by the families involved are not terrible – they are.  However, I am simply pointing out the fact that acts of injustice were committed by both guides and families, and it does not make sense to overlook that fact.  Both guides in the article, as far as it would seem, were completely mentally capable.  They were not being taken advantage of – they advertised their services themselves and orchestrated the entire situation.  They were not poor peons in a scheme – they knowingly committed acts of injustice.  So I question why exactly the unjust acts committed by these individuals have been overlooked.  The best answer I can come up with is that the responses were attempts at political correctness, as if persons with disabilities would be offended if they were called out for their own acts of injustice.  Presuming that is the case, then that fact alone – that they were so afraid to speak the truth – says a lot about the organizations themselves.  Sadly, it may also say a lot about the world we live in; a world where the tiniest remark, no matter how true, has the potential to be taken out of context, manipulated, published online, and used in completely heinous ways against the person who made the statement.  I may not agree with the way these organizations have presented their opinions, but I can certainly understand why they would be reluctant to do anything different.

The truth is that we live in a world where injustice happens.  We do what we can to prevent it, but unfortunately it is not always in our control.  However, what we can control is how we respond to the injustice.  With that in mind, I am positive that proper response includes looking at the issues through a clear lens, and not through one shrouded in so much political correctness that an entire side of the injustice is simply left off the hook.  Do not let fear deter you from asking the hard questions, as they are the ones that most often lead to the greatest lessons.

Our Cruel New World

In 1932, Aldous Huxley released his work “Brave New World”.  Huxley envisioned a society engineered by scientists and the government.  In this world, the population is kept in check (kept at a maximum of two billion), sex is strictly for recreation (only the best people can breed), and people’s roles are predetermined at birth (with the help of genetic engineering).  The Alphas, people considered to be optimal, have prestigious roles in society and the government.  The Epsilons, genetically engineered to be shorter and less intelligent, take less flashy jobs.  Everyone, though, believes they are exactly where they are supposed to be through “religion”, sleep psychology, and ignorance.  In this society, the people know their roles, are satisfied with their lives, and live without fear.

We are certainly not where Huxley thought we would be in many capacities.  Perhaps for the best – in his brave new world, the people are “happy” only because they are manipulated, brainwashed, and controlled by the government.  People who choose not to live in this society are branded as outcasts, savages who live in reserves set aside by the government.  These two worlds intersect as a few individuals become intrigued by what they see around them.  I will not ruin the book, but just know it is a great read and worth your time.

Despite its many shortcomings, the idea of a society without fear resonates greatly with me.  I could spend hours examining the book, breaking down the mindsets of the citizens of this world and trying to discover how they would live this way.  However, more relevant to my thoughts on the world around me, this concept makes me think about the level of fear in our society.  Are we a “fearful” society?  How does our level of fear compare to the level of ages past?

These questions started brewing in my head after a very simple event: a few friends and I recently played disc golf at a course just outside of Blacksburg.  For those who do not know, Blacksburg is a fairly secluded place – small town in the southwest portion of Virginia.  Relatively quiet, safe, college town for the most part – we’ve left our backdoor unlocked almost every night we have lived here, I often leave my windows rolled down in the middle of the day – it’s that kind of place.  At the course, I left my brand new phone, my keys, and my wallet in the back seat of the car while we played.  I did not cover it up.  It was in plain sight for anyone who walked by the car and peeked in.  When we returned to the car after playing for over an hour, the statement was made, “only in Blacksburg can you leave a wallet in plain sight in the back seat of the car,” as to imply that absolutely everywhere else the car would have been broken into and the wallet stolen.

Is that truly the world we live in?  Is the world so dangerous that we have to worry about a wallet being left in plain sight in a locked car?

Perhaps the question of whether it is actually more dangerous now than before is difficult to answer at this exact moment.  However, it seems quite clear to me that we at least perceive it to be far more dangerous than it once was.  Many of us talk about running around as kids until all hours of the evening playing flashlight tag around our neighborhood.  People used to hitchhike and pick up hitchhikers without reserve.  Airports used to have metal detectors with minimal security for passengers getting on board.  Now, parents typically want their kids to be in by sundown, hitchhiking is viewed as a sure-fire way to get yourself killed, and airports bombard passengers with radiation to find the smallest traces of anything that can be concealed.  While this all could be chalked up to heightened awareness of the danger with these activities, many of these changes impede on our privacy, personal space, time, and patience.  Given our willingness to give these things up, there must be a real fear of what could happen; hence, there is an increased perception of more danger in the world.

Now to address the concern of if there is actually more danger or if we simply believe there is.  Let us look at this logically.  Suppose there is a  level of danger for the average individual, d.  This is not danger from accidents or things of that nature, but danger from humans and society.  This level should be based directly on the actual threats to the individual reduced by the safety mechanisms in place to reduce risk.  Therefore, in a formula, danger = threats – safety mechanisms.  With certainty, I say that safety mechanisms of today (i.e. security cameras, reinforced glass, seat belts, security guards) are better than they ever have been.  Therefore, looking at this as a mathematical formula, say d (danger), t (threats), and s (safety mechanisms) are established as how they were in the year 1,900.  Therefore, d(1900) = t – s.  That means that d(2013) = (t + the increase in t) – (s + the increase in s).  Given how much s has increased, I have a hard time believing that threats, that is deliberate threats from humans to humans, have increased as much.  Hence, I believe the overall danger to people from others is relatively low, if not as low as it has ever been.

I recognize this is a very simple way to look at danger, but I think it is a valid view on the topic.  Take the recent Boston Marathon bombings that happened.  Within hours there were images of the suspects.  Within a day everything was known about them.  And within two days, they were both apprehended.  Now had an attack of this type happened a century ago, odds are the suspects would have never been caught, perhaps never even have been identified.  Now, the reality is that anyone who does something of that nature has a high chance of being caught.  I even think that such sophisticated technology and security thwarts many would-be criminals from becoming so.

To sum this up, I do not buy the notion that the world is any more dangerous today than it used to be.  Crime and terror organizations have always existed.  However, I propose that the cruel new world of today is only perceived to be a more dangerous place because of the advent of media and the connectedness of the world.  Before the mass use of the internet, people simply did not hear about the things that were happening.  Now, it is not as though the world is more dangerous, people simply believe that to be the case because they are more aware of the happenings around them.  Under the pretense that the world is not more dangerous, then the same activities that have always happened should still be able to be done.

A couple of tricksters right there

Murderers have always walked the street.  Thieves and tricksters have always been around.  But only now is it perceived that people can’t ever leave their car windows rolled down.  Now Parents cannot let their children play in their neighborhoods past a certain point for fear of being abducted.   People cannot even leave wallets unattended in a locked car.

Or could they?

If the world is not as bad as it seems, then realizing and believing this could give us all some peace of mind.  We shouldn’t give in to the evil of the world and live in fear.  As good people of the world, rather than live in fear, we should put faith in our fellow humans.  People used to be willing to offer and accept help from others – now people think that a person offering a helping hand is just looking for an in to have an avenue to do harm.  That says a lot about us and where we are.  No longer are we about helping our fellow man.  Now it would seem that we are about assuming our fellow man is evil and up to no good.  That’s just really sad, and in my opinion, not how we were meant to live as a society.

All of this makes me think about Homer’s “Odyssey” and the nature of man back then.  There were many gods during the time of the Greeks and Romans, and often times people led their lives in efforts to please the gods.  One way to quickly displease the gods was to turn away someone in need.  Much as Odysseus’ son did to more than fifty men, people were expected to help one another, especially the weary traveler in need of food and a bed.  Heck, it was even expected back then to give a parting gift to the stranger upon departure.  It was a different time, and all of that happened without video cameras, cell phones, or good locks on doors.

I am not proposing that we be stupid and set ourselves up for danger and disaster.  Real dangers do exist out there, I am not denying that, but to believe that everyone is inherently evil does no good, and if anything, lets evil win.  Odds are the person on the side of the road by his busted down truck is not plotting to murder whomever is “stupid” enough to stop; odds are he is probably just stranded and an offer of assistance would be most welcome.

This all may be no more than food for thought, but I truly challenge people to think a better of their fellow man and put more faith in society.  If we believe that people are actually good, then those times when we see something amiss we will not be so inclined to write it off, but to actually help out one another.

He’s just a nice guy, not trying to poison them or anything

The “Laws” of “Marriage”

The back-to-back hearings with the Supreme Court regarding Proposition Eight and the Defense of Marriage Act certainly have created an electrifying time for the topic of gay marriage.  A quick glance at Facebook and one can’t help but notice the multitude of current profile pictures using the red equal sign, or the number of pro-gay marriage statuses that have appeared.

Of course, on the other hand, there are pictures posted of manipulations of the equal sign to symbolize support for it remaining unrecognized, along with statuses proclaiming the sanctity of marriage, its historic place in America, and how it should remain as is.  Through all of this, both sides have demonstrated strong stances and beliefs, culminating in fighting words, Facebook arguments, and hateful language.

From all of the arguments, it is clear there are multiple reasons for and against the legalization of gay marriage.  These arguments have many sources: religion, spirituality, philosophy, human rights, anti-government regulations, etc.; the list carries on really.  Everyone has their reasons and ideas behind why they support the beliefs that they do.

My mind has been trying to make sense of things.  I have spent hours talking with others and thinking about the basis of so many aspects of this entire ordeal, looking at things from multiple perspectives and trying to truly empathize with both sides of the argument.  From all of my thinking, I came to two questions that made me think most about what and why I believe what I do.

1. What is the purpose of laws?

The focus on the argument is currently on laws that have been established in our country by our system of government.  People have questioned the constitutionality of the laws and questioned if they are relevant in today’s shifting society.  However, to me, this questioning of the laws gives rise to the broader and much more important issue regarding what the point of law is in the first place.

M. N. S. Sellers, Regents Professor of the University System of Maryland and Director of the University of Baltimore Center for International and Comparative Law, said the following at a speech in 2003:

Lady Justice, with her sword, scales, and blind fold

“The purpose of law is to realize justice.”

Even such a simple definition of law elicits many questions from me, namely, what is justice?  What does it mean for something to be just?  For this, I turn to my friend Wikipedia.  Wikipedia states that justice is traditionally associated with concepts of fate and reincarnation.  It even goes on to suggest that it is tied to the concept of fairness.  All of this seems to make sense to me – getting what you deserve, being rewarded accordingly to life choices – so I will attempt to synthesize the two:

The purpose of law is to ensure people are treated fairly.  In other words, to prevent people from being treated unfairly.  Still broad, because who is to say what is “fair”.  However, there is one clear fact to take away: law has something to do with the way people are treated by others.  More plainly, I think laws are meant to prevent an individual from being harmed by others.

Considering this, having a law on marriage (at federal or state level) at all baffles me.  How does regulating the sex of who can and cannot get married (regardless of the law that is put in place) promote fairness?  As a citizen of the United States, how am I better protected from others by this kind of law?  I do not see how I am.  No matter the stance, for or against, a law of this nature simply does not seem to be congruent with what the purpose of law is in the first place.

2. Why is the word “marriage” even being used anymore?

Let us look beyond the notion of gay marriage and simply look at the notion of marriage.  Regardless of the idea of the separation of church and state, there is no denying that the country was founded on Christian principles – they are rooted in the very foundations of our society!  Our pledge of allegiance declares us a “nation under God”; our money claims “in God we trust” coupled with the all-seeing eye of God; congress-persons have historically sworn in on a Bible; the court of law asks witnesses if they swear to tell the truth, “so help me God”; the list goes on and on.  I am not suggesting that we need to abide by Christian principles, I am simply pointing out that Christianity was at the roots of many of our country’s founding ideals.  With that in mind, it should come as no surprise that the government viewed marriage as that between a man and a woman, given the Christian doctrine declaring so (not to mention its historic use of being between a man and a woman, even outside of Christianity).

Provided this, I make the case that the term “marriage” was instituted in the United States initially based on religious concepts throughout history.

Why is this an important claim to make?  It doesn’t have to do with me saying “marriage” should be reserved for a man and a woman; rather it is it suggest that it should be removed from the government entirely.  How can we be a country where church and state are supposed to be separate when residue of religion is still contained in the very fabric of the government?  I propose, in its stead, we shift our thinking to that of “civil union” for all people who want to be together, regardless of sexual orientation.  Let “marriage” be the sacred bond between two people (however it is they want to define that bond), and let “civil union” be the government’s way of legally acknowledging the rights two people give to one another.

I think we would all agree that the government has no place telling us how we can get “married” – that seems to be a special place for all of us.  Some people are married before the Lord, some before Elvis, and some simply before the state; regardless, our “marriages”, and what they means to us, should be decided by us.  Let us remove the government entirely from that process and simply call it a “civil union” for all legal purposes.

Why do these questions even matter to me?

When I look at all of the arguing going on, I tend to think a lot of it could be subverted by taking a step back and looking at these bigger pictures.  Now I recognize this whole issue is far more complicated than two basic questions.  However, they are two that I believe should be asked.  Many of the arguments boil down to people’s personal beliefs; I tend to feel because of this, most people fail to ask the tougher questions that remove their individual convictions from the equation to examine the issue from much broader perspectives.  It is always tough to remove our personal feelings on vast, worldly topics to consider problems from new perspectives and vantage points; both sides of the debate struggle with the concept, as made clear by the many hateful arguments.  However, it is what we must be willing to do if we are to ever make great strides in our world.

More than likely, most readers will attempt to make a conclusion on what I support based on what I write, but that is human nature – to want to make sense of things.  Perhaps if there is logic in what I say and it leads you to a more refined conclusion (whatever that may be), then perhaps the questions are serving their purpose of making us think about the topics at hand that truly matter.

It is not my goal to tell you what to believe – that is for all of you to decide as individual adults – but I do hope to push your thinking about how changing a few words and our perspectives can make a difference in how the argument plays out.  I am asking you to reconsider how what you believe should or should not fit into our legal system.

I leave you with this: Why are we really fighting?  Is it truly about different beliefs (because people have vastly differing beliefs about so many things everyday, yet we seem to be civil about those), or does it come down to a series of flaws in the already highly-flawed system that we call our government?

How’s that for a perspective?

[Sellers, M. N. S. (2004). The value and purpose of law. University of Baltimore Law Review, 33(2), 145.]

A change in the American perspective

On January 27, 1838, Abraham Lincoln, a man considered to be the greatest American president, delivered a speech titled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions”  to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois.  In the speech, Lincoln was specifically speaking about slavery in the United States and how its presence would be the downfall of the nation.  However, in the speech, Lincoln said something that had far reaching implications beyond those of slavery:

“If [danger] ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”

This line is often misquoted as, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”  Just the same, the point is that Lincoln believed that our military was, and will always be, powerful enough to thwart any external attack, and that only internal conflict will end the United States as we know it.

Regardless of political affiliation or stance, there is no denying that many issues currently face the United States’ political system: unemployment rates, debt, equal marriage rights, war, drug legalization, border concerns, illegal immigrants – and that’s just naming a handful of them.  The outcome of these issues will have profound impacts on the future of our country once they come to pass.

But to quote Nate Burke, the Assistant Director for Fraternity and Sorority Involvement at Stetson University, “Your problems are not your problems.”  While the issues mentioned are serious and need to be addressed, they are merely byproducts of the instability and corruption that undermines the current political institution of the United States.  They are symptoms of far deeper chasms facing the United States right now.  And these are the issues that will bring about the downfall of the United States.

I believe honesty and transparency in our leaders is at the forefront of those chasms.

I began writing this in wake of the 2013 “State of the Union” address delivered by President Obama.  Immediately following the speech, articles began flooding the internet about the statements made by the president.  In particular, a Yahoo! News article caught my eye.  A few pieces to note:

• Obama took claim for having created six million jobs (which, to note, includes both private and public).  True, but he neglected to mention a total loss in jobs of 4.8 million.  While this does still equal a positive gain of 1.2 million jobs, I guess he didn’t think the whole truth was sufficient.
• Obama claimed that cars now go twice as far on a gallon of gas.  Well, not exactly, since the legislation passed since he came into office established that, by 2025, the average car will have a fuel economy of 54.5 mpg.  And how exactly the President takes credit for the accomplishment of scientists all around the world, I’m not exactly sure.

If you would like to look at the rest of them, click the link to check them out.  I simply wanted to point out a few of the larger blunders.

Now please note: I am in no way pointing out Obama as the only politician to ever lie (as I mentioned, that is simply what sparked the post).  With a few notable exceptions – and even exceptions I suppose told a white-lie or two – many politicians have used deception to make points and move agendas forward since the first politician came to exist.  The entire campaign strategies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were based on calling the other a liar.  On the topic of Bill Clinton, him being deemed a “liar” goes without saying.  For anyone who watched the political campaigns of 2012, I highly doubt anyone has any real idea what either candidate was planning on doing, considering almost everything one said was refuted and called a lie by the other.  There is always Watergate as well if we’re looking for political lies through the years.

Excluding Nixon (who was ultimately pardoned for his involvement in the Watergate scandal), there is practically zero accountability for the lies, stretches, and misrepresentations continually delivered by numerous political figures.  Even Clinton, who lied under oath, left office with the highest end-of-term approval rating by any president since World War II!  How is it that we have come to accept deception and corruption as the norms of modern-day politics?  Are we truly so powerless that nothing can be done to prevent this sort of behavior from happening again?  How did we get where we are today?

Plato’s “Republic” is a work that is filled with wisdom.  And even though it was written in 400 b.c., it may provide some insight into the fall of a democratic society.  It should be noted that Plato believed that a democratic society is only the fourth-of-five best type of government and stems from a lack of education, improper use of resources, and insatiable greed from the result of wealth and spoils of war.

A quick and dirty summation of Plato’s thoughts on a democracy is as follows:

In a democracy, people are free; hence they have license to do whatever they want.  Surely it is clear that each person will arrange his own life however he wants.  For most inhabitants of this city, the desiring part will rule their souls as they live out their lives.  Also, given the freedom of the people of the city, anyone is eligible of being a ruler, regardless of merit, capability, or ability.  No thought is given to any of this, so long as the ruler tells the people what they want to hear.  Whether the leader follows through with anything or not, the people have the opportunity to get rid of their leader and find a new one.  The power is now in the hands of the masses.  Therefore, the freedom that was initially the shining achievement of the democracy will ultimately be its downfall, as this unrestrained freedom leads to mob rule.  From this mob, an individual will recognize that his desire is to rule and be honored, and will make promises of order and change to the people.  And because this is what the people want to hear, they will submit before his leadership under false beliefs, unknowingly establishing a Tyranny, the lowest-possible form of government (summarized from Plato’s “Republic”, book VIII).

Politicians have been lying for years, telling the people what they want to hear, and saying whatever is required to get into office.  Politics are no longer about actually doing what is best for the country and the people; rather it is about telling the people what they want to hear and whatever it takes to get into office.  Sometimes it is even about just giving the people what they want, rather than what they, and the country, need.  And at the end of it all, if enough people are not satisfied, then the people demonstrate that by their vote to either keep or get rid of a politician.

Is this all evidence to suggest that we have slowly began moving towards mob rule and the tyrannical government as proposed by Plato?  Sadly, I am not sure I can see our current state as anything other than just that.  This all to me is the highest demonstration of what Lincoln said about the country being destroyed from the inside out.

When will all of this stop?  When will the accountability of trillions of dollars in deficit, entitlement issues, deceit, and brash policies designed for the sole purpose of winning votes regardless of the larger outcome be placed on the people responsible for these decisions?

I think it is when we, as citizens of the United States, stop thinking about what is easiest for all of us individually, and start thinking about what is good for us collectively.  This type of change can only come from hard decisions that defy the selfish desires of the individual.  No one should expect hand-outs or free rides.  No one should feel entitled to anything they haven’t earned in some capacity.  No one should expect anyone to take care of them other than themselves.  In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “The  U. S. Constitution doesn’t guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have  to catch up with it yourself.”  There is no reason to assume that we have the “right” to much of anything these days (save our unalienable rights as defined by the Preamble).  Perhaps the only actual right we do have is the pursuit of our hearts’-desires, so long as the proper mechanisms are established in the first place.  That is what I believe the founding father’s intended from the beginning.

I believe Plato would agree with me when I say that the me-centered thinking of Americans right now is a broad indicator of the future of our great nation.  It is time that we refocus our aims, begin thinking outwardly rather than inwardly, and tell our “leaders” that our confidence is shaken in them, and it is time for a change.

Think Without Thinking

For the entire five months I was reading Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”, my good friend kept insisting that she had a great book for me to read when I finished.  She told me it would be a quick read and something right up my ally.  In my mind, this meant something along the lines of “Beowulf” given the types of books I have been reading (“Beowulf” is solid might I add); in her mind, this meant a book on cognition and psychology (I’m such a nerd my friends know I will eat this sort of stuff up).  Hence, she handed me “Blink: The power of thinking without thinking” by Malcolm Gladwell.

Given my recent literary endeavors, I was a bit disappointed.  I expected heroes, demons, adventures, philosophy, arguments.  Instead I got a book about thinking.  But, I figured a break from classics might do me some good.

Katie knows me too well.

“Blink” was a good read.  Essentially, it is a book that analyzes the brain’s ability to quickly make decisions.  I say the brain’s ability, rather than humans’ abilities, because these decisions the book analyzes are often beyond process and comprehension by the individual.  At times, the brain is simply processing and making decisions without the individual ever being aware of the information being interpreted.  This amazing ability of the human mind has both its advantages and disadvantages, and often times it is the context of the situation that determines its true ability to accurately make snap-decisions.

Anyone who knows me knows I’m a thinker.  I like philosophical conversations where tiny nuances are examined to try to find the absolute best solution to a posed situation.  I enjoy theoretical discussions where the impossible is assumed to be possible and the world is reexamined from the new perspective.  I love a good argument about the right or wrong nature of some aspect of society.

This love of thinking does not always translate well when it comes to life decisions, especially ones where you can massively over-think them.  I certainly wouldn’t say that my, nor anyone’s, over-analysis of a situation is a fault.  After reading “Blink”, however, I might say it is simply unnecessary.

Through analyzing various situations involving choices based on snap-decisions, the author presents his conclusion with a quote from an unexpected source: Sigmund Freud – “When making a decision of minor importance, I have always found it advantageous to consider all the pros and cons.  In vital matters, however, such as the choice of a mate or a profession, the decision should come from the unconscious, from somewhere within ourselves.  In the important decision of personal life, we should be governed, I think, by the deep inner needs of our nature.”

Quite the oxymoron if you ask me – spend time and effort on minor decisions, go with your gut on major ones.  But perhaps it is a conclusion we can wrap our heads around if we actually think about it.

This guy used to kick my butt all the time on the computer.

The ability to make an accurate snap-decision can only stem from expertise – special skill or knowledge – gained from extensive learning and experience.  Take an expert in chess.  They say a great chess player sees all possible moves and then makes a decision, while a chess master sees only the right move and makes it.  That kind of mastery does not come from meticulously planning and calculating that move; it comes from hours and days and years of practice and experience and it all culminating into an instantaneous decision about what move to make.

Another example I pull from “Blink” is that of a tennis coach’s ability to accurately predict when a player would fault based solely on the player’s wind-up.  Tests were done with him, with the researchers showing video of players serving and freeze-framing just before contact was made, and with more than 90% accuracy he was able to predict whether the serve was good or not.  At first he couldn’t even explain what it was he was seeing in the players that led to the conclusions he was making.  Something was being processed in his mind that told him the outcome of the serve.  Once again, an instant decision based on the inner workings built after years and years of experience.

With the tennis coach and chess master examples in mind, let’s reexamine a portion of Freud’s quote: “In vital matters, however, such as the choice of a mate or a profession, the decision should come from the unconscious, from somewhere within ourselves.  In the important decision of personal life, we should be governed, I think, by the deep inner needs of our nature.”  This makes sense if you consider that each of us are experts on our own lives; that no one understands any of us more than we ourselves do.  As experts of our own lives, often times our decisions are better if they come from the feeling in our hearts than from the logic in our minds.

“Blink” by Malcolm Gladwell was an enjoyable read and one I suggest to anyone.  It certainly made me think a lot, despite its emphasis on actually not thinking.  If nothing else, I’ll certainly rely on my heart and not my mind on big decisions than I have in the past.

Simba only became king when he followed his heart

The Education of David McCoy by Darci Doll

Context is important when taking advice or wisdom from someone.  Hence, I established this part of my blog to open myself up a little, so that anyone who reads it can have another insight into my life; into the context of the “wisdom” that appears on this blog.

Darci at the 2012 Bob Childress Classic Golf Tournament

With that in mind, there are few people who have impacted that context as much as Darci Doll has throughout my life.

For the four and a half years I worked for intramurals at the University of Texas at Austin, Darci was my supervisor and mentor.  From the beginning, starting with how to officiate soccer, Darci taught me more about myself and being a professional than I ever realized.  By far, I spent more time in her office every semester than I did any professor’s office.  Sometimes it was business, sometimes it was just chatting, but we had a really special relationship that truly allowed me to flourish and grow.

I have two stories about Darci that I’d like to share, one slightly embarrassing for her, the other that demonstrates why I consider her my mentor and favorite supervisor thus far.

The first occurred on a night I was working intramural flag football during the fall semester of my third year as a program assistant.  I called Darci that evening to ask her a question, and the conversation went like this:

(Phone is ringing)….

Darci – “Hey baby I was just about to call you.”

Me – “Baby?  Geez Darci I didn’t know we were on those terms.”

Darci’s boyfriend name is “Brian David”.  In her phone, Darci had me and my coworkers in as “IMPA <first name here>”, standing for “intramural program assistant __________”; hence, my name showed up on her phone as “IMPA David”.  Darci had glanced at her phone, only saw the “David” at the end of the phone, and the rest goes without saying.  I didn’t let that one down for a while.

Darci at the 2012 National Intramural Sports Symposium

The second, however, is a story, or rather a culmination of stories, I have told countless times when I describe what I look for in a supervisor and the type of supervisor and mentor I hope to be.  Darci had relentless faith in us as program assistants.  At the fields or at the courts, we were in charge, and Darci encouraged us to make the hard decisions without having to call her.  She pushed us to consider the options, make a decision, detail the decision, and come discuss it with her in the morning.  She believed in us – at least believed that we wouldn’t screw anything up beyond repair.  But it wasn’t that belief that always astounded me, rather it was that she never really got “mad” at us when we did screw up.

I suppose I did a good job in that I frequently made tough decisions to the best of my abilities – just what she expected out of us – but I certainly did not always make the best decision.  All too often, at the end of the night, I would find myself typing up an email to Darci explaining a situation and be in her office the next day talking about it.  Sometimes she would affirm my decision, sometimes not.  But she never got mad.  We talked.  I learned.  I asked questions.  She answered.  I grew.  And grew.  And grew.

But no matter what happened, she never got mad at me for trying to do the right thing.

I will never forget how she so effortlessly developed us as people, as students, as program assistants, all the while loving us as if we were her own children during my time at the University of Texas at Austin.

Darci and one of her former program assistants

Things Darci Doll taught me (among others):

• How to properly blow a whistle
• How to listen
• How to be a great supervisor
• That work-life balance is possible
• Mistake’s are okay, so long as you learn from them
• Always expect the unexpected
• We all screw up
• People can change a lot in a short amount of time
• Golf carts tip over if you turn too sharply
• “Family” is more than blood

I will always reflect back on my time at the University of Texas at Austin and immediately think of intramurals; not even playing or winning anything, but working.  It never seemed like work though, and I’m sure that had a lot to do with how great of a person Darci was while I was there and continues to be today.  I will never be able to thank her enough for her role in my growth and development into who I am today.

Purpose, as proposed by Tolstoy

Sometime during the summer, I decided to begin a new endeavor when it came to reading: read the books that we all know about, but most of us have actually never read (especially out of our own free will).  Most of the books were classics that have stood the test of time, such as Homer’s “Illiad” and “Odyssey” and Plato’s “Republic“.  As I was explaining this to a friend, she suggested I read Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”…

And thus began a five-month journey of hatred and love that went by the name “War and Peace” (hereby referred to as W&P).

W&P is the 7th-longest novel ever written in a Latin or Cyrillic based alphabet, and is approximately 570,000 words long (varies with edition).  The copy I own, as translated by Constance Garnett in 1904, is 1,386 pages long.  I’m assuming most people have not read this beast of a book, although I’m sure most have heard of it.  Quick recap:

“‘If life could write, it would write like Tolstoy.’ Isaac Babel Tolstoy’s epic masterpiece intertwines the lives of private and public individuals during the time of the Napoleonic wars and the French invasion of Russia. The fortunes of the Rostovs and the Bolkonskys, of Pierre, Natasha, and Andrei, are intimately connected with the national history that is played out in parallel with their lives. Balls and soirees alternate with councils of war and the machinations of statesmen and generals, scenes of violent battles with everyday human passions in a work whose extraordinary imaginative power has never been surpassed. The prodigious cast of characters, both great and small, seem to act and move as if connected by threads of destiny as the novel relentlessly questions ideas of free will, fate, and providence. Yet Tolstoy’s portrayal of marital relations and scenes of domesticity is as truthful and poignant as the grand themes that underlie them.”

The book was as sadistic as Tyler Durden

This was, by far, the most difficult read I’ve ever encountered.  For the greater part of the first 800 pages I wanted to rip my hair out.  Lots of characters, crazy-long sentences, and a whole lot of seemingly-random events happening to a group of people that I really did not care all that much about it.  Why did I keep going?   Because I was determined, plain and simple.

Despite its horridly slow start, I eventually came to love the book.  Don’t get me wrong, I hated reading it, but I loved the book after it was all said and done.  Tolstoy masterfully crafted sentences that painted vivid pictures of what was going on both around the character and in their heads.  All senses were captured in the writing, and after reading over 1,300 pages of it, I can safely say that I’m a better writer from reading this novel.

Pierre from the 1967 Film adaptation

The part of the book that I want to talk about, however, is not how immersed Tolstoy brings you into the lives of so many characters; not that of the random pages of his own personal philosophies; not that of whether or not Napoleon was a genius or just an idiot.  That part I want to speak of is that of a single character: Pierre Bezukhov.  Through W&P, Pierre is on a journey of self-discovery, frequently asking, both himself and those around him, what their thoughts are on the meaning of life, where God intersects with the immoralities happening around him, and what his individual purpose is.  The final ordeal Pierre goes through is that he is captured and held as a prisoner of war by the French army.  He stays in this for many months until he is ultimately rescued by the Russian army.  During that time, his best friend dies, his wife (who he didn’t really like to begin with) passes away, and his position within Moscow society disappears as the city moves on after his departure and that of the French.

Essentially, Pierre is absolved of all responsibilities: “He was alone in a strange town without acquaintances.  No one made any demands on him; no one sent him anywhere.  He had all he wanted; the thought of his wife, that had in old days been a continual torture to him, was no more, since she herself was no more” (Tolstoy, pg 1,257).

And it was through this freedom that he finally was able to make sense of the world:

“What had worried him in old days, what he had always been seeking to solve, the question of the object of life, did not exist for him now.  That seeking for an object in life was over for him now; and it was not fortuitously or temporarily that it was over.  He felt that there was no such object, and could not be.  And it was just the absence of an object that gave him that complete and joyful sense of freedom that at this time made his happiness” (Tolstoy, pg 1,257).

Absolution

The idea that there really is no object in life is one I find absolutely fascinating.  Destiny, fate, purpose; call it what you will, Pierre denies the existence of any of it – at least to the extent that we can ever know it.  How do our lives change if we convince ourselves that we do not have a predetermined purpose?  I’m with Pierre – to cease searching for a predestined purpose is to have some liberation in an often times stifling journey.

Too many times, people are fixated on a path; on the notion that their life is already in motion; on an inability to stop the train of life.  I think at the end of the day this belief in life’s “inertia” is to blame for why people become stuck in life and do not do the things they want to do.  Perhaps, in a sense, sticking to a journey and following the beaten path explains why so many people have “bucket lists”, and perhaps even why those buckets stay so full.

Pierre’s experience also demonstrates the power of leaving the past behind and moving on.  Not only does Pierre look forward to a life ahead of him that is completely by his own choosing, he looks forward to not having to concern himself with the issues he faced in his former life.  At the end of the book, Pierre is not worried about impressing anyone in high society, proving his valor, or discovering purpose; instead he is simply living.

It’s important to remember here that Pierre is not suggesting to live a life without purpose; the book certainly would suggest otherwise.  Pierre finds his purpose, but it is only when he stops searching for the purpose he is supposed to follow; when he stops concerning himself with what he is supposed to do, and instead simply follows his heart.

I realize that I can do no justice to W&P in this simple blog.  The lessons and beautiful moments abound from the literature – too many for me to describe.  If anything, I hope to have accomplished only two things:

1. Perhaps now you know a few things about W&P, a book considered by many scholars to be the greatest book ever written.  If you ever want a challenge, an opportunity to grow as a writer, and an adventure that will take you deep into an incredible era of Russian/European history, pick it up.  Grit it out through the first 700 pages, and it will be worth it.  And hey, once you read W&P, with the exception of only six other books, every other read you ever have will seem like pie.

2. Live life how you want to.  Don’t spend your life searching for a predestined goal or purpose – you will never know for certain if you find it, that is presuming that it even exists in the first place.  It took Pierre a lifetime, intermingled with struggles, heartbreak, duels, loss, and sorrow, to discover that he was not living, but instead blindly searching for something he did not understand.  My hope is that we all figure out what it is we want for the right reasons, and set our goals accordingly.  Don’t let age, time, geography, expectations, or whatever limitations you are placing on yourself, hold you back.  Live life to the fullest the way you want to.  If you have a few bumps along the way, change your path a time or two, or simply pull a 180, that’s all right too.

And don’t worry.  If you ever get lost on life’s journey, just remember the directions: second star to the right, and straight on till morning.

The New Year: A leader of horses

The New Year – a time of remembering the year that has passed, and looking ahead at the year to come; looking at what we did and did not accomplish, examining what we hope to achieve in the future.  All giving rise to the multitude of New Year resolutions.

Resolutions have been made since the dawn of man.  Ancient Babylonians made promises to their gods to return borrowed objects and pay their debts.  Romans made promises to Janus to commemorate the start of January, for whom the month is named.  In Medieval times, knights took “peacock vows” at the end of the the Christmas season to re-affirm their commitment to chivalry.  And now people make resolutions to lose weight, to stop smoking, and to do more charity work during the new year.  All good resolutions, but what end do these resolutions meet?

A quick search will reveal that “losing weight”, “eating healthier”, and “getting fit” are typically the most popular New Year’s resolutions – Good resolutions considering that over two-thirds of American adults are overweight or obese (according to the CDC).  Then again, given that these weight trends are nothing new, they suggest that these resolutions have rarely, if ever, been effective.

They say that you can lead a horse to water, but that you cannot make it drink.  The same can be said about people and New Year resolutions.  Why does the New Year lead so many people to make resolutions, only to see those resolutions go unfulfilled?

It is not a question of aptitude to succeed; Americans have accomplished much over the years and “losing weight” seems like a menial talk in comparison.  Perhaps, rather it is the fact that New Year resolutions are not made out of will and passion, but simply because it is the thing to do for the New Year.

I do not scrutinize because Americans seem incapable of achieving goals once they are set.  My qualm is that it takes a relatively arbitrary date (what is truly significant about the changing of the last digit of a number?) for people to decide to do the right thing.  It takes the passing of a seemingly random day for people to begin doing what they know they should be doing all along.

Seizing the Day

If New Year resolutions are evident of anything, it is simply that everyone recognizes changes that can be done for the betterment of their own lives or even the lives of others.  I encourage you all to take these changes and make them a reality.  Regardless of time of year or time of life, if you see injustice being done, a way to improve your life, or something that needs change, make the choice, and effort that coincides, to be the change and make it happen.  Don’t let your goals and ambitions be limited to being set on the start of the new year, but rather establish a life of accomplishment and change, always seizing the day to do what should be done.  Carpe diem, my captain.

Happy 2013, and may it be the best year yet.

A third option: Just follow your heart

I suppose this is a follow up to my previous post, The Genericide of Christmas or the Preservation of Christmas, where I made the claim that, if given the two options, either the genericide or the preservation of Christmas, I would certainly advocate for the preservation.  The last thing I want is a sacred holiday to me to be lost in the shuffle of an all-encompassing “christmas”.

The conversations I had with people close to me about that post simply astonished me. Some people appreciated the new take on the view of “happy holiday” being used for the good of the Christian holiday; others thought it did not present all of the options (I acknowledged this at the end of the post); some even labeled me as an attacker on “Merry Christmas” and an “officer in the the war on Christmas”.  I suppose everyone has their ideas, but I certainly am not against Christmas.

I would like to present a third option, as I’ve given my post another thought, and I believe there is middle ground to it all.  One question I have posed to a lot of people during this thought process is this: Let us say you are Christian, and you have a Jewish friend – each of you know the other’s religious affiliation; fill in the blanks for the following conversations –

Conversation 1:

Jewish friend: Happy Hanukkah!

You (Christian): _________________!

Conversation 2:

Jewish friend: Merry Christmas!

You (Christian): _________________!

In my experience, the common response to the first situation is “Merry Christmas”, and the common response to the second situation is “Happy Hanukkah”.  Not sure exactly why but that certainly has been the answer posed to everyone I have asked.  It seems to be a reflection of simply doing what makes sense.  And honestly, that makes sense to me.  In both cases, and almost any possibly combination of “Merry Christmas” and “Happy Hanukkah”, there never seems to be any offense made by either party, despite the different religions.

Everyone is so concerned about offending others during the holiday/Christmas/December season; so much so that it has simply gotten ridiculous.  As I said before, no matter what you call something, it will be what it is, and, frankly, everyone will have their own interpretations of it.  With that in mind, I propose a third option: just follow your heart.  If there was ever a time in the year when people should be open and accepting to differences, it should be now.  If someone wants to call it a holiday tree, so-be-it.  If someone says “Happy Hanukkah” to you, just say whatever you want to say in response.  Odds are, that person didn’t mean anything negative or judgmental by the statement, just an expression that person feels is appropriate for the time of the year.

Maybe it’s a bit of a cop-out, but I think a little compassion for your fellow human will solve a lot of the problems that are happening today.  Perhaps embracing differences, rather than shunning them, and accepting new lexicon into our culture, may be the best and least offensive solution of all.  The kicker is just that it requires a lot of buy-in and acceptance.

The Genericide of Christmas or the Preservation of Christmas

Rockefeller Center, 2012

As a Christian, my first instinct during this time of the year is to tell people “Merry Christmas”, but as a student affairs professional, I am encouraged to use the term “Happy Holidays”.  The logic is valid – “Happy Holidays” is more inclusive, as not everyone celebrates the Christian Christmas, and it clears up the confusion of what to say to people of different faiths.  However, there is certainly a lot of backlash regarding this shift away from “Merry Christmas”.

First, a brief history lesson.  The usage of “Merry Christmas” dates back to 1565, appearing in The Hereford Municipal Manuscript: “And thus I comytt you to God, who send you a merry Christmas.”  The phrase is traditionally used in North America, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australasia during the weeks leading up to Christmas.  Most frequently it is used when the receiver is known to be a Christian or celebrates Christmas.  Nonreligious use of the term is also prevalent, however this use focuses more on the secular aspects of Christmas rather than the Nativity of Jesus (see Wikipedia).

In thinking about everything that revolves around the holiday season, so many things rolled over from Christian traditions: Christmas trees, Christmas lights, Christmas cards – everything that starts with Christmas of course.  That’s not to suggest that everything has Christmas origins, such as Santa Clause, but much of it does.  However, as the culture of America has evolved and changed over the years, many of the once-Christian traditions have been transformed into “holiday” traditions: holiday trees, holiday cards, holiday lights – for the most part replacing “Christmas” with “holiday”.  I don’t think this is meant to be an attack on Christian values – even if it is there are more and better ways to spread Christianity after all – but rather a way to include more people and their beliefs during a very special time of the year.  I personally believe this to be true, and I believe there is value in this goal.  However, this idea of change has been met with skepticism and reluctance.

Assuming that most people actually care about the well-being of others, then I move forward under the assumption that everyone would like to be inclusive to others, regardless of race, ethnicity, and belief.  To accomplish this goal, then I suggest two propositions to my fellow Christians: either accept the genericide of Christmas, or seek to preserve Christmas.

The first, and many may argue this is what the holiday season is coming to, is that Christmas has become a victim of genericide.  For non-business people, this may be a foreign concept.  Genericide is when a term enters common usage, thus losing trademark rights and protected status.  This loss inhibits trademark owners from maintaining the uniqueness and distinctiveness of their brands (see LegalZoom).  Essentially, when the brand name becomes the common name for the item itself.  Common examples of brands who have suffered genericide are Escalator, Kleenex, and Band-aid.

Thus, what I mean by the genericide of Christmas is that Christmas has grown to encompass much more than the Christian values of Christmas.  Even among Christians, and this is not to suggest anyone is a poor Christian, I would make the claim that most people, when asked the question “What do you think of when you think of Christmas?”, would answer Santa Clause, gifts, trees, and other non-secular terms.  Non-religious people now have Christmas trees in their houses, sing Christmas songs throughout the holiday season, and put up Christmas lights, but not in the name of Christ, but rather in recognition of the christmas season (note the lower-cased “c” to represent non-secular Christmas).  This is not meant to be a slap-in-the-face for Christians, but rather symbolic of the fact that these once Christian-only traditions have come to mean more than they once did the collective world.

Given all of this, should this notion be chosen for moving forward, then Christians need to embrace the fact that christmas will no longer be a Christian holiday, but rather a celebration of everything that the holiday season has come to mean.  Sure, christmas will include Christmas, but it will also include the multitude of non-Christian celebrations that take place around the month of December.  Language transition will be easy, as “Merry christmas”, christmas cards, and christmas lights would still exist, but gone would be “Merry Christmas”, Christmas cards, and Christmas lights.  In my opinion, this approach to inclusivity, however, may be construed as devaluing the importance of Christmas to Christians.  The devaluation of Christmas – that’s a heavy price to pay to forgo language alteration.

Exemplifying the possibility of the genericide of a holiday is Valentine’s Day.  Valentine’s Day initially began as the celebration of a Christian Saint who was executed for defying tyranny and spreading the word of God.  It celebrated the life and work of a single man.  Now, Valentine’s Day is a celebration of the traditions and festivities that occur around February 14th; it is described as nothing more than an “invented holiday”, “an excuse to make money”, and “the commercialization of our emotions”.  Is it a bad holiday?  Probably not, but it certainly does not speak to what it originally meant (please note this is merely an example, and not a push to celebrate the Valentine’s Day of old).

I do not think this is where Christians want Christmas to go – lost in the obscurity of the holiday festivities.

An alternative to this genericide is to embrace the “holiday” lingo.  Sure it requires some change, but I personally, as a Christian, would rather preserve Christmas as the celebration of the birth of Christ than evolve it into nothing more than a generic term.  Sure, we would now say “happy holidays”, decorate holiday trees, and have holiday lights, but as Shakespeare said “What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet.”  Regardless of what we call it, it is what it is, and those symbols will forever hold meaning for Christians.

If nothing else, we should feel fortunate enough that we live in a culture that embraces Christian traditions and uses them in our everyday lives, rather than shuns them all together in an effort to blot out the Christian faith.  The fact that Christmas/holiday trees and lights are everywhere during this time of the year is a wonderful reminder to me about why I celebrate the season.  Some may argue that changing the name is the first step to ending it all, but I do not think that is the case.  If inclusivity is the only goal, then blotting out Christianity and Christmas is completely counter-intuitive.

This is a rather simple solution to a complex problem, and may not be solution to it all, but it certainly is one way to move forward with the ever changing culture of America.  There are better solutions out there, they simply have not been found yet.  But if these really are the only two options, then just ask yourself a single question: genericide or preservation?  I think it’s a simple question, really, and the sacrifices are minimal in the latter.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, everyone.