Day 98
It appears to be a truism in any political environment involving opponents and competition, that no matter how ludicrous an allegation or smear may be, there is a presumption of guilt until the accused issues a denial and/or justification.
But this surely cannot be fair. American Politics offers the less appealing outcome of such a system: parties use independant and technically unaffiliated groups (NPO's, advocacy groups, etc.) to level crazy charges against political opponents. The party or candidate in coalescence with the independant group suffers no backlash, for it is unaffiliated, while the accused party/candidate suffers a setback. All in all, waging attacks offers virtually no risk, and while some will be effective and some not, it just becomes a numbers game; not unlike shots on net in hockey.
A flaw in Democratic ideology. While free speech is qualified such that hate speech cannot be propagated, it is not qualified against false speech (usually), and definitely not qualified against idiotic speech. Hence why the acedemic community is very much undemocratic. If the political atmosphere that is allowed in politics were ever allowed in acedemic journal circles, there would be chaos. Nothing much would get done. The peer review rules like a king.
Personal relationships, cliques, groups of friends; a politic is always present, much to everybody's dismay and dislike of it. What irks me the most is the analogous presumption of guilt. If somebody says I've done something wrong, and I say nothing in response, it is viewed as an admission of guilt! Alternatively, in defending myself, I am forced into a world of gossip and hearsay the likes of which I want nothing to do with. These options neither are pleasant.
People talk. They just never stop talking. With but a few very rare exceptions, I don't expect a word that I ever say to lie in confidence; this isn't an easy thing to ingest, for, if it is the world of gossip I wish to exit, it is very difficult to do so and still speak at the same time about passions, ideas, and confessions.
But to hell with it. I'm making a mid-years resolution, in the spirit of Barack Obama: I'm going to try my absolute best to avoid those conflicts which offer nothing other than shallow victory at best, and misery at worst. Winning a fight in life, whether it be emotional, physical, intellectual... it never really is a win. The only satisfying victories are those that rise between players who want to be in it, and those who have good sportsmanship in their hearts from the beginning.
It isn't so much how you play the game, but why.
On a completely unrelated note, I thought I'd share a video with you courtesy of the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevYBsShxNs&feature=related
I can say without exaggeration that this has been stuck in my head, on and off, for nearly a year. So, beware.
But this surely cannot be fair. American Politics offers the less appealing outcome of such a system: parties use independant and technically unaffiliated groups (NPO's, advocacy groups, etc.) to level crazy charges against political opponents. The party or candidate in coalescence with the independant group suffers no backlash, for it is unaffiliated, while the accused party/candidate suffers a setback. All in all, waging attacks offers virtually no risk, and while some will be effective and some not, it just becomes a numbers game; not unlike shots on net in hockey.
A flaw in Democratic ideology. While free speech is qualified such that hate speech cannot be propagated, it is not qualified against false speech (usually), and definitely not qualified against idiotic speech. Hence why the acedemic community is very much undemocratic. If the political atmosphere that is allowed in politics were ever allowed in acedemic journal circles, there would be chaos. Nothing much would get done. The peer review rules like a king.
Personal relationships, cliques, groups of friends; a politic is always present, much to everybody's dismay and dislike of it. What irks me the most is the analogous presumption of guilt. If somebody says I've done something wrong, and I say nothing in response, it is viewed as an admission of guilt! Alternatively, in defending myself, I am forced into a world of gossip and hearsay the likes of which I want nothing to do with. These options neither are pleasant.
People talk. They just never stop talking. With but a few very rare exceptions, I don't expect a word that I ever say to lie in confidence; this isn't an easy thing to ingest, for, if it is the world of gossip I wish to exit, it is very difficult to do so and still speak at the same time about passions, ideas, and confessions.
But to hell with it. I'm making a mid-years resolution, in the spirit of Barack Obama: I'm going to try my absolute best to avoid those conflicts which offer nothing other than shallow victory at best, and misery at worst. Winning a fight in life, whether it be emotional, physical, intellectual... it never really is a win. The only satisfying victories are those that rise between players who want to be in it, and those who have good sportsmanship in their hearts from the beginning.
It isn't so much how you play the game, but why.
On a completely unrelated note, I thought I'd share a video with you courtesy of the youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YevYBsShxNs&feature=related
I can say without exaggeration that this has been stuck in my head, on and off, for nearly a year. So, beware.
Comments