The Effect of Weakness

I have learned to hate all traitors, and there is no disease that I spit on more than treachery.
            Aeschylus

Edward Snowden was not a member of the National Security Agency but a contractor who worked in intelligence.  As he was a contractor of the NSA, Mr. Snowden was put through a screening process and was notified that the information he work with would be of a secret nature and therefore, any release of said information would be in violation of the law.  No doubt, as a condition of his employment, he took a vow or pledge to uphold the security of the United States and abide by the NSA’s rules and regulations regarding secret information.  Then, like Daniel Ellsberg and the release of the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Snowden came to the conclusion that his interests superceded that of the United States and the exercise of his “conscience” outweighed the dangers in which he placed other Americans throughout the world.   

Since the Second World War, there has been an emphasis on the importance and right of members of any government to not follow orders which contradict their moral beliefs or their sense of right and wrong.  Edward Snowden, upon entering the National Security Agency was shocked, shocked to find spying going on and in rather hypocritical righteous anger, took it upon himself to release secret documents that not only embarrassed and put at risk the goals and objectives of the United States but also put in danger the men and women tasked with carrying out those directives.  I claim hypocrisy because here is a man who willingly entered a service known and created for the purpose of collecting intelligence, among other things.   

Given the stated purpose of the NSA, Mr. Snowden’s claims of a conscientious drive to unveil the actions of the United States rings hollow.  There are two possibilities at play here.  One, Mr. Snowden was not aware of the nature of espionage and of the core objectives of the NSA.  This seems rather strange that one would go through all the rigmarole of passing through background checks and applications and the like without any real understanding of what he was signing up to do.  The second possibility is that his intention was more heinous – that he went through the laborious process and worked his way into a delicate and sensitive area of intelligence for the sole purpose of revealing it.  In short, he is either one of the more naïve people formally of the U.S. government or a spy of the worst character.   

There are many who are shocked by the Mr. Snowden’s activities and stance, as well as the actions of Wikileaks’ founder Julian Assange and Army Private First Class Bradley Manning.  People are even more dismayed at their attitude, ranging from blasé to defiant, about their actions.  Famed author C.S. Lewis once said, “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”  This is an example of what happens when we culturally dismiss the notions and ideas that created our country.  Some commentators have suggested we are the Rome of 200 CE.  At times, it seems we stand at a precipice.  What was valued is no longer and our country seems to be more directionless than ever.   

However, I honestly believe that is an illusion.  I believe that the majority of Americans out there still value honor, valor, loyalty and patriotism.  However, as a society, we have allowed certain elements to creep in and fester.  Mr. Snowden needs to be held accountable for his actions.  How this will be done, I’m not sure.  He is playing a “catch me if you can” game and the Russians, a bit secretly, and the Chinese, more blatantly, are reveling in our inability to get at him and the embarrassment he is causing.  His father is announcing that demands need to be made before his son could comfortably surrender to American authorities.  I hope the Obama administration does not allow a potential traitor and his father to dictate terms.  This man is charged with one of the worst crimes that can be committed in espionage and putting at risk the lives of Americans serving abroad.  He needs to be treated as such.    

Struggling with Happiness

Last weekend, the German newspaper Die Zeit published a special edition to its Sunday paper on trying to define what makes a good or happy life.  Within the collection of articles, each contributing thinker attempted an answer to this age-old question.  The philosophers ranged from Martin Seel of the University of Frankfurt to author Sudhir Kakar to Michael Sandel of Harvard University.  Each article, focusing on a different concept of happiness or fullness of life (justice, love, freedom), sought to answer the question through its own paradigm.  However, the people featured in Die Zeit are not indicative of philosophers of old, who for the most part, tended to be much more scattered towards the question. 

So we start, as writings like this often do, with Socrates, the Greek giant of philosophical musings.  As he is the influence of all major Greek thinkers that followed, it makes sense to focus on the great one himself.  Socrates' student, Plato, felt that Socrates only saw happiness as possible when one focused on self-actualization or the improvement of oneself for its own sake.  Once this internal "beauty" is held, then none of the temptations of life can persuade one away from true happiness of the soul and spirit.  The Roman philosopher Cicero concurred but went further to say that the beauty we find with other people, in the form of friendship or love, is the highest form of happiness and the sign of a treasured and good life. 

The medieval period and its philosophy was dominated by religious thinking.  St. Augustine of Hippo suggested that the happiness of life lies in how close to God we grow.  Anselm of Canterbury connected the pursuit and obtaining of happiness to be a condition of free will as he expounded upon the ideas of Augustine.  In later medieval philosophy, St. Thomas Aquinas followed a more Aristotelian attitude by suggesting the ultimate end of life's ambition is happiness but unlike Aristotle and drawing closer to Augustine, Aquinas felt that closeness to God was a key to happiness.  Even for those who do not believe in God, they who Aquinas admitted would throw a wrench into his theory, still seek happiness.  God exists for them whether they want Him to or not.   

After the ideas of the ancients and the theologians of the Middle Ages, things turn a little dark.  A pessimism looms large in later writings, beginning with and epitomized by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.  Schopenhauer suggested that life was pain and suffering and he saw the efforts of man, ultimately, to be futile.  Much later in life, he would gravitate towards Buddhism and champion the idea of asceticism in the hopes of ridding suffering.  Happiness was not a great consideration for Schopenhauer, who influenced so many...like Friedrich Nietzsche.  Nietzsche too thought happiness to be an insignificant and futile goal but did offer a suggestion.  He said that he sought not happiness but he sought only his work.  To Nietzsche, there was a way out and that was enduring the suffering, not necessarily the escape from it.  By embracing and accepting it, it is possible to reveal the true nature within and in the process, persevere.

While these ideas are much repeated and studied (and rightfully so), I tend to disagree and suggest that happiness, without the paralyzing affect of contentment, is possible.  It speaks more to the idea of one's clarity.  Clarity would include a person who was brought up and educated under a certain narrative, one which organizes their life and structures their national purpose and one within which they live.  The clarity is also seen in the purposefulness one approaches their job and their lives.    A person of faith will have an easier time not just understanding their role in life but also face the unknown after life with greater comfort.  It is seen in an individual who knows their place within the family and the community.  This idea is best summed up by Albert Camus, who said, "But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads."  There is an organization who has created a "happiness index" as a way of measuring which countries have the largest and smallest amount of happy people.  It seems silly but it would be interesting to see if my clarity thesis holds.

Of course, it has been suggested that simply giving into our base instincts can be the only way to create true happiness.  Aristippus of Cyrene said that happiness lies within hedonism.  Some have suggested that man was made and designed to hunt, kill and fornicate indiscriminately - none of which is socially allowable in the way it was meant.  There are those that live that life, or try to, but I think I shall stick to the notion of clarity.  I've seen people that seek a guiltless society but what makes us human and what makes us better than animals is our understanding, deep inside, of what should be.  This is not really a question that can be answered and there is so much I've left out from the minds of men like Leo Tolstoy or Sigmund Freud or the Dalai Lama.  It must be left to you, I'm afraid, to figure out your own path of happiness.  I think I've found it.     

Reflections from Hellas

This past summer, if you recall the witty brief message I sent, my wife and I went to Greece for a once-in-a-lifetime trip. Four days were spent on an island and four days in the capital. Our friends thought we had taken leave of our senses, concerned over the constant bombardment of negative news that still emanates from the home of Aeschylus and Aristotle. We even spoke to a friend who lived there for over twenty years. He said he would not go. So, it was not without a little trepidation that we hopped the Atlantic and took a very tiny flight from Madrid to Athens for a two week vacation. What we found was a reaffirmation of not always heeding "words of wisdom" and trusting instincts in the face of dire warnings. What we experienced will stay with us for the rest of our lives. 

On the island of Milos, we discovered a part of Greece that few get the chance to explore – a relatively tourist free spot. I say relative because compared to the Meccas of Athens and Mykonos and Santorini, Milos is quiet and calm. The tourists that are there are largely Greek. Those qualities allowed us to experience what might be closer to the Greek island life. The people on this island are involved in one of three major endeavors – farming/fishing, mining and tourism.

The people were wonderful but in this place which has suffered from the economic turmoil (certainly more so than the sexier islands and places like Athens), they are stressed and tired and worried. In normal conversation, the economy creeps in like an unwanted but accepted guest. When the economy is mentioned, it is not done to elicit sympathy. The Greeks are beyond that. Instead, the Greeks we spoke with seemed to exude a regret that our experiences are not "real Greek" experiences because the people are typically care-free and relaxed. Today, the Greeks are anything but. Still, their hospitality and kindness and desire to show what it is to be a Greek drive their efforts and we benefited.

In Athens, one gets the sense that nothing is the matter. Tourists crawl and emerge from every crook and cranny of the sweltering city (it was the summer). They scramble up the Acropolis like ants and for the Greeks living in the capital, the tourists drive the economy along with shipping. The problem with getting in touch with Greece in Athens is that what drives one’s visit steers one away from chances to mingle with the denizens. Still, we did our best to explore the alleyways and neighborhoods that are not necessarily on the tourist map. We were once more struck by the combination of an earnest desire to make our experiences great and the worry associated with the economic problems. The Greeks are fiercely proud of their history and traditions so those that go out of the way to see, not just the Acropolis but other lesser known bits of history are greeted with the best of Greek hospitality and helpfulness.

However, behind all of this is perhaps the growing realization that they are part of the problem. The Greeks have taken tax dodging to an art form and the results are devastating. Greece is in a perpetual downward cycle of desperately needing money, cutting the budget, fighting corruption and attempting to strike the rock of public revenue to save itself. However, the Greeks continue to refuse to give up their money, don’t trust the Greek government to handle it well (and there is large evidence to support that) and the country continues to teeter on the precipice. It is likely a problem that will not be solved any time soon. The Greeks have endured tough times before. They embrace it with what Nietzsche called amor fati or "love of fate." I have no doubt they can do it again but changes will need to be made.

Still, if I have a lasting piece of advice, it is this – if you’ve ever had the desire to go to Greece, do so and forego the nay-sayers. It is difficult to imagine a more hospitable, historical and transcending experience and the country needs the business. The Greeks want you to love their country as much as they do and will do what is necessary to ensure your good experiences. The history can be overwhelming as there is so much of it but do not let that discourage you. A little reading and advanced research will do wonders to your greater appreciation and you will be 40% cooler knowing Greek history and mythology. Taken together, the experience will leave you at the airport in Athens, preparing to leave, asking yourself if you really need to. It is a good sign.

Read All About It

The whole problem with news on television comes down to this:  all the words uttered in an hour of news coverage could be printed on one page of a newspaper.  And the world cannot be understood in one page. 

Neil Postman

In a recent article in The Economist, a 2008-2012 study demonstrated that the daily circulation of newspapers per 1,000 people in the U.S. dropped by nearly 15%.  Meanwhile, there is an increased usage of twenty-four hour networks and online sources for news.  A few newspapers in the country remain stalwarts of print journalism but even papers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times have faced a drop in readership.  Some newspapers folded altogether, a trend that began in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the idea of two or three newspaper towns disappeared nearly altogether.  Others have retreated into the ambiguous world of the information superhighway, such as Seattle’s Post-Intelligencer.  The decline has much to do with cultural changes and its impact is despairing. 

There is a cause and effect relationship occurring at the same time with newspapers and has been witnessed over the last fifty years.  The presentation of news coverage on television introduced an entertainment element that was evident but not prevailing in newspapers prior.  As television and the internet have developed, the nature of news has changed radically in two particular ways. First, what is classified as news has altered beyond a point where journalists of old would recognize.  The nature of twenty-four hour news networks and the omnipresent internet have too much time and space to occupy with what is genuinely news.  Therefore, what serves as news is progressively superfluous.  The news personas of today are talking about jail house confessions, sensational trials that hold no societal relevance and celebrity-generated ballyhoos.  The desire and the need to fill time and space has broaden the concept of not only what is news but what is germane.  Today, no one thinks anything of a “serious news program” devoting time to a woman who killed or may not have killed her boyfriend.  From a societal point of view and not an individual perception where it could have more importance, is this relevant or even note-worthy?  I would dare say not.    

Second, in conjunction with the dispensing of the irrelevant, the news that is delivered is increasingly and perhaps irrevocably simplified.  Today, news channels and websites are occupying themselves to answer the question, “what happened?”  However, no thought is given to explain why.  Throughout the popular mass media outlets today, they may discuss the riots in Turkey but little mention, if any, of secular Turks’ concern over Prime Minister Erdogan’s crackdown of earlier protests.  The average American knows nothing of why the protests began, why the Turkish government responded as it did and the ramifications that such measures might have in Turkey, the future of the country as a secular one, its consequences on U.S. policy in the Middle East and how such actions by Mr. Erdogan might affect Turkey’s constant search to draw closer to Europe.  The news channels and websites are focusing on “five ways to know he is lying to you.”  The content is available but media outlets determined and the public approved through ratings and hits that they are not concern.  Those who want to know are out of luck without time on their hands.

What is the effect?  It is amazing that in this age of the “information superhighway”, our students are no more capable of telling you when the American Civil War was, who the prime minister of Turkey is or why it should even matter than an earlier generation.  At a time when we are constantly bombarded with the positive impacts of computers at every level and we have an unprecedented access to information, we seem to know less.  At every level, the knowledge that some seek is truncated by a mass media that favors brevity over breadth and revolvs around the capriciousness of popular tastes and whims rather than on the demands of their profession. 

Newspapers are a potentially brilliant resource in that its limited canvas ensures that only that which is truly news can be presented but the space also allows for examination and elaboration on both the facts and the reasons why.  If newspapers are to survive at all, it is likely they need to go in the opposite direction of the “less is more” concept they are currently embracing.  By seeing their limitations, compared with television and the internet, as the positive that it is and not concerned with what they can’t do, they can see a possible future.  It was once said that people did not believe it unless they read it in the newspaper.  In the face of all that is wrong with television and internet news, people can learn to believe so again.    

The Troubles of the Boy Scouts

This past week, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) met to vote on an issue of particular interest.  Since the 1990s, various activist groups have sought to reverse the youth organization’s stance on homosexuality.  The BSA has a stance against gay troop leaders, particularly those who speak out on behalf of their beliefs.  This stance and the reaction against it culminated in the 2000 Supreme Court case of The Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.  In it, the Supreme Court said that a private organization cannot be forced accept and thereby publicly present a tolerance for that which goes against their values and beliefs.  Since this case, the pressure has mounted against the BSA from many fronts as well as the move by the Girl Scouts to depart philosophically from their former partners.  The decision this past week stands as a victory and a defeat to many people when it agreed to allow openly gay youths into the organization but maintained the ban on troop leaders. 

As I’m sure it has been clear over the course of this blog’s existence, I have conservative streaks that run deep and fairly strong.  My stances on education and the reform required within strike others as fairly liberal, if not radical.  Still other positions I liken to more a libertarian attitude and here is where my thoughts on the BSA fall.  Whether or not the organization, which began as a boys’ organization in England, emphasizing the importance of scouting and naturalist skills, accepts gay boys or troop leaders is of no concern to me.  I was never a Boy Scout and do not have, as they say in Texas, a dog in the hunt.  However, I grow concern when people feel compelled to do something against their wishes or institutional values.  I’m afraid the organization has done just that.  There is a great deal of prognostications from both sides of the argument on the impact of this decision. 

The pro-gay side of things suggests that this will open possibilities for more young men to consider it ok to join the BSA.  Former Boy Scouts who are gay speak of the life lessons and cherished memories of their time in the group and feel more people will now have access to it.  As the Boy Scouts begin at such an early age, when sexuality is not of primary concern or given much thought, I imagine that boys, gay or straight, have not had many roadblocks placed in their path.  Therefore, I wonder just how many more young men will actually join the group as a result of the decision last week. 

Those who are against the approved measure have predicted a mass exodus of families who allowed their sons to join the Scouts on the auspices of its values and traditions.  I wonder, however, just what kind of exodus this will be.  I’m not sure it will be as horrible as it is thought – in some circles, as much as 300 to 400,000 members.  I think most people know that gay youths have been a part of the organization for some time and the idea that they are “allowed” in the Scouts will not strike many as much of a departure.    

All these things said, the conversation has turned to the stance on youth leaders who are gay.  My first awareness of this type of issue was in the aftermath of the Supreme Court case United States v. Virginia (1996).  In it, the Court ruled that the Virginia Military Institute, a previous all-male institution, did not make the argument that maintaining a single-gender school was beneficial to the students.  Therefore, the state could not make the argument that the male-only academy was not a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment.  Yet, I could not help feel that something was not right.  I get the same feeling now with the BSA. 

In our society, we have accepted the idea of freedom of speech as sacrosanct.  Yet, what good is this right if it is reserved only for what is currently popular and acceptable.  Gay-right activists have done a tremendous job in getting their message out that no one should be treated less for being gay.  I personally disagree with the practice, an idea that is a component of my faith, but I also do not believe my faith would condone mistreating anyone for any reason.  Still, every American has the right to their opinion and to be able to live on the basis of their convictions.  The Boy Scouts of America should not feel pressured to accept anyone.  Doing so would promote an institutional and member-specific acceptance.  In a country based on concepts like freedom of speech, this cannot be tolerated.