23 September comment

After listening to most of a General Lee biography, I’m not too impressed with him as a person or a general. His greatest attribute was his loyalty, which I can admire. I could turn my back on my country over plenty of causes, but it would be hard to fight against family and friends who I grew up with and share so many experiences. So I am not judging Gen. Lee on leading the Confederates or turning down the Union.

Lee was at the top of his classes at his academy. He later became an engineer officer in the Army and had a successful career leading to the Civil War. But as a general I don’t think he excelled or even did well. The south was destined to lose. They had no chance and no help from France, unlike their predecessors. Back to him as a general, he was reckless with his men. A clear sign of a terrible leader in my eyes, or at least a huge asshole.

As a person, I was pretty disappointed by Lee’s actions. He questioned slavery and succession during his life, but his actions were very supportive of both. Lee owned slaves inherited from his in-laws and he was known to be very strict and I’d argue inhumane. Slaves caught trying to escape were purposely sold far away from their families as a punishment and deterrent for other slaves. (He was also very tough on the Confederate soldiers that went AWO, eventually passing a death penalty). As a slave owner, he was instructed to emancipate all the slaves he inherited within 5 years, and he didn't release them until after the 5 years. These actions make it very hard to accept that he was against slavery after his treatment and use of slaves.

Today, Gen. Lee is a symbol for racism. I don’t think we need his statues because he wasn’t a very good person or general. But like Ashley said, it isn't good to forget. And maybe his statues will help us remember instead of divide.

But if Gen. Lee’s statues are going to be removed I think we should remove founding fathers too. Pres. Jefferson among others (I’d keep Pres. Washington). Jefferson was a dick too. And he probably would have sided with the Confederates had he been alive for the conflict.

5 Oct addition:


For anyone who cares about Gen Lee. This quote sums up who he was pretty well. It is from the first chapter of Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee by Michael Korda. This biography is really good, unlike the previous one I read.

“Like Henry Lee, Robert was tall, physically strong, a born horseman and soldier, and so courageous that even his own soldiers often begged him to get back out of range, in vain of course. He had his father’s gift for the sudden flank attack that would throw the enemy off balance, and also his father’s ability to inspire loyalty–and in Robert’s case, virtual worship–in his men. On the other hand, perhaps because of Henry Lee’s quarrels with Jefferson and Madison, Robert had an ingrained distrust of politics and politicians, including those of the Confederacy. But the most important trait that influenced Robert was a negative one: his father had been voluble, imprudent, fond of gossip, hot-tempered, and quick to attack anybody who offended or disagreed with him. With Henry Lee, even minor differences of opinions escalated quickly into public feuds. Robert was, or forced himself to be, exactly the opposite. He kept the firmest possible rein on his temper, he avoided personal confrontations of every kind, and he disliked arguments. These characteristics, normally thought of as virtues, became in fact Robert E. Lee’s Achilles’ heel, the one weak point in his otherwise admirable personality, and a dangerous flaw for a commander, perhaps even a flaw that would, in the end, prove fatal for the Confederacy. Some of the most mistaken military decisions in the short history of the Confederacy can be attributed to Lee’s reluctance to confront a subordinate and have it out with him on the spot, face to face.”

My previous opinions about Gen Lee were misguided. I feel good leaving it with this quote.

Response to "CONSIDERATION VS PERSONAL FREEDOM?" by The Fool's Crusade

Here is a revised and edited response to a blog post "CONSIDERATION VS PERSONAL FREEDOM?"

To answer your questions, yes consideration does impede personal freedom. I would follow up your video by asking, is personal liberty the most important value?

These are philosophical questions. It all has to do with values.

Back to consideration, if someone's goal in life is to seek pleasure (the philosophy of hedonism), than being considerate to others may conflict with there personal freedom (PF). Depending on their sense of pleasure, restrictions to PF would vary. Part of hedonism is avoiding pain, so that would definitely call for being considerate to prevent those ass kicking you mention.

It really comes down to individuals. I'm all for consideration as you are. But I do not value PF over other social norms. I love PF. I support having a large range of PF, just not absolute PF.

For your movie theater example, being quite is a social norm. So another question arises: should people follow social norms? If we traveled back to Shakespearean days, crowds were rowdy and that might have increased the entertainment of the show. Personally, I strongly dislike any distractions in a movie theater. During Revenge of the Sith, my friend next to me was texting his girlfriend the whole movie, and I was pissed about it.

I have two other comments.

First I wasn't sure where you were going with the fighting. I felt you were taking the discussion in the wrong direction. But I couldn't agree more about the results of getting your ass kicked. Most people think and act differently after an ass whooping. I can't say this applies to everyone, but for most of us, we'd think about why it happened. And sensible people would come to the conclusion that it wasn't because of their lack or strength or fighting skills. But we've all met or know people who act worst after getting beat up. They fight more or take it out on weaker people. Ultimately, violence is not the most effective way to teach, but it does wonders for managing behaviors.

Last thought, about blaming the children, how much can we blame the parents? Were parents not children once who had no choice in how they were raised? I don't have the answer here because at some point in life, people have to accept responsibility for their actions and life. I just find it hard to blame people. I can't support my next idea with any evidence or data, but I would assume that consideration is strongly correlated to empathy and education. I also know reading is correlated to higher empathy which connects to education, family life, and privilege all things people cannot control when they are young. Maybe growing up to be considerate is just luck of the draw, as with most things.

Well, that was a lot more than I originally expected to write. You bring up a great discussion. It'd be interesting to read what philosophers have to say about PF vs consideration and societal norms.

Annoying Liberals from a Liberal

I'd like to condemn and defend the idiots with torches.

People who know me, know I don't have to say that violence is a less effective form of protest. I’m for peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and freedom of speech because these ideals make America Great.

After the riots the last few years in response to police brutality towards black men and boys, I said, "Good. Maybe people will start listening and paying attention." In that case the riots bring additional media coverage, but also additional criticism and evidence for racism. Or evidence for the need of force from police. I think we will see progress in the future as a result of these actions, and hopefully no literal race wars, but I think the cause would benefit greater without the riot parts of the demonstrations.

Now I feel similar. I'm not going to say good, but maybe people will start to listen.

There is a ton of tension growing between classes and race. I'm really annoyed by the liberal media and liberals on social media. People act like poor and working class white people have nothing to complain about. Even worse, when liberals act like they are on a moral high ground because they claim to acknowledge their privilege, myself included. All white people do not share the same privileges. I grew up with plenty of white people with abusive parents, single parents, poor parents, and or addicted parents. Many of those white people don't see themselves as privileged.

I completely disagree with the rioters’ message: I support affirmative action and many of the progressive ideals towards equality. In fact, if I ruled the word, I’d increase affirmative actions. I might even open borders. Still, there is a problem. Although poverty affects more than twice the percent of people of color than white people, there are still large groups of white people--not me-- who are seeing their opportunities and their children's opportunities diminish. The rioters are the most extreme voices, but they represent a large group of people in this country who are fed up. Their distress is valid; loss of jobs, price of education, slow wage growth, etc all affect their communities as well. It isn't a white or black problem, so we should recognize their struggles and lack of opportunities. This will lead to effective solutions for people of all colors.

Furthermore, how helpful it is to use language that fuels the fire of those, for now, small torches. Degrading people and their beliefs forces them to double down and hold tighter to their cultural identity. It provides them with evidence to their conspiracy theories that the liberal media and politicians are trying to replace and disadvantage the white race (their argument, not mine. Can you sense my defensiveness?). When was the last time someone who ridiculed you taught you something or changed your opinions.

If you want a more united country, conduct yourself in a more uniting way. If you want to further divide, then use the rhetoric of the hateful. I vote for common grounds and unity, so we can reconcile and work on finding better solutions.

Phew! 

I lean back in my chair. Is this what righteousness after a long social media post no one will read feels like? I kind of like it.

Book Review: Dispatches Dispatches by Michael Herr

Dispatches by Michael Herr
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Very entertaining and authentic portrayal of war. All the crap we don't learn about in school. The chronic drug use, violence, and chaos.

Herr brings the voices of voiceless to life. The voiceless US soldiers and Marines, not the voiceless Vietnamese.

View all my reviews

"The Curse of Ham Scam"

 Genesis 9:20-27 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

20 Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. 21 He drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent. 22 And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. 23 Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father’s nakedness. 24 When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,“Cursed be Canaan; lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.”

26 He also said, “Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. 27 May God make space for[a] Japheth, and let him live in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave.”

 

Footnotes: Genesis 9:27 Heb yapht, a play on Japheth

"The Curse of Ham Scam"

Ham was the sexiest, strongest, fastest, and darkest man around. All the women wanted him, and these facts produced much hatred and jealousy from his brothers Shem and Jap. Shem and Jap were both pale, small dicked, men. One day they constructed a plan to sabotage their brother by telling their father he was gay.

"Father," Shem said, "bad news has come from Ham."

"What is it?" asked Noah.

"Father, Ham has exchanged sexual relations for that of the unnatural type."

Noah, being sober and righteous in God's eye, knew the truth. Disgraced Noah said, "Blessed be the Lord God of Ham! Cursed be Shem and Jap! servant of servants shall be unto your descendants."

---

Years passed. Noah became a vigneron. He perfected the craft. One morning, Noah drank too much and passed out in his tent. He was naked.

Meanwhile, Shem's and Jap's hated grew with each sunrise, meal, and sleep. For they knew their kin would be the servants to Ham's offspring. The brothers blamed Ham for the curse they brought upon themselves. One day a serpent approached Shem and Jap.

"Your father has drunken and has uncovered within his tent," said the serpent.

The two brothers looked confused for it was quite normal for their father to pass out in his nakedness.

"Go," said the serpent, "Tell he that Ham has saw his nakedness. He shall curse Ham and restore your sons to be the blessed of the Lord."

Without any hesitation, the two brothers went to their father's tent. They saw the nakedness of their father. Yes, Shem and Jap saw their father's nakedness.

"Brother," said Jap, "look at father's nut sack."

"Yes," said Shem, "His scrotum would make a sling fine enough for a shepard to take down a giant!"

"Let us use a cloth," said Jap.

Knowing their father was growing old, delusional, and drunk, the brothers shouldered a cloth and walked backward to cover their drunken father.

"What is going on?" said Noah. He was annoyed that someone was disturbing his nap.

"Father," Jap said, "Ham has saw the nakedness of his father!"

"What!?!" said Noah.

"I'm sorry, it is true father," said Shem. "Ham has told us."

In a belligerent rage, Noah jumped to his feet. And he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant!"

---

For millennia, blacks have suffered brutal treatment for the curse of Ham. Many Jews, Christians, and Muslims have justified their inhumane behavior due to the curse from an old drunken man. In fact, it is the offspring of Shem and Jap, the whites, who deserved to be the servants of Africa. Kaepernick should be tweeting:

"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses white people and people without color."

Book Review: Fast Girl: A Life Spent Running from Madness by Suzy Favor Hamilton

Fast Girl: A Life Spent Running from Madness by Suzy Favor Hamilton
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The prologue kind of blew my mind.

I read a few other reviews, and found them a bit unfair and true. It is not great writing! And most of the things other said about Favor Hamilton I wouldn't disagree with, and there is a nativity about her even in hindsight. She seems clueless, and way too self-centered. Still, it is intriguing, maybe annoying to other readers. She gets to share her voice because of her lucky, privilege, biology (good looks and athletic abilities), and popularity, but how is that any different from most other writers. I find myself defending Hamilton because I was hooked on her story. Give her a chance.

I feel I understand people in my family better from reading this book. As someone with little knowledge about what it means to be bipolar, I gained a great perspective from this book. Which is one of the author's goals.

View all my reviews

How do we fall in love?

This was an email in response to my friend AJ. She asked how I decided to fall in love with my partner. This was my response:

I don't think we decide who we love. If we did, why would people choose to love the same sex (when that would cause discrimination), abusive people, or anyone who leds to negativity or anxiety? Why deal with all the BS when you could choose not to? The few people I loved romantically, I didn't choose. Something initially attracted me to them, I got to know them, and my feelings grew. None of them would have been a convenient choice. None of us lived in the same location which is a huge barrier. My current partner and I have quite different beliefs and goals in life. We share enough interests and attraction to overcame to our differences, but if we could rationally choose, following logic, we might choose practicality and convenience. That would be easiest. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

From my experiences and other's anecdotes, most of what we call falling in love is lust and infatuation. We love how that person makes us feel about ourselves. At some point those feelings evolve and become something more like what most people call love and eventually unconditional love. I don't know how or if that falling in love phase can last. People, situations, and everything changes in unpredictable ways. But that's getting into another rant for another day.