Objurgate

\OB-juhr-gayt\, transitive verb:
To express strong disapproval of; to criticize severely.

~~~~~~~

American Empire Part II

Which raises another concern. Living here, I completely disagree with our country’s national policy. I am afraid that action in the Middle East is shades of at the very least military expansion, and at most a growing Empire (where here, the Empire is a burgeoning money tree). I abhor the national politics of encouraging fear among our own people in order to spur action against “terrorists”, who are must less dangerous, and much less terrifying, than our country and its policies have come to be. Many of the things I love about this country have dwindled—the media buckles, at times, under political presence, the Senate bows to the President, the people’s discontent ignored, free speech readily available, unhindered, and seemingly entirely ineffective. These are only my concerns—there is still plenty I love about my country.

But if it were to be fought—if my country were to be retaliated against for further invasions, for instituting corporate and superpower terrorism, for disobeying the UN and being an aggressor to financial ends—if my country were to be fought against, whether in a political, or even an aggressive sense, I don’t know what I would do.

Shall I take up arms, fight for the homeland, though I foresaw such retaliation from those fearing the beast? I’m not talking about terrorists coming to American and blowing things up—not cowardice; I’m talking about sensible countries that after years and years of attempting treaties, reasonable dialogue, peaceful intervening, have no other choice but to put a stop to American politics (this is, of course, if America continues along this current path—which I have my doubts and hopes it will). But if such a thing occurred, I don’t know if I’d agree with American foreign policy enough to fight for it.

In fact, it is my inclination at this point that I would feel a moral obligation not to fight for it. If I were to fight, it would be for those I love—my family, community, the parts of America I respect. The idea of American democracy. But if that institution has been de-established, and I am asked to fight for an aggressive, cruel foreign policy, I could not defend such notions. If America became an Empire, I might even agree with its being toppled.

And such a thing would break my heart—to not only watch all the things I love about my country blown away on the wings of financial prominence, but to thereafter be obliged, and think it sensible, to wish its suppression. I mire such things when talking about the Iraq war and American foreign policy constantly, and thus do I say I fear an American Empire.

It would be America in name alone, aggressive, ignorant of its people’s desires, and ritualistically concerned with monetary gain and little else. Would you defend such a future?

Let’s hope it never comes to that end. I hope for change above all else in 2008.

Sophistry

–noun, plural -ries.

1.	a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

2.	a false argument; sophism.

~~~~~~~

American Empire Part I

I fear an American Empire. Especially when we explored in class what seems to be the real motives in beginning and persisting with the war, the whiff of this end whirls through the air. Though certainly not a distinct future at this point, it is not hard to imagine a few more key events leading, inevitably, to American democracy becoming the next biggest worldwide oppressor.

This time, however, the ground will slip under the people rather experience deliberate disregard for them (such an empire as Roman gave passing concern to plebeians on a daily basis). In a country built on freedom and the participation of people in the government, the government must slowly be pried away. Perhaps it is only my experience, but this is what I’ve felt happening in the last few years—more and more people plead for change, and less and less happens. Undermined, people lose faith in the system. Rather than spurring more change, it robs people of initiative. This will reach a breaking point, accompanied by revolt, but until then, how much power will government officials sap? I fear by the time people rise up, the government will be too powerful to rise against.

America has put a large stars and stripes blueprint in the Middle East. It does not matter whether unconvincing threats or merely financial gain will drive us to overthrow more countries in the area. This is exactly what an Empire does—seek to expand, by force. While “establishing democracy” is certainly not a bad thing, forcibly establishing democracy is a farce. It will produce no free people and only puppet leaders. Instead, our presence as the best example of a terrorist threat is being established—literally, through terror, we are daring the world's hand. That is unfortunately the role of a superpower—save a superpower with moral obligations, which our country has not only in recent years, but throughout the last half century, abandoned, we have the power to crush others and instead of suppressing it, use it. If I did not live here, I would be terrified. I live here, and I still am.

Salubrious

\suh-LOO-bree-us\, adjective:
Favorable to health; promoting health; healthful.

~~~~~~~

I think the self does indeed reside at the center of two grades of circles—moral obligation, and sincere concern. Not only does the body and mind often demand it, but in aiding others we need to be sure ourselves are intact as well. However, I think it need not be alone in that central circle—as I can think of those who share it, not completely altruistically, but selfless enough that their concern for self may be stated as equal to the respect and attention paid to the self. Thus, our moral obligations need not be solely concerned with the self first at all times, but might, it the best of circumstances, seek pressing priority for improved living of several.

Afflatus

\uh-FLAY-tuhs\, noun:
A divine imparting of knowledge; inspiration.

~~~~~~~

We should recognize the universality of a phrase like, “There’s no place like home,” because it doesn’t imply our idiosynchratic locations, just an intrinsically shared and human concept. These will unite us. But without greater finesse and maturity it will not be enough.

We should share these needs rather than pit them against one another. Perhaps we entertain pockets of loyalty so passionately to ignore our insecurities—we want to be special, unique and loved. When we find a place and set of people who make us feel that way, we defend it wholeheartedly, under the fear that letting go of the contingent peculiarities will throw the whole barrel, slaked insecurities and all, overboard.

We all need this home. It seems likely that many of the loyalties we hold have only temporarily and superficially solved our greatest concerns—the need to feel like we belong, or like we are unique and intelligent, are all challenged when recognizing universality, perusing common human experiences, resisting an “it’s us and them” scenarios. In these cases, recognizing universality will throw out security with the bathwater because our insecurities are not solved or confronted, but persistently ignored or satiated by these otherwise arbitrary attachments.

Bellwether

\BEL-weth-uhr\, noun:
A leader of a movement or activity; also, a leading indicator of future trends.

~~~~~~~

My attempted is-ought bridge--I think I figured out what's wrong with it, but you let me know.

1. Hurting others causes mental, emotional and physical suffering.
2. I do not need to hurt others.
3. The person being hurt will experience more suffering than I will satisfaction.
4. I care about others.
5. I do not hurt those I care about.
-------------
I ought not to hurt others.


It can even be simplified to this.

1. I care about others.
2. I do not need to hurt others.
3. Needless hurting betrays my care for others.
-------------
I ought not to hurt others.