That there is a difference of mood and emphasis between the two poets no one could deny. It cannot be explained on chronological grounds, yet in a way they do stand for two generations, because Euripides was so much more attracted that Sophocles to the modern, sophistic currents of thought. Like Protagoras, he knew that there were two sides to every question, and he enjoyed as much as Hippias the ‘contest of words’ in which his characters indulge. The debate between Theseus and the herald as to whether the dead warriors should be buried develops into a set piece on absolute monarchy versus democracy. Although it is clear where Euripides’s sympathies lie, the herald is no caricature of a bombastic tyrant’s minion, but an accomplished sophist and orator. My city, he says, has no use for mob-rule. No one can sway it this way or that by playing on its vanity, pleasing it for the moment but in the long run harming it. Since a whole demos cannot judge arguments correctly, how can it direct a city? Education takes time, and even if a labouring man is no fool, his work prevents him from giving proper attention to public affairs. (Why have these arguments a familiar ring? Is it Socrates in the Gorgias who complains that orators in a democracy lay theselves out to flatter the demos rather thna tell it what will be for its good, and Socrates again who said, like Hume, that ‘poverty and hard labour debase the minds of the common people’ and unfit them for politics, which was a matter for trained experts.) Failure (continues the herald) to comply with Creon’s demands means war. You may hope to win: hope has been the cause of many a conflict. Everyone thinks that its misfortunes will fall on others, not himself. […] If, when the vote is taken, each citizen could visualize his own death in battle, Greece would be safe from war-madness. We all know how much better peace is than war, yet we renounce it in our lust to enslave one another, as men and as cities. A wise man thinks of his children, his parents, and the safety of his country. A rash leader is a danger: true courage lies in forethought.

Guthrie, The Sophists

It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

- Mitt Romney

The news is abuzz with partisan posturing and commentary about partisan posturing and feelings about the commentary about partisan posturing. What he said, what she meant, and the like. People are dead. And these United States are still at war with… well, reality.

I can’t imagine Obama sympathizing with the attackers. Not just from the perspective of “bad politics”: beyond that, I don’t gauge him to be interested in sympathizing with the type of people we hold responsible.

But I will.

I will sympathize with their ignorance. I will sympathize with their lack of direction. And with their confused, objectless rage. With their knuckle-dragging hatred. Their backward convictions. Their narrow view of life.

We must listen. We must learn. And, in time, we must teach. What else can we do? Kill?

How well has that been working for us?

In Hershey, Pennsylvania, a woman in her late thirties approached us. She asked for the names of some people she could talk to, because she felt alone and isolated. Her neighbors have been polarized by politics masquerading as values. She cares about the well-being of the people in her community. She wishes they, and the rest of the nation, would listen to one another with kindness and compassion. Listen to one another rather than yell at each other. I told her then, and I tell her now, that she is not alone.

- Sister Simone Campbell

That’s not politics, sister. That’s partisanship.

That’s what we’re left with when we forget that the thing that makes values so goddamn important in the first place is our investment in them. When we forget that values aren’t something that you’re handed; they’re not some list scrawled on a note card that you pass around. They’re something you develop.

And regardless of whether they’re rationally grounded (or even understood), they’re personally felt. They inform our feelings. They define who we are. They are the basis of politics. But for now, we’re left with those note cards. And we’re left with the yelling. And we’re left with those inauthentic feelings, that ignorant indignation at non-realities that’s perpetuated in an external haze that suppresses the apparent need for individual thinking.

And for individual feeling.

legitimate… er… discussion

There are moments when the us vs. them vs. us dialogue becomes a circlejerk. …Well, I guess that’s most of the time. I guess, maybe, there are sometime when there’s an actual conversation that can be had — not necessarily “easily had”, but that doesn’t diminish the importance of having it.

American political pundits are now dancing around women’s rights vs. “personhood”, which really makes both sides happy: one side says the other hates women; the other side calls them murderers. Nothing is gained, but — hey, fuck those guys, amirite.

Here’s a suggestion: let’s distill this down to something more fundamental — I think we’ll find that the fundamentals are quite different for each side.

For the “women’s rights” side, it’s about (big shocker) liberalism. It’s about the degree to which anyone has control over your body.

For the “pro-life” side (such a cheap name to adopt), it’s about… well… in theory, it’s about the sanctity of life. Delving a bit into things, it’s about vague definitions and dogma. It’s about an ill-founded sense of morality. It’s about a smug, ignorant, hypocritical, holier-than-thou worldview. I don’t think it’s misogynistic, though — women are just collateral damage, and it so happens that the aggressors don’t give a goddamn about collateral damage.

That, I believe, is closer to the heart of the matter: one side is advocating personal freedom (something like, if not entirely in itself, an unalienable right the other side would so support if it were at all coherent); the other side does not give a fuck about people.

Because fetuses aren’t people. And newborns and infants aren’t people. “People” isn’t a simple definition, but I don’t hear anyone on the news talking about that. All I hear are people attacking other people in order to preserve “life”. We’re not even talking about the quality of life, but we already have a good idea how those ideologies fall along partisan lines (because god forbid the government take care of women or children after birth). “People” not important. Only “life” important.

But it’s easier to keep the original framing — soundbytes and rallying phrases. And I’d be a complete asshole (all over again) if I didn’t say I sort of understand that: it’s hard to have the patience for discussion when you’re so certain the other side isn’t going to listen.

But it’s a moral failing nonetheless.

Loooong overdue refresh.

That took way too long to work out — HTML is no longer my forte.

I have developed an unhealthy infatuation with Alex Wagner. And maybe Ezra Klein.

(…Oh, yeah — the property management company now forces us to pay for cable TV, so I just leave it on MSNBC.)

I really think Obama is taking our money and giving it to these other countries because he is not from here and he’s not American. And I think they’re probably making bombs and that stuff in case he doesn’t win the election.

I don’t know, I might be wrong. But I really think that’s what’s happening.

I don’t know how it fits into my moral framework — that’s a huge failure. But right now I’m too annoyed — I don’t even have a word for it. It’s like indignation at the runaway fear rhetoric in light of how ignorant Americans are coupled with sadness in knowing this is how democracies go. And exhaustion…

Morality and politics (not the presidential race, but I guess that’s part of it… somehow) have become the focus of who I want to be. And now I’ll never share those with my mother, ever again.