Reason, a worthy deity

take care o ye judge of man
when thou wouldst strike to hit the point home
with crafted false comparisons
that mock reason, that unbending deity

for a terrible end awaits
when man ventures to bend to will
what shape refus'd to bend
and, springing back, causes the aspiring destroyer to perish, instead

is not man, to man, much greater than a dinner fowl?
is not an unborn child, life?
one's endeavor to hold these together in the negative
requires just such destruction
thou would fain remove reason from man
and doing so, deprive him of the key to faculty

claim ye that this is reason anew
and declare morality obsolete
subject to new relativity
and usher in your age of new man

find me then not eager
to be counted as man, with you
rather, name me animal
let me choose to scrape and scrap in body aching
than wander in that dark headspace
groping for those scraps left by your whimsy

worry i do not, but wait
endure what come and more
ever praying to my god
for man can live in no other circumstance

reason is my light and darkness
and hammer yet, and anvil
with which I shape my life's mettle
and hone my righteous mind

The Russian side?

The current crisis between Georgia and Russia, involving the area
known as South Ossetia, has occupied much news coverage and inspired much heated debate lately. As usual, most of those involved in the debate have absolutely no idea of what actually has happened or is happening in the region, including myself. So I will not attempt to pretend that I know what has happened or is happening or should happen with this situation. Instead, I want to discuss matters of credibility from an international standpoint, and perhaps relate that to American politics and our credibility internationally, one of the hot topics of the day.

Let's begin with this article from the NY Times, written by Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of Russia, known for his apparent statesmanship in the destruction of the iron curtain, and subsequent collapse of the then communist Soviet Union under his rule:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?partner=rssyahoo&emc=rss

In summary, this is a piece that condemns the Georgian president of engineering this conflict with the Western news media in cahoots. No doubt Gorbachev's twentieth century fame as a civilized diplomat lends weight to the conclusion that Russia has been wronged, and that it is the Georgians, with the West's backing, who are solely responsible for the current atrocities. Having no real knowledge to support either position, my first instinct would normally be to give him the benefit of the doubt, and consider Russia smeared wrongly. (god knows we in the States endure that constantly from the international press)

However, I then look at Russia's track record. First, a couple of names come to mind. Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, because they have been in the news over the past year. Add to those the journalists killed since Putin came to power, many of whom adopted harshly critical stances toward the administration. The installation of "flunkie" Medvedev as president cast further suspicion on Putin's lack of democratic substance. Now look at Putin's policies, noting that over half of the Russian energy giant Gazprom is now state owned, that the energy sector seems to be undergoing similar "nationalization" and that even in private corporations, many high ranking government officials hold positions of corporate power in addition to retaining their governmental posts. While none of these is a direct indictment, there are certainly a lot of questionable events that occur in Russia, and point to a large government hand directing the course toward its own ends. Fair or not, when you're in the shit, you can't complain that people are not taking you at face value. What's at issue is not the accuracy of Gorbachev's statements regarding the current South Ossetian conflict, but rather this: Why does Russia continually find itself in the position of having to explain its actions?

At least in the States, dissenters are not persecuted and murdered. In fact, they even run for president.

Don't swallow everything you consume

So, apparently, Sony (the makers of playstation gaming consoles) and kids in western civilizations (being that no children outside of Europe and America own playstations) are responsible for the deaths of children in Congo who are forced to mine a metal used in the production of playstations (and many other electronic devices) by Rwandan military groups according to this article.


To summarize, when the playstation 2 launch in 2000 increased demand for this metal, coltan, which is processed into a powder called tantalum and used in a "wealth of western electronic devices including cell phones, computers and, of course, game consoles," (again being that no one outside of Europe or America uses these devices) the market price of coltan quintupled. This allegedly prompted "Rwandan military groups" (read: tyrannical assholes) and "western mining companies" to force prisoners and children to work the Congolese mines for hundreds of millions worth of the metal. Sony has since sworn off the use of tantalum aquired in the Congo.

Excerpts from this article:

"Kids in Congo were being sent down mines to die so that kids in Europe and America could kill imaginary aliens in their living rooms," said Ex-British Parliament Member Oona King.

(Powerful statement, that, if not for its being complete disingenuous bullshit)

Sony has since sworn off using tantalum acquired from the Congo, claiming that current builds of the PS2, PSP and PS3 consoles are sourced from a variety of mines in several different countries.

But according to researcher David Barouski, they're hardly off the hook.

"SONY's PlayStation 2 launch...was a big part of the huge increase in demand for coltan that began in early 1999," he explained. "SONY and other companies like it, have the benefit of plausible deniability, because the coltan ore trades hands so many times from when it is mined to when SONY gets a processed product, that a company often has no idea where the original coltan ore came from, and frankly don't care to know. But statistical analysis shows it to be nearly inconceivable that SONY made all its PlayStations without using Congolese coltan."

(So, Sony is now responsible for crimes in the Congo because it cannot know for sure whether a product it purchases came from there or not.)


This article stuck out for me as a target for this post, but there seems to be a common theme running through much of today's "journalism."

Why is the article written to sound as if Sony and "kids in Europe and America" (again, because outside these countries no one even knows what a playstation is, of course) are directly responsible for the deaths of Congolese children? Why the focus on western countries, specifically Europe and America, noting an anti-West attitude throughout the article? What, no Korean, Chinese or Japanese kids own playstations? And why is there absolutely no mention of the accountability of the military tyrant groups in Africa who are solely responsible for the outrages against humanity in the region? (hint: this "corporate crime" was uncovered by an activist. Why try to indict one of a thousand evil regimes for one of a thousand crimes when you can blame capitalist greed, large corporations, and your own country and make a name for yourself to show how progressive and thought-critical you are?)

What takes place in the above article, and in much of the journalism and ideals abound today is a sort of agenda-driven selective blame. With africa rife with strife and evil tyrants, one more story of "humanity crises caused by evil regime" is fodder. But shift the blame to all of western civilization and specifically a rampant, greed driven corporation in order to indict comfort, consumerism, and anyone who has had the blessing to not be born a mine-working Congolese child and... et voila! Now you're selling newspapers. Or upping digital readership, or furthering progressive agenda, or whatever. Guilt sells. Always has.

Ah, but people push agendas through news media all the time, what's the danger?

First, I suppose, that Journalism becomes strictly Editorialism, that a media with a vast idealistic agenda means you will no longer get to see all sides of an issue with clarity, that opposing media outlets become battling pulpits, and investigative journalism becomes little more than mud slinging politicking. Second, that the selection of blame is actually a deflection, that the main antagonistic party in the story gets off scot-free. So now you've demonized legitimate business, and pardoned murderous behavior. And an environment of selective blame, an environment that abolishes personal responsibility, (and with it, morality) is created and pervades every aspect of our society.

Take a look around you. Who is responsible for the thousands of loan defaults that created the "sub-prime mortgage crisis?" Easy, right? Not just because you know, but the answer is force fed to you all around you, reinforced by news media day after every day. Big Finance. Predatory Lenders. Greedy Bankers. Mindless, Soul-Sucking Corporations And The Asshole Billionaires That Run Them. But who's really responsible? When a borrower obtains a loan, the process is entirely voluntary. The terms are up front and the payment requirements are crystal clear. No coercion is involved. No threats are made. When the borrower defaults on that loan it is because he cannot fulfill the terms of the contract which he originally negotiated. Call me old fashioned, but that seems to me a strong shot of mea culpa. (with a nod to this guy) Of course, in this environment we've created of selective blame, our soon-to-be-ex homeowner need not take responsibility for his poor financial decision. I mean the poor guy will lose his house, causing instability in the rest of his life, wrecking his credit, his co-habitant will probably leave him. Why blame him? Hasn't he been through enough? And so we shall lay the accountability for this tragedy at the feet of that oh so easy target, our mindless, heartless big big finance corporation who exists solely to shit on the little guy.

Personal responsibility is not a mantle to grab when righteous, and shed when frail. All morality stems from an individual's responsibility for his or her actions and their consequences. When you allow this truth to be distorted, as in the above article, by shifting blame as it is convenient, you create a world of moral relativity, where truth no longer exists, only perspectives, and power lies in the hands of those with the loudest, most ubiquitous voices. Perhaps journalism was destined to this fate because of its inherent influence - the power of information is a subtle and seductive mistress. However, it is a power that requires your unquestioning belief to persist. When you exercise your right to actively seek truth, and form your own opinions, then do you keep journalism honest and then do you shift its rising tide back to the righteous informative.

Keep the power, and exercise your right to independent thought every minute of every day.