I finished this book a few weeks ago and thought it was very insightful. This was the first book I've ever read that I underlined and marked pages for content that I wanted to revisit at a later date. I thought I'd write a blog highlighting some of the things I learned while reading this book.
Page 6- "First, when it comes to discussing the middle east people go temporarily insane, so if you are planning on talking to an audience of more than two, you'd better have mastered the subject." I thought this was particularly enlightening since everyone has an opinion about the middle east but it's rare to find someone who actually knows a thing or two about what really goes on.
Page 38 - Talked about people that continued to live in Beirut during war time and how they coped. A psychologist that studied peoples coping mechanisms there found that those who were able to block out everything that was going on around them that was not under their control were in the best physical and mental health. I thought this was interesting and I think it applies to other people as well as those living in Beirut. If you can't do anything about it, don't worry about it.
Page 354 - The Israelites used a mask of law to persecute the Palestinians. It is easy to confuse "rule by law" with "rule of law." It struck me as insightful because I think the same thing is going on in the United States to deal with undocumented immigrants. We justify all kinds of injustices by pointing to the law and saying, "What part of illegal don't you understand?" Just because something has been made into law does not mean that it is right or just. It was interesting for me to see this tactic being used in a different part of the world.
Page 364 - "One aspect of the arrogance of power is that it presumes knowledge." I liked this quote...
Page 381 - "In many ways, it was Israel, through its repressive and humiliating treatment, which managed to give the Palestinians a common experience of bitterness to reinforce their historical and cultural ties and cement them together." I thought this quote was also very insightful because I think it happens all over the world and in peoples personal lives as well. In an attempt to make their country more secure, the Israelites oppressed and contained the Palestinians. Instead of making them more secure, what it did was make their enemy hate them with more zeal. I think this happens to people in their personal lives when they try to get even with people instead of just let things go.
Page 430 - "The very existence of Israel as a modern state is slightly mind-blowing." That's for sure.
Page 431 - Friedman talks about what he notices while reading newspapers and about how there seems to be a spotlight on the Jews. I thought it was really interesting to read about what a journalist sees between the lines that a layman like myself might never notice. In this example he talks about how an Israeli solder made the front page because he grabbed a Palestinian youth while a story about Iran and Iraq attacking each other with long range missiles got buried in the back. The content of reporting on the middle east seems to be a bit unbalanced. What can you really believe?
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
A thought about my childhood
I'm reading a book right now by Thomas Friedman titled "From Beirut to Jerusalem." The craziness of the middle east is interesting to read about but it's even more interesting to think critically about. As I flip through the pages I can barely wrap my head around how unreasonable people over there can be. Everyone is scared of everyone else and they use that fear to justify the most egregious acts the human mind can fathom. Whether it be the Syrian government leveling an entire city full of non-combatants to crush a burgeoning rebellion or a small terrorist faction creating a chair with a scalding hot phallus shaped mechanism to do what you'd imagine a terrorist faction would do with such a chair. The atrocities that occur in the middle east are almost beyond imagination for a person raised in Arizona who has never seen or been scared of war. Almost beyond imagination until I remembered something from my childhood that made me see everyone over there as an unlucky version of myself.
I'm pretty sure I am capable of committing every crime committed in the middle east and maybe even worse. Maybe not now that I'm an adult but I remember a time during my childhood when my mind and convictions were still malleable. I can remember sitting in church hearing stories about how the Jews used to stone people for committing certain sins. I never told anyone and felt really guilty but I remember thinking about how much fun it would be to take part in stoning criminals. I imagined a line of people with a "bad guy" a little ways away and getting to pelt him with rocks until he died. Now that I'm older I can't even look at the screen during a movie when someone is getting hanged but there was a time when I could have gone the other way. I guarantee if the adults in my life during that time hadn't taught me the morals that I've come to accept and had instead chose to teach me in a way that a lot of children are brought up in the middle east, I'd fit in just fine over there which is a sad thought. It's sad because I know I'm no different than anyone else, I'm just lucky to have been born into a culture that is less violent than other places.
It's interesting how reading a book can lead me to realizations that were completely unintended by the author. I find that to be very common while reading books. Anyway, I don't really know what the point of this realization is. I guess it's just that if luck is the only thing that kept me from being a middle eastern terrorist than I really don't have the option of hating them. I can only feel sorry for them and try to promote peace through peaceful means.
I'm pretty sure I am capable of committing every crime committed in the middle east and maybe even worse. Maybe not now that I'm an adult but I remember a time during my childhood when my mind and convictions were still malleable. I can remember sitting in church hearing stories about how the Jews used to stone people for committing certain sins. I never told anyone and felt really guilty but I remember thinking about how much fun it would be to take part in stoning criminals. I imagined a line of people with a "bad guy" a little ways away and getting to pelt him with rocks until he died. Now that I'm older I can't even look at the screen during a movie when someone is getting hanged but there was a time when I could have gone the other way. I guarantee if the adults in my life during that time hadn't taught me the morals that I've come to accept and had instead chose to teach me in a way that a lot of children are brought up in the middle east, I'd fit in just fine over there which is a sad thought. It's sad because I know I'm no different than anyone else, I'm just lucky to have been born into a culture that is less violent than other places.
It's interesting how reading a book can lead me to realizations that were completely unintended by the author. I find that to be very common while reading books. Anyway, I don't really know what the point of this realization is. I guess it's just that if luck is the only thing that kept me from being a middle eastern terrorist than I really don't have the option of hating them. I can only feel sorry for them and try to promote peace through peaceful means.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
What he got right and what I'm not sure about
I just finished a book called The Prophetic Imagination, by Walter Brueggemann. One thing I liked about reading the book was that I didn't agree with a lot of what was written in it. I've found that when I read books I tend to agree with the author more often than not. Sometimes the thought crosses my mind that I'm not giving conflicting views enough of a chance because reading a book gives an author a monopoly on your time and thoughts and certain biases might go unrecognized. However, every now and then I read something that I really don't like and at the very least it reminds me that I still know how to think for myself. Since I just finished the book I wanted to write a few things about what I thought Brueggemann got right and what I'm not so sure about.
One reason I didn't enjoy this book is because I think his writing style could have used a little help. The book might have been a little easier if he communicated in a way that was a little more down to earth. It was a book about prophecy and I imagined reading it, not knowing much about religion, and being thoroughly freaked out. It was a little over the top for me.
One thing that I did take away from it is that change in a society will not occur if people don't take the time to imagine how it could be different and think about the steps needed to get there. This, to me, is a simple idea though and doesn't need high and mighty language about prophecy, royal consciousnesses and alternative consciousnesses. "Do not be overrighteous, neither be over wise, why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool, why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other, the man who fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecc 7:16-18. I think Brueggemann could benefit from taking this advice.
Another thing I disagreed with was a general undertone that prophecy was a goal to reach. I don't think it is wise for a person to concern themselves with this. Even when John the Baptists disciples asked Jesus who he was he only replied to tell John that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured... and the good news is preached to the poor. To me this says, "Who cares what you call it, the proof's in the pudding." It seems to me that people who get too caught up in semantics and labels forget what is really important. The goal should be to defend the cause of the poor and the needy and to visit orphans and widows in their distress, whatever you want to call the people who do this is irrelevant. Claiming to be a prophet and using all that other religious jargon is only going to freak people out and make a person prideful. And that is what I think is so dangerous about this book.
One reason I didn't enjoy this book is because I think his writing style could have used a little help. The book might have been a little easier if he communicated in a way that was a little more down to earth. It was a book about prophecy and I imagined reading it, not knowing much about religion, and being thoroughly freaked out. It was a little over the top for me.
One thing that I did take away from it is that change in a society will not occur if people don't take the time to imagine how it could be different and think about the steps needed to get there. This, to me, is a simple idea though and doesn't need high and mighty language about prophecy, royal consciousnesses and alternative consciousnesses. "Do not be overrighteous, neither be over wise, why destroy yourself? Do not be overwicked and do not be a fool, why die before your time? It is good to grasp the one and not let go of the other, the man who fears God will avoid all extremes." Ecc 7:16-18. I think Brueggemann could benefit from taking this advice.
Another thing I disagreed with was a general undertone that prophecy was a goal to reach. I don't think it is wise for a person to concern themselves with this. Even when John the Baptists disciples asked Jesus who he was he only replied to tell John that the blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured... and the good news is preached to the poor. To me this says, "Who cares what you call it, the proof's in the pudding." It seems to me that people who get too caught up in semantics and labels forget what is really important. The goal should be to defend the cause of the poor and the needy and to visit orphans and widows in their distress, whatever you want to call the people who do this is irrelevant. Claiming to be a prophet and using all that other religious jargon is only going to freak people out and make a person prideful. And that is what I think is so dangerous about this book.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy
This youtube video is hilarious. If you've got a few minutes watch it and then read the rest of my post.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
This makes me laugh but it also makes me ask a lot of serious questions.
If everything is so amazing why isn't anyone happy?
Our culture spends an enormous amount of time pursuing money and material items which this video describes as so amazing. The more successful we have become, the more unhappy we seem to be. If our unhappiness is a result of our pursuit of the wrong goals, what are the right goals?
Have we inadvertently traded community for self-sufficiency through financial avenues? Is our unhappiness the result of a lack of community?
Is there any way to retain community while still pursuing self-sufficiency? Would that even be a solution?
For some reason, I think there is a very strong correlation between the unhappiness that our culture is experiencing and the breakdown and loss of healthy relationships. We have become so financially self-sufficient that needs no longer bring us together. The need for one person to cook for many and have a communal meal because not everyone has the time to prepare their own food was replaced by restaurants, frozen food, microwaves and higher paying jobs. The need to call your family and friends to help you move was replaced by the company Two Men and a Truck and the ability to pay them. The need to get together with your friends for coffee or beer is being replaced by tv shows like Friends and sites like Facebook. And the list goes on. We are getting more of everything with less authenticity (especially when you think of food and Facebook) and I think what has been lost in the process is contributing to our unhappiness.
I'm not sure I know what the solution is to these problems but I do know that a culture full of unhappy people is a danger to itself. Unhappiness breeds unhappiness. Discontentment breeds envy and jealousy. Crime goes up when people want what others have. Whatever the answer is, I think it's in all of our best interest to start thinking about it and looking for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk
This makes me laugh but it also makes me ask a lot of serious questions.
If everything is so amazing why isn't anyone happy?
Our culture spends an enormous amount of time pursuing money and material items which this video describes as so amazing. The more successful we have become, the more unhappy we seem to be. If our unhappiness is a result of our pursuit of the wrong goals, what are the right goals?
Have we inadvertently traded community for self-sufficiency through financial avenues? Is our unhappiness the result of a lack of community?
Is there any way to retain community while still pursuing self-sufficiency? Would that even be a solution?
For some reason, I think there is a very strong correlation between the unhappiness that our culture is experiencing and the breakdown and loss of healthy relationships. We have become so financially self-sufficient that needs no longer bring us together. The need for one person to cook for many and have a communal meal because not everyone has the time to prepare their own food was replaced by restaurants, frozen food, microwaves and higher paying jobs. The need to call your family and friends to help you move was replaced by the company Two Men and a Truck and the ability to pay them. The need to get together with your friends for coffee or beer is being replaced by tv shows like Friends and sites like Facebook. And the list goes on. We are getting more of everything with less authenticity (especially when you think of food and Facebook) and I think what has been lost in the process is contributing to our unhappiness.
I'm not sure I know what the solution is to these problems but I do know that a culture full of unhappy people is a danger to itself. Unhappiness breeds unhappiness. Discontentment breeds envy and jealousy. Crime goes up when people want what others have. Whatever the answer is, I think it's in all of our best interest to start thinking about it and looking for it.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Facebook status update
I'm in a bit of a good mood right now because of something a little selfish. There have been a couple quotes I wanted to put up on Facebook for a while but never did. Anyway, yesterday I posted them and it ended up being my most "liked" status update ever. A bunch of my friends copied and posted it on their pages and it was even copied by a large group named People Against Jan Brewer. This was the status update:
"We cannot continue to sustain all of this stuff because you don't run a state, you don't run a country with your heart," - Jan Brewer
"A hard heart is no infallable remedy to a soft head." - C.S. Lewis
The C.S. Lewis quote is a line from a book he wrote titled, "The Abolition of Man." Ever since I read it I've been looking for clever way to use it in response to a right winger who blows off a good argument by calling it emotional. I tend to get that argument a lot from a certain individual but I wouldn't tell him this quote because I like him and wouldn't want to be a dick. Jan Brewer, however, does not have the luxury of being liked by me. So this morning, as selfish as it may be, I'm a little proud of how well my cleverness was received. I read through the comments on the pages of other people who copied my post and there were a few people who had some nice things to say. A couple of the more flattering comments were as follows:
Tanicia Hood Haha, who ever posted this, of the People against jan Brewer crew was ingenious to follow with that quote. Take a bow if you would.
Joy Wilcox brilliant.
So anyway, I'm in a bit of a good mood after being called brilliant and ingenious by strangers.
"We cannot continue to sustain all of this stuff because you don't run a state, you don't run a country with your heart," - Jan Brewer
"A hard heart is no infallable remedy to a soft head." - C.S. Lewis
The C.S. Lewis quote is a line from a book he wrote titled, "The Abolition of Man." Ever since I read it I've been looking for clever way to use it in response to a right winger who blows off a good argument by calling it emotional. I tend to get that argument a lot from a certain individual but I wouldn't tell him this quote because I like him and wouldn't want to be a dick. Jan Brewer, however, does not have the luxury of being liked by me. So this morning, as selfish as it may be, I'm a little proud of how well my cleverness was received. I read through the comments on the pages of other people who copied my post and there were a few people who had some nice things to say. A couple of the more flattering comments were as follows:
Tanicia Hood Haha, who ever posted this, of the People against jan Brewer crew was ingenious to follow with that quote. Take a bow if you would.
Joy Wilcox brilliant.
So anyway, I'm in a bit of a good mood after being called brilliant and ingenious by strangers.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
The DREAM ACT
The DREAM ACT passed a vote in the house today and will be voted on again tomorrow in the senate. I was really happy to hear that it did well but I still have my doubts about the senate vote. I really hope it passes but I was thinking about it and I'm pretty sure everything will be okay if it doesn't.
I have a lot of undocumented friends and acquaintances and most of them are actually really happy people. A thought crossed my mind that they are a lot better off than the people who oppose them. While I was reading today I came across an article about why Jan Brewer opposes the DA. She was going off on her usual "You can't run a state or a country with your heart" nonsense. I was reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis that I read a while back in The Abolition of Man. He says, "A hard heart is no infallible remedy for a soft head." Jan Brewer definitely has one of those. So do a lot of people who oppress the powerless. She has no idea that it's in her best interest and the best interest of our country to provide people, who we've already given a public education, the opportunity to work legally and pay taxes instead of working under the table or turning to the black market for income. Who, of my undocumented friends, would trade lives with some of the most prominent anti-immigration figures? Who would want to go to bed at night and be Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or Kris Kobach? I'm absolutely 100% positive that every single one of them are better off being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. than to be one of those pitiful souls. That makes me feel very good inside.
I can't think of one undocumented friend of mine who is hungry. I can't think of any who do not have clothes. They are forced to live a life that is very resourceful. They are hard working. Most of them have a closer community and better friendships than mainstream Americans. There are many aspects of living an undocumented life that should be envied by the rest of us but we never look at it that way. Maybe if the DA doesn't pass the senate tomorrow they will be better off for it. I still hope for a passing vote but at the end of the day, many of them are good happy people and I hope they don't lose that if they get there papers and enter the ugly world of American affluency.
I have a lot of undocumented friends and acquaintances and most of them are actually really happy people. A thought crossed my mind that they are a lot better off than the people who oppose them. While I was reading today I came across an article about why Jan Brewer opposes the DA. She was going off on her usual "You can't run a state or a country with your heart" nonsense. I was reminded of a quote by C.S. Lewis that I read a while back in The Abolition of Man. He says, "A hard heart is no infallible remedy for a soft head." Jan Brewer definitely has one of those. So do a lot of people who oppress the powerless. She has no idea that it's in her best interest and the best interest of our country to provide people, who we've already given a public education, the opportunity to work legally and pay taxes instead of working under the table or turning to the black market for income. Who, of my undocumented friends, would trade lives with some of the most prominent anti-immigration figures? Who would want to go to bed at night and be Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or Kris Kobach? I'm absolutely 100% positive that every single one of them are better off being an undocumented immigrant in the U.S. than to be one of those pitiful souls. That makes me feel very good inside.
I can't think of one undocumented friend of mine who is hungry. I can't think of any who do not have clothes. They are forced to live a life that is very resourceful. They are hard working. Most of them have a closer community and better friendships than mainstream Americans. There are many aspects of living an undocumented life that should be envied by the rest of us but we never look at it that way. Maybe if the DA doesn't pass the senate tomorrow they will be better off for it. I still hope for a passing vote but at the end of the day, many of them are good happy people and I hope they don't lose that if they get there papers and enter the ugly world of American affluency.
Friday, December 3, 2010
The Gifts of the Jews - Book Report
I just finished reading the "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill. That was a great book. I think it really changed the way I view the Bible, God and faith in general. It was a historical analysis of the origins of the Jewish faith and how the Jews revolutionized modern thought and brought about western civilization. This might be somewhat controversial but it convinced me that a lot of the old testament was inaccurate, having been passed down orally for about a thousand years before being put into written form. This is actually very liberating and refreshing to me as I've always found it very difficult to believe that God would do some of the things the old testament says he did (I just filed these things away as something I didn't have an answer for). It's nice to know that some of those accounts were probably embellished but that the general events are very historical and although it might not be perfect, there is no reason that belief in God should be scrapped just because the Bible may not be without error.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)