"A Celebration of Inconvenience"
I heard on the BBC today a new euphemism wherein some government official referred to the new ban on liquids in carry-on luggage as "A Celebration of Inconvenience." Definitely Orwellian. I can't help but think there was a little chuckle inside the mind of the official juxtaposing that new euphemism with "An Inconvenient Truth."
Doing a little regression analysis shows that in the near future, we will be issued jump suits before boarding any commercial flights. I won't go so far as to say we will be cavity searched, but we'll need to get used to surrendering all our belongings.
So who are the criminals? If we punish criminals by taking away their freedoms, what do we call it when we take away freedoms from our citizens?
Sure, 9/11 was a tragedy. But life goes on. There will be another terrorist attack somewhere, someday. It is inevitable. Whether the terrorists are radical islamists or libertarians, it doesn't matter. There are powerful forces that nurture the 'we vs. them' attitude.
That attitude is the basis of just about every religion and government...and their associated sects and bureaucracies as well. It is the basis of games and business so it permeates our lives at work and play.
Unfortunately, that attitude is self-perpetuating. Humans are a social lot. 'We' tend to favor 'us' over 'them' simply because 'we' have a wider framework in which to communicate with 'us' than with 'them.' And 'they' know 'we' prefer 'us'. For the same reasons, 'they' prefer 'them.'
Humans are a sensitive lot. A person knows when they are being shunned, ignored or passed over. We rankle when the popular kid talks to us condescendingly while stuck in the elevator together. If that popular kid also happens to be a bully, we glue the pages of his textbooks together when he falls asleep.
Should we ban glue?
People in charge are famous for making up rules that are fair for everyone. Everyone gets padded down on the way into a concert. Everyone must leave the premises by 2am. Everyone must show their ID to board a plane. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone.
Humans are a resourceful lot. We tend to find ways to work around the system. The people in charge make up more rules to patch the holes in the system. We find more holes and they add more rules. Each rule is a minor inconvenience. The cycle continues til you got yourself a midrash and no one remembers why the original rule was made up.
The oppressed feel they owe it to the ones that come after to rise up and fight their oppressors. Unfortunately, they are powerless against their true oppressors, so they terrorize the subjects of their oppressors. The oppressors, meanwhile, feel they owe it to their subjects to fight the oppressed terrorists. Unfortunately, they are powerless against the truly oppressed (what do you take from he who has nothing?), so they tighten the reigns on their subjects.
When 9/11 happened, my dad said we should start a war against hate. Instead, we started a war against terror. Terror is a reaction. We are fighting a reaction. What is the source of a reaction, but an action? What is the action to which terror is the reaction? Hate.
But how do we fight hate if we hate the people that are hating? Uh, well...we don't really hate them, we just hate what they're doing - and what they're doing is spreading terror - so - we're fighting terror...
Wouldn't it be better to work on trying to get them to stop hating us? or is that too inconvenient?
I heard on the BBC today a new euphemism wherein some government official referred to the new ban on liquids in carry-on luggage as "A Celebration of Inconvenience." Definitely Orwellian. I can't help but think there was a little chuckle inside the mind of the official juxtaposing that new euphemism with "An Inconvenient Truth."
Doing a little regression analysis shows that in the near future, we will be issued jump suits before boarding any commercial flights. I won't go so far as to say we will be cavity searched, but we'll need to get used to surrendering all our belongings.
So who are the criminals? If we punish criminals by taking away their freedoms, what do we call it when we take away freedoms from our citizens?
Sure, 9/11 was a tragedy. But life goes on. There will be another terrorist attack somewhere, someday. It is inevitable. Whether the terrorists are radical islamists or libertarians, it doesn't matter. There are powerful forces that nurture the 'we vs. them' attitude.
That attitude is the basis of just about every religion and government...and their associated sects and bureaucracies as well. It is the basis of games and business so it permeates our lives at work and play.
Unfortunately, that attitude is self-perpetuating. Humans are a social lot. 'We' tend to favor 'us' over 'them' simply because 'we' have a wider framework in which to communicate with 'us' than with 'them.' And 'they' know 'we' prefer 'us'. For the same reasons, 'they' prefer 'them.'
Humans are a sensitive lot. A person knows when they are being shunned, ignored or passed over. We rankle when the popular kid talks to us condescendingly while stuck in the elevator together. If that popular kid also happens to be a bully, we glue the pages of his textbooks together when he falls asleep.
Should we ban glue?
People in charge are famous for making up rules that are fair for everyone. Everyone gets padded down on the way into a concert. Everyone must leave the premises by 2am. Everyone must show their ID to board a plane. A few bad apples spoil it for everyone.
Humans are a resourceful lot. We tend to find ways to work around the system. The people in charge make up more rules to patch the holes in the system. We find more holes and they add more rules. Each rule is a minor inconvenience. The cycle continues til you got yourself a midrash and no one remembers why the original rule was made up.
The oppressed feel they owe it to the ones that come after to rise up and fight their oppressors. Unfortunately, they are powerless against their true oppressors, so they terrorize the subjects of their oppressors. The oppressors, meanwhile, feel they owe it to their subjects to fight the oppressed terrorists. Unfortunately, they are powerless against the truly oppressed (what do you take from he who has nothing?), so they tighten the reigns on their subjects.
When 9/11 happened, my dad said we should start a war against hate. Instead, we started a war against terror. Terror is a reaction. We are fighting a reaction. What is the source of a reaction, but an action? What is the action to which terror is the reaction? Hate.
But how do we fight hate if we hate the people that are hating? Uh, well...we don't really hate them, we just hate what they're doing - and what they're doing is spreading terror - so - we're fighting terror...
Wouldn't it be better to work on trying to get them to stop hating us? or is that too inconvenient?
posted by David Sartoris | 8:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home