On friendships...

Thanks to my old mates at ALD this interesting little essay appeared in The Wilson Quarterly.

Since Asimov wrote The Naked Sun, Americans have been engaged in wholesale flight from one another, decamping for suburbs and Sunbelt, splintering into ever smaller households, and conducting more and more of their relationships online, where avatars flourish. The churn rate of domestic relations is especially remarkable, and has rendered family life in the United States uniquely unstable. “No other comparable nation,” the sociologist Andrew J. Cherlin observes, “has such a high level of multiple marital and cohabiting unions.”

Oceans of ink have been spilled on these developments, yet hardly any attention is paid to the one institution—friendship—that could pick up some of the interpersonal slack. But while sizzling eros hogs the spotlight these days—sex sells, after all—too many of us overlook philia, the slower-burning and longer-lasting complement. That’s ironic, because today “friends” are everywhere in our culture—the average Facebook user has 130—and friendship, of a diluted kind, is our most characteristic relationship: voluntary, flexible, a “lite” alternative to the caloric meshugaas of family life.

But in restricting ourselves to the thin gruel of modern friendships, we miss out on the more nourishing fare that deeper ones have to offer. Aristotle, who saw friendship as essential to human flourishing, shrewdly observed that it comes in three distinct flavors: those based on usefulness (contacts), on pleasure (drinking buddies), and on a shared pursuit of virtue—the highest form of all. True friends, he contended, are simply drawn to the goodness in one another, goodness that today we might define in terms of common passions and sensibilities.

Akst points to the likes of Ralph Waldo Emerson as the genesis of the self-centred individual rather than social person. I don't know that the answer is that simple in fact. Akst's example of the "male buddie films" as a "social contra-indicator" is also open to debate. That is why I offered the following comment...

Of the comments thus far the two that strike the strongest echos for me are David Jewett and RameshRaghuvanshi; the former for his very detailed personal insight, the latter for his chink-hole peep into the divided society.

I do not make friends easily. In that respect I am perhaps in the same category as David, although I do not dredge the internet into the picture as a rationalisation. I have always had a reticence to be involved with other people and particularly other men. The reasons are manifold. Some are echoed by Ramesh.

On the other side to Akst's (excellent) article is that there are times when man (generic) needs solitude as much as he needs close friendships. That has been (in the past) my justification for being so insular and "self-reliant".

Is it likely that our society's disconnection with personal relationships is the result of that desire (and hence the attraction of the internet where friendships are far more ephemeral than real life)? In old history, the community and its inter-relationships could be avoided by a simple walk into the distance. Today (and despite the divisions Ramesh notes) that pressure of "community" is far greater and unavoidable.

"Friendships" on the internet are easy, passing and almost always strongly boosted by a search for "people who are of the same mind".

In real life, strong friendships are far more difficult - as Akst points out. They require regular maintenance. They do evolve, and can often eventually die through the events as he describes.

Vale - Lt Timothy O'Donnell NZDSD

Killed in action this day.

He is the first NZ Serviceman killed in Afghanistan.*

He was awarded the Distinguished Service Decoration for an action in Timor L'Este. The citation for the award reads -

"Lieutenant O'Donnell, in the rank of Second Lieutenant, served as Platoon Commander in Timor Leste from November 2006 to May 2007, as part of the NZDF contribution to the Australian-led International Stabilisation Force (ISF). His platoon was conducting a security patrol in April 2007 when it encountered a crowd of approximately 1000 Fretilin supporters returning from an election rally in Dili.

"The crowd, escorted by UN Police officers, halted on the outskirts of Manatuto, fearing attacks from opposition political supporters. While the platoon was endeavouring to secure a safe route, the UN Police began moving the Fretilin supporters across a bridge toward Manatuto.

"The crowd was then ambushed by some 600 opposition supporters throwing rocks and firing steel darts and arrows. Under the hail of projectiles, the Police escort was quickly overwhelmed and withdrew, leaving the Fretilin convoy stranded on the bridge. He made a quick decision to intervene in the melee, which meant that his platoon also came under attack.

Eventually, his platoon managed to push back the attackers and secure a bypass route around Manatuto for the Fretilin convoy, which safely circumnavigated the town without loss of life or serious injury. Soon after ISF reinforcements arrived on the scene to assist in restoring law and order to the town. Without the decisive intervention of his platoon, it is likely that the situation could have deteriorated resulting in a number of fatalities between the rival political supporters.

He has been described by his family as "an Army man".

My thanks to Lt O'Donnell for his first class service to his country. My sympathy and thoughts are with his family.

* Another NZer, holding dual NZ and US citizenship, was killed in Afghanistan while serving with the US Army.

A matter of ethics...

The uber-right have been blatting for a few days now about the actions of Rep Charles B Rangel. Just what they were on about was a mystery; there was certainly a large amount of heat, quite a bit of smoke, but little to be seen of the cause.

Until now...

So why are Representatives Charles B. Rangel, a New York Democrat, and Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, facing the rare spectacle of public ethics trials for actions their defenders say are just business as usual in Congress?

Good question...

Both cases also involve personal causes — for Ms. Waters, the financial investments of her husband, and for Mr. Rangel, an education center set up in his name in New York.

So, it is little wonder...
+

With their integrity under attack after widespread news reports, Mr. Rangel and Ms. Waters are fighting the charges instead of simply accepting a modest punishment.

As a result, Washington has suddenly become fixated on ethics issues, including the continuing investigation of Senator John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada, who has been accused of improperly intervening with federal regulators at the request of a former aide, whose wife had an affair with the senator.

It is getting to the point where the Bishop is about to enter the room...

Mr. McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate minority leader, has helped raise money from corporate donors, including RJR Nabisco, Toyota and military defense contractors, for a center named after him at the University of Louisville, Mr. Rangel’s lawyers point out.

“We provide these examples not as part of an “everyone does it” defense, but rather to demonstrate that these activities have never been regarded as creating an improper benefit to a member,” Mr. Rangel’s lawyers wrote.

The House ethics panel that investigated his case disagreed.

The committee said that not only did he appeal for contributions from companies like Verizon, New York Life Insurance and American International Group, which all had major legislative matters before his committee, but he also made those appeals on official House stationery, with the help of his House aides.

Good grief!! Where have I heard that line before? Was it Winnie the Pooh? Or was it one of Auntie Helen's unterlings?
But the heart of the matter has to be -

And there was an unusually close overlap, the committee contended, between appeals for donations and his intervention on legislative matters, citing in particular a meeting Mr. Rangel held in 2007 at a New York hotel with an executive from an oil drilling company at which he made a bid for a donation and also discussed a tax break the company was seeking.

The executive, Eugene Isenberg, and his company ended up making a $1 million contribution to the educational center, and Mr. Rangel helped the company secure a tax break worth an estimated $500 million.

So when I reach the last para of NYT's article -

“There is definitely a heightened concern and sensitivity about political and charitable contributions and the timing in relation to official actions,” said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics defense lawyer. “It’s a big issue out there right now, and these are very rough waters to navigate.”

... I am left with the very strong impression that there will be a new euphemism for the "C" word emerging in the not too distant future. It may not even be within the term of the present Administration, so (as the shampoo ad says) "it may not happen overnight, but it will happen".

On Journolism...

The Pink Rabbit has some contact with Kiwiland, has some mates here, and I must confess trots a worthwhile line of debate on occasions; well as far as everyone agrees with him that is. One of the latest asks the question whether NZ has a "Journolist". For those who have not yet come across the term, it relates to journalists with whom the uber-right-whingers "have issues". It is just another of those convenient buzz-words... I did try to paste the following as a comment but such is the Pink Rabbits obsession with free speech it has not shown on the page. Ahh well, I will fight for his free speech just as strenuously.

If the Edwards referred to in the comments is the same one as I am thinking of then I am hardly surprised at the lack of response. It seems that to "succeed" in the world of information distribution the first qualification is the ability to ignore any truth other than that of the "masters". That same truth can be applied to the many bloggers who hold themselves out as "disseminators of the truth".

The instant reaction to a truth which does not fit with the reporters line could best be simulated by taking a swig at the aftershave bottle. When a primary income source is dependent upon people making the news (see the associated Edwards web-page if it is the one I am thinking of) then the pursed lips get even tighter still.

News and reportage here in NZ is pretty homogenous and weak-kneed. The most independent used to be Scoop (www.scoop.co.nz). In recent times even they seem to have become less investigative and more "populist" (the news you want to hear rather than the news you should hear). The reputation they built with the exposure of the Diebold problem has gone somewhat mouldy. Otherwise, 99% of NZ news comes from NZAP, AP Reuters and the American sources.

True investigative reporting seems to have died (globally, not just NZ) with Watergate. There seems to have been little since that has not had political interest as a primary motive rather than the public's need to know. In other words, investigate to prove a particular point of view - usually political - rather than determining an objective truth. As a result the "investigations" are monocular and slanted, presenting only those facts that lead to the desired end. IMO there is little difference on that count - other than the colour of the politics - between Fox, NBC, and Pravda or Peoples Daily.

Hence you can take your list and apply to NZ with impunity.

Personally, I filter for my news; look for a story and then filter off all AP and Reuters links... Add a good dose of salt and cogitate. The sad fact is the most people tend to select one broadcaster as"the truth" and accept that truth without question. :cry: Even if it is Rush Limbaugh.

There is a larger question here; one I have touched upon in the past. It is the news media's (particularly television's) penchant for taking "press release" video and presenting it as news. Nothing wrong with that, provided that the viewer is aware of its provenance - for the thick that means who prepared it and why. In some years past (the last eight to be precise) probably 25% to 50% of the news on some very specific subjects came from such sources. Amongst the worst of the disseminators of this "hand-massaged news" in my exoerience were TVOne, Reuters and Fox. Understand, this was news reportage prepared not by the media but by those whom the "news" was about. Understand that it was presented without any disclosure that the "report" came from an interested source.

Here in NZ the progress toward "celebrity news" - the person presenting the news is more important than the news being presented - is very near complete. At least the likes of Paul Holmes, Paul Henry, and Michael Laws have been kept from the studios of the very little editorial and analytical commentary we get dished out.

So far.

Quick update as I strolled around my "news" sources -

The New Republic has a good little article of which I will quote just the last para -

It's fashionable to draw a parallel between MSNBC and Fox News. But MSNBC's liberal commentary occupies just a couple hours of its evening lineup. It is intended as a supplement to the news, not a substitute for it. The premise of Fox News, Limbaugh etc. is that the mainstream media is totally corrupt and should be completely ignored in favor of news sources controlled by the conservative movement. That premise has no parallel on the left.

(Emphasis is mine)

As I see the world, that makes Fox's marketing premise very clear.

What a boring place the world might be...

..if it were not for people like these.

I do not know what it is about human nature but there is obviously something in the human genome that gives rise to extremists; whether they be Muslim or Christian, be white or black, sane or not.

I came across the Pink Rabbit — oh, sorry Crusader Rabbit by chance — following other people’s links is always such good fun. So too is the practice of trolling — to which I will here confess being the occasional practitioner. It has the same kind of vicarious pleasure as stirring wasp nests, or teasing pitbull terriers. It can be “dangerous”, as I found out with the neocon outfit a few years back. It can also be good bloody fun.

The best of it is that it is interesting; from the aspect of how such people — the ones I have termed “right-whingers” at times in the past — react to disagreement. But I will leave that for the moment.

These people, and I used the word “extremists” earlier for that is what they are, have a number of easily identifiable characteristics.

The first, and one of the less obvious, is that they all profess to being Christian. Some write of events (those which might add to and satisfy their confirmation bias) at their Sunday church observances giving those speeches a satisfying political twist. I am not Christian, a fact I make no secret of at all. Regrettably, that also means that I do not have the knowledge to effectively debate the relationship between their beliefs and their actions. Pity, but there it is.

The second, and most apparent, is their unbending belief that the United States of America is God’s Kingdom on Earth. Well mebbe not in so many words as one of the endless complaints from this group centres on how one kind of politics is destroying “the country” (“the country” applies whether or not they actually live there) whereas the other kind (the right ones) are God’s Representatives to mankind. Of course, when the right ones are in power, they are not always right enough for the liking of those who follow this path.

Their third attribute follows quite logically from there. God’s greatest gift to mankind is the Second Amendment. Oh, come on! You should know that the whole “raison d’etre” for God, for the country, for the Constitution, is the right to keep and bear arms. I am not going to even try to debate all of the rationalities that surround this particular belief; they range from “defending myself from my own government” to “look what Hitler did after he disarmed the Jews”. This is all, quite obviously, a very rational argument. It is based on fact; the fact that “the government” irrespective of name or colour is socialist at best if not totally communist; the fact that Islam is on an openly professed mission to rule the world; the fact that Hitler tried to wipe out all Jews (though they ignore that he did away with a lot of other people as well)...

There are a number of identifiers which fight for the next place in this list. I think that I would have to make a “very short nose” judgement in favour of “politic”. It is already apparent that the very far end of the right wing is where this starts. The non sequitur of associated colour passes them by entirely. In the US the colour identifier seems to be red. Why this should be so is a complete mystery. In Britain, the right wing takes the colour blue, whether from or giving rise to the association with “blue-blood” I do not know. The non sequitur should be eye-smackingly obvious; it is also the colour of communism. But there y’go. Perhaps while I am thinking about colours, my attribution of “galah” as nom de pied for my favourite aussie right-whinger is getting more appropriate. Quite apart from the natural associations with the bird and its habits its faded pink colour would seem to fit as well.

The short nose lead given to politic fits with the next identifier as it is brother close. If you follow the politic then there are a range of interpreters - Priests, Rabbis, or Imams if you will - that are needed to ensure the continuing purity of the religion. Oh, did I just say that their politic was a religion? Oh, sorry! That was inadvertent, if appropriate. Leader of these Priests is a Pope-like person who inhabits the airways courtesy of Fox by name of Rush Limbaugh. My personal opinion of radio/tv political commentators is no secret whether they are named Limbaugh, Hannity, Malkin or Laws. The fact is that there are people who actually believe these commentators (“common-taters” anyone?). So when Limbaugh starts preaching the Second Amendment, all of the old tired and tread-less clichés start re-appearing through the blogiverse. You know the kind of thing; from doing away with the Second Amendment, to taking our arms off us... A picture springs to mind at this point which would have this page banned in an instant were I to describe it in detail. Male readers, use your imagination on what might come from being armless and full of testosterone... Suffice to say that if Dr Billy Graham had had the approach of the current proselytisers and acolytes the world would certainly be a different place today.

It is only another short nose from there to the next attribute. I had thought that this might rank a lot higher, but I decided after reflection that it is a consequential rather than leading trait. That previous sentence has two clues — “thought” and “reflection”. In the universe of the uber-right and the associated religions there are no such ideas. This follows very logically from the need for the Intermediary Class of religious officers. I think it was Limbaugh (or Hannity?) who coined the term “sheeple”; I have neither time nor inclination to find out. The devotees of this religion miss the point entirely. “Sheeple” are those who follow mindlessly, without thought, without critical examination. How right that is! (Pune intended!)

I made reference earlier to the fact that the Second Amendment being given by God. It has to be said in fairness that He also passed other Rights on to us poor undeserving souls. So it is that (unlike those who do not believe in the right-wingers God) we have such inalienable rights as Freedom of Speech, ownership of property, and the right to pursue a life of happiness. Well, Bhutan tried that last one and the country now is totally broke. Spain and Greece as well seem to be following the same path until recently. But levity aside, the right to freedom of speech is important. It ranks higher than gun ownership in my mind, but that is just the opinion of an aging ex-socialist. What is fascinating is the importance attributed to Freedom of Speech by the right-whinger. I can agree with that. I support all of their arguments in favour of it being so. The difference lies not so much in the freedom to agree, as it does in the freedom to DISagree; to disagree with the uber-right religion is treason most foul.

The same kind of debate arises over property rights. My first contact with this in the American sense came out of the arguments over “eminent domain” and the misuse and abuse of the power in America. Again, the detail does not need to be debated but I was left with the strong feeling that “property in my hands is ok, property in anyone else’s hands is not ok”. Perhaps there is a rider needed “unless he is a mate of mine”. Do not take me the wrong way. Some of the abuses of eminent domain in the US smacked of the worst kinds of nepotism and corruption you can imagine. Our over-regulated and granny-state of NZ has rules about things like that which in theory at least tend to counter the possibilities.

I must say that some of those “right-whingers” I have met through the ‘net have been good, forthright and honest sounding people. Like so many other things, there is a continuum rather than narrow groupings. So individuals might rank themselves as “unter”, “innerhalb” or “uber” as they desire. Up to you, just for so long as you think openly, objectively and honestly. (yes there is an alliteration there — the “h” is silent).