Well, we're all still here. I wonder how the people who believed in the rapture are feeling right now. Probably full of existential angst. Or maybe forsaken because God didn't take them up to heaven with him. As many thorough readers of the Bible have pointed out, only God is supposed to know when the end of days is to happen. If you're like me, you think humanity is going to be its own extinction through one environmentally induced disaster or another. Along with us will die all notions of divinity. But it was nice to dream!
So now that you've survived an apocalypse, I hope you enjoy what remains of your life with a sweetened sense of purpose. For tips on wellness in my previous post, click here
Happy end times!
Jamin
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Monday, May 16, 2011
Terrorism...My Conversation Filler
Today I leave you with a really dry explanation of terrorism and various problems with defining and pinpointing it as a national threat. I've been wanting to post for a while now but couldn't think of anything so today you just get a republished paper from one of my politcal science classes. Lucky you.
There are a few problems with defining terrorism. In the vernacular it has become misconstrued by emotional ties to recent terrorist activity. A more objective definition of terrorism is: a method by which nongovernmental actors use violence to achieve political ends by inspiring fear of further violence. Even excluding popular input, this definition raises issues. The first issue is recognizing that terrorism is a method not a political ideology. A clear distinction can be made when examining who employs terrorism. Terrorism can be used by groups anywhere, "For example, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombed innocent civilians in British cities to raise the cost of British control of Northern Ireland. Al Qaeda commits its attacks in order to raise the cost of various policies it opposes" (D'Anieri 228). It is clear terrorism is a method because it transcends nationalities; however that doesn't mean there's not a particular type of international player that uses it. The second issue with defining it is distinguishing terrorists’ actions from other uses of violence. D'Anieri states that "it is important not only what is done and to whom, but by whom it is done" (228). States are not considered "terrorists" if they bomb another country because "only states can use force legitimately, in the generally accepted view" (D'Anieri 229). The reason for this is that states are supposed to govern public matters and have deterrents like public welfare and values. Terrorists are private players taking part in public matters and cannot be deterred the same way.
While there are many theorized causes to terrorism, none of them can be definitively proven. One explanation for terrorism is rational choice theory, in which the terrorist is left with no other option and terrorism is the only rational way to achieve their desired end. However, Islamic extremist groups that employ terrorism to establish a region-wide Islamic government don't fit this criterion. D'Anieri states "it does not appear useful in achieving positive goods such as control of a territory or of a government" (232). Poverty is offered as another explanation because poverty stricken people may be more willing to adopt extreme beliefs and a desire to overthrow the current system. There is, however, no direct link between the two since "a significant number of terrorists come from relatively wealthy backgrounds" (D'Anieri 233). This includes Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden who came from a family of millionaires. Finally, some think Islam is the source of terrorism because of beliefs like jihad, or holy war, which are used to justify terrorist actions. This is a really faulty explanation for a few reasons. One, jihad is not a widespread belief. Two, other extremists have used religious justification for their actions. For example "Hindu hardliners in India and Jewish extremists in Israel make similar claims, as did Christian Crusaders for centuries" (D'Anieri 234). Lastly, "much terrorism throughout history has not been religiously motivated" (D'Anieri 234). It was only recently that Islam came to the forefront. Other extremist actions throughout history have been fueled by nationalism and whatever was popular at the time. There is really no clear cause of terrorism yet.
For next time, would you rather have an essay on how to dissect literature or Osama Bin Laden? I was thinking the latter but I'm pretty sure we're all tired of hearing about his death the possible political significance of it.
Blah,
Jamin
There are a few problems with defining terrorism. In the vernacular it has become misconstrued by emotional ties to recent terrorist activity. A more objective definition of terrorism is: a method by which nongovernmental actors use violence to achieve political ends by inspiring fear of further violence. Even excluding popular input, this definition raises issues. The first issue is recognizing that terrorism is a method not a political ideology. A clear distinction can be made when examining who employs terrorism. Terrorism can be used by groups anywhere, "For example, the Irish Republican Army (IRA) bombed innocent civilians in British cities to raise the cost of British control of Northern Ireland. Al Qaeda commits its attacks in order to raise the cost of various policies it opposes" (D'Anieri 228). It is clear terrorism is a method because it transcends nationalities; however that doesn't mean there's not a particular type of international player that uses it. The second issue with defining it is distinguishing terrorists’ actions from other uses of violence. D'Anieri states that "it is important not only what is done and to whom, but by whom it is done" (228). States are not considered "terrorists" if they bomb another country because "only states can use force legitimately, in the generally accepted view" (D'Anieri 229). The reason for this is that states are supposed to govern public matters and have deterrents like public welfare and values. Terrorists are private players taking part in public matters and cannot be deterred the same way.
While there are many theorized causes to terrorism, none of them can be definitively proven. One explanation for terrorism is rational choice theory, in which the terrorist is left with no other option and terrorism is the only rational way to achieve their desired end. However, Islamic extremist groups that employ terrorism to establish a region-wide Islamic government don't fit this criterion. D'Anieri states "it does not appear useful in achieving positive goods such as control of a territory or of a government" (232). Poverty is offered as another explanation because poverty stricken people may be more willing to adopt extreme beliefs and a desire to overthrow the current system. There is, however, no direct link between the two since "a significant number of terrorists come from relatively wealthy backgrounds" (D'Anieri 233). This includes Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden who came from a family of millionaires. Finally, some think Islam is the source of terrorism because of beliefs like jihad, or holy war, which are used to justify terrorist actions. This is a really faulty explanation for a few reasons. One, jihad is not a widespread belief. Two, other extremists have used religious justification for their actions. For example "Hindu hardliners in India and Jewish extremists in Israel make similar claims, as did Christian Crusaders for centuries" (D'Anieri 234). Lastly, "much terrorism throughout history has not been religiously motivated" (D'Anieri 234). It was only recently that Islam came to the forefront. Other extremist actions throughout history have been fueled by nationalism and whatever was popular at the time. There is really no clear cause of terrorism yet.
For next time, would you rather have an essay on how to dissect literature or Osama Bin Laden? I was thinking the latter but I'm pretty sure we're all tired of hearing about his death the possible political significance of it.
Blah,
Jamin
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Goodness Flows From You Like A Fountain
Today my friends I wish to celebrate the goodness of life.
Sometimes, you just have so much to be thankful for you can't help but walk around with an aura of sickening glee. But it's not an unusual frequency of those rare times that make a happy person. After all, you can't really count on things working out in your favor. The goodness of your life isn't measured in the blessings you receive, but rather in the happiness you find in yourself and the life you have.
So make a resolution today, and tomorrow, and the next day to just be happy. Smiling often helps. Your body doesn't know the difference between fake stimulants and real ones. That's how Mormonism works I think...they smile so much and watch so many joyous, Disneyfied-version-of-reality movies that they can't help but be happy! More seriously, most of them have a daily practice of grateful revelling, whether it be at seminary, church, youth group, or family night. This simple daily reminder of what's important to them as people, I think, makes all the difference in the world.
If it helps you, make a "daily bible". It doesn't have to be fancy- just a list of things that make you warm inside and thankful you have a life at all. Most people don't achieve their life's ambitions or amass great wealth or have an unnaturally cheery disposition. And even if someone does get granted all the things that are supposed to make them happy, the happiness is then contingent on the continued prescence of those things.
As they say, "do something for yourself", but don't go out and indulge in that chocolate cake you've been craving all week. Instead, let your brain give your body a chemical uplift. Meditate on why you like living. Bring purpose to your life. Give YOURSELF happiness. The most beautiful thing is you get to decide for yourself. All the pain and ambiguity in the world is there so you can make something personally meaningful out of it...which may just be a chocolate cake at the end of the week.
Happily Yours,
Jamin
Sometimes, you just have so much to be thankful for you can't help but walk around with an aura of sickening glee. But it's not an unusual frequency of those rare times that make a happy person. After all, you can't really count on things working out in your favor. The goodness of your life isn't measured in the blessings you receive, but rather in the happiness you find in yourself and the life you have.
So make a resolution today, and tomorrow, and the next day to just be happy. Smiling often helps. Your body doesn't know the difference between fake stimulants and real ones. That's how Mormonism works I think...they smile so much and watch so many joyous, Disneyfied-version-of-reality movies that they can't help but be happy! More seriously, most of them have a daily practice of grateful revelling, whether it be at seminary, church, youth group, or family night. This simple daily reminder of what's important to them as people, I think, makes all the difference in the world.
If it helps you, make a "daily bible". It doesn't have to be fancy- just a list of things that make you warm inside and thankful you have a life at all. Most people don't achieve their life's ambitions or amass great wealth or have an unnaturally cheery disposition. And even if someone does get granted all the things that are supposed to make them happy, the happiness is then contingent on the continued prescence of those things.
As they say, "do something for yourself", but don't go out and indulge in that chocolate cake you've been craving all week. Instead, let your brain give your body a chemical uplift. Meditate on why you like living. Bring purpose to your life. Give YOURSELF happiness. The most beautiful thing is you get to decide for yourself. All the pain and ambiguity in the world is there so you can make something personally meaningful out of it...which may just be a chocolate cake at the end of the week.
Happily Yours,
Jamin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)