obligatory

• home
• mfop2

archives

• January 2005
• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• May 2004
• April 2004
• March 2004
• February 2004
• January 2004
• December 2003
• November 2003
• October 2003
• September 2003
• August 2003
• July 2003
• June 2003
• May 2003
• April 2003
• March 2003
• February 2003
• January 2003
• December 2002
• November 2002
• October 2002
• September 2002
• August 2002
• July 2002
• June 2002
• May 2002
• April 2002
• October 2000
• February 2000

recent

• Separate from nature?
• An exercize in empathy
• Off The Road Again
• Application
• Truckin'
• Ecological Illiteracy
• Ski Dreams
• Christmas
• A New Kind of Game

I'm in some kind of a depression. Maybe it's because of the jet-lag, or maybe it's because I don't have the will-power to overcome it (I have fallen prey to afternoon napping for three days in a row now). Maybe it's because I feel like crap health-wise after eating so much garbage and drinking so much oh-so-delectible beers in the US. Maybe it's because I lost the momentum and enthusiasm for the projects I am working on. Maybe it's because no matter what I do I can't cut that dang to-do list down (maybe it's because I don't do anything on my to-do list). And finally, maybe it's because my new favorite NPR radio show onle airs once a week, and over the past few weeks I have gone through most of the recent archives.

Justice Talking is award-winning radio that engages listeners in timely, refreshingly honest debates on the current legal battles that capture our nation's attention.

Each weekly program unapologetically tackles tough, provocative issues featuring reports from the field, polling analysis, and compelling debate between the nation’s leading advocates and political opposites.

With knowledge and insight, veteran NPR correspondent Margot Adler leads listeners through a fast-paced hour, peppered with questions from a live studio audience. Justice Talking is an entertaining and enlightening mix of voices and opinions -- tune-in and listen to the sound of democracy.

I love this show. I discovered it durring one of the too-many long drives I made over the break, and now I am adicted. Mainly, I think, because I don't trust most of what I read or hear when people who think like I do depict the views and oppinions of people who think in ways I can't fathom. When I read some of the quotes and ideas attributed to "the other side" on certian issues, they always seem so outlandishly crazy and unfounded that I assume that the author or person telling the story is on "my side"... I always assume that if the "enemy" was giving his/her view in person, it would sound reasonable.

I'm sorry to say that in most cases I am wrong. This show has guests from both sides of an issue debating, and it always amazes me how completely onesided my own views are. In most cases, I can not even understand where the other side came up with the ideas they have. What experiences in their life led them to see the world so differently than I do. It has really become and exercize in empathy. I have been listening ernestly trying to see what they see, trying to understand what could have shaped their point of view... but mostly, trying to listen without thinking "what could have confused them so much? Why are they so screwed up? Can't they see?!!!?"

I thought I'd take a minute and comment on YOUR blog, for a change. I haven't heard this program (although I am an unabashed NPR fan), and I'm excited to check out the archives.

Don't you think it's funny how strongly held opinions can change so suddenly, based on basically nothing at all? For example, in high school I would (and did) swear that being gay was wrong, COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG. But somewhere in college I changed my mind, and now I am 100% positive that being gay is an acceptable lifestyle with no moral implications. I have gone from lengthy battles against gays in the military to protests on Capitol Hill in support of gay marriage.

Looking back, it makes me wonder what it is that forms our opinions, what makes us so stubborn about holding on to them (even to the point of absurdity), and how we are able to change them so completely that they are 180 degrees from the original opinion.

These questions bring up the larger issue of absolutism vs. relativism. Are there things that are "right" and "wrong"? Bring on Rawls' Theory of Justice...

I echo everything you said. What I don't understand though, is that like you, ten years ago I would have agreed with most of what the "other guys" are saying now. After ten years of living and learning and thinking, my views have changed. I know that my views before were based on nothing but ignorance... yet the people who I see with those same "ignorant" views are not high-school kids... they are grown adults, presumably having an education (usually more than me at better schools). If it is still possible for them to have those views wich I attributed to my own ignorance, does it mean that they are still ignorant? - which doesn't make sense.

What makes them think the way they do?

It's kind of weird--I think that up until a certain point in our lives, we are expected to learn and change and grow--and this includes changing our opinions. But after a certain point (college, maybe?), having major shifts in perspective is not looked kindly upon (see the way people bashed the mischaracterized "flip flopping" of John Kerry).

Maybe these are just people who couldn't get it together enough to shift perspective when it was allowed, and are now forced to fight tooth and nail to hold on to the values they are required by "adulthood" to cling to.

That, and it's hard to argue with someone who "walks with Jesus". How can I argue with my mother when she says: "Well, Jesus told ME that girls should be in by midnight."

Incidentally, how brilliant is a RSS feeder? Based on your excellent presentation, I have dowloaded SharpReader (voted best for Windows) and am now happily organizing the overwhelming number of blogs I've accumulated. If you had to choose 10 blogs that you ALWAYS follow, what would they be?

Opposing views are not necessarily based on iqnorance. Our positions change when we are exposed to ideas that are either to quanitatively lopsided or to qualitatively lopsided over periods of time. In other words we are slowly and naturally being brainwashed one way or the other by our surroundings. If you stay in these surroundings too long you will look like them. John Kerry doesn't really enter into this because many of his flip-flops were not gradual. Many happened over night and they happened probably because they were politically prudent.

I agree with you that quantitativly or qualitativly lopsided ideas will change our perception. I guess that is what I mean when I refer to my own ignorance. For the longest time I was exposed to, or paid attention only to certain quantitativly lopsided ideas. I really don't know what I did with my time... I guess I was playing football or studying Japanese, or learning how to program or something, but it left me with no time to research issues on my own. I had to rely on the quantitativly lopsided information that was around me. Once I started actually going out and seeking new information, reading both sides, following up for myself on what I previously took for granted, using my own brain instead of just going along with what someone told me, I suddenly began to realize that what I used to take for granted was just based on my ignorance of the qualitativly lopsided information. That's what I mean when I say I was ignorant.

Now, there are people who spend there life researching and learning, yet they still have a different view. Obviously they are not prey to the same ignorance that I was, so, having spent so much time (presumably) learning, how can they have the same views that match mine when I was ignorant? I am not saying they are ignorant or wrong, just wondering how it can be.

galleries