Who's Against These?

There are many things which no one seems to oppose. We're all for peace, correct? Education? The environment? Observing the Golden Rule, perhaps, if such references are not too religious? Yet so often these claims ring hollow. They must, you see: for peace and education are just words. By themselves, they really mean nothing.

It is critically important that we bring up and discuss the important questions which must follow these words if our actions are to mean anything; indeed, if the words themselves are at some point to be of value, of good use. WE must ask: peace under what circumstances? Peace for whom? Because of course peace in the sense of a lack of war was very useful for Hitler and Stalin yet was a rather poor mantra for Austria or the Communist Bloc.

Simply put, the next time someone asks you if you are for peace, or education, or the environment, ask them relevant questions before you answer. Ask them peace under what conditions? Education to what purpose and in what manner? The environment for whom and how? Before these issues are addressed we have nothing but a shallow and insipid pool of vacuous semi-thought. Yet afterwards, we may actually accomplish things.

What Peace Costs

From time to time in my life I have heard people remark that they are against war, all war; indeed that they oppose any kind of violence at all. They are for peace. Peace solves everything.

I beg to differ. It is a wholly untenable position to hold. Would no sane man or woman knock a criminal on the head with a rock if it meant the saving of lives? Would no country with any claim to a good moral standing not go to war to prevent a tyrant's rule? While violence and war must always be a last resort, it is, sadly, almost exclusively by violence and war that evil is kept in check. It is generally the threat and use of force which keeps people in line. For people will do bad things if they think they can get away with them, and will do so often enough despite the chance of violence against them hanging over their heads. If we approach them with no intention of eventually having to aggressively force them into right behaviors if need be, and they know that, we will soon enough have no stable society worth our participation. We surely will not have peace.

Peace did not end the Holocaust or drive Hitler from power.

Peace did not bring about the end of slavery in the United States.

Peace does not apprehend criminals nor rehabilitate them.

Peace only works among the peace loving. It almost never will turn the heads of those who hate for the sake of hatred, no matter what the treacly entreaties of the peaceniks assert.

Seeing as we live in an imperfect world, one which, quite frankly, shall never be perfect without divine intervention, the price of peace must ultimately be anarchy. At that point, will the Department of Peace flower, or simply become a seed crushed against the ground and bake, exposed, in the sun?

The cost of war is, needless to say, grim. But from the greatest human costs come the greatest things, if properly driven, and without any loss of human dignity. Indeed, I rather believe that our dignity is enhanced when we stand for the greatest things. We stand for nothing when we stand for what will not work.

Warning Against Air-brushing?

Although the realm of modern government in action seems to range from the proverbial sublime to the ridiculous, there are still items which catch the eye for their sheer nonsense quality. One such example has popped up in Australia. The leadership there is considering whether magazines which use airbrushed pictures of cover models and the like should contain an advisory that the bodies have been touched up to look better than they may in actual fact. Why? So that the impressionable among us will not feel quite so angst ridden at the sight of presumably better looking people.

What to say, what to say? Does this beg parody or merit a rant?

Let's rant. Why in the world would any government feel obliged to even comment on such trifles, let alone take them seriously? The whole non-issue reeks of the sort of idiocy wherein folks are shocked to find hot coffee hot, or when the report on education which came out a few years ago came back with the obvious conclusion that students who study more learn more. Which leads to the second relevant point about this: how many citizens in this day and age don't realize that photographs are cropped, touched up, and in probably a thousand other ways altered to meet an absurd standard? Isn't there at least a degree to which that if you allow your mental state to be affected by such tactics, you hold the blame for your demeanor? Do not sensible people realize as much?

This is government appearing to be working hard towards addressing a vital social issue when in fact it is not contributing to the betterment of society at all. It beats doing the true work of government such as actually protecting citizens and their real rights, though. All it really does is pander to the basest elements of humanity, most notably in this case vanity and jealousy. As to those whose self esteem are harmed by mere imagery, a smack to the back of the head would do them more good than any government regulation. Wake them from their stupor rather than treat it as a psychological condition.

Kate Ellis, the Australian Youth Minister (and subject of a future rant: governments need youth ministers?) claims that the move will empower consumers to seek greater choice in their purchases of beauty products. Sentiments like that, coming from a bureaucrat in all earnestness, speak volumes. When you institutionalize shallow feelings, you do indeed empower them. But is that what we want from those who are supposed to have our best interests in mind?