nothing really needs to be said, but . . .

Nearly each morning, I have a sad routine that I follow once I go online: check e-mail; read all my friends' blogs*; search through Squizzle's new stuff--i.e., pictures, movies, etc; check out Ebaum's stuff; occasionally look at the Slate; and sometimes I'll read through some of the BBC. Like I said, it's a sad routine; but hey: everybody's get one.

A couple of days ago, while following this routine, I came across this picture on Squizzle. This is truly one of those instances where nothing really needs to be said, but I simply cannot stop myself. (I will try and keep my waxing to a minimum, though I cannot promise I will succeed--the picture is saturated with elements that simply beg for comment).

First of all, I'm not real sure how long ago this article was run in the papers; but that's really not my concern. My primary concern is that it exemplifies certain strands of thought that run through our society--many of which some do not see as problematic. One of these strands is the tendency to find another cause for problems that are ultimately self-induced. The dude in this picture is doing just that. He's not willing to own up to the possibility that his smoking is the cause of his coughing. There was another article that illustrates this same way of thinking--as seen in the following picture:

Another strand, which is only implicit in this, is what some people have called "the entitlement mentality". While this mentality has so many variables connected with it, the primary one is: because someone (or something) else is (supposedly) at fault for another's problem, that someone (or something) owes the one who is "suffering". Part of this thinking may be closely connected with the idea that lawsuits are the new lottery. (Don't know how to handle or drink a hot cup of coffee? That's okay; spill it on yourself and sue the company for a boatload of money because it's obviously their fault).**

People need to own up to their own problems and admit it when they are the cause of them. Casting blame elsewhere and/or suing corporations for large sums of money will not remedy the heart of the problem, nor will such tactics actually improve one's quality of life. It is only when people acknowledge what's wrong in their own life--and recognize that much of it is self-induced--that people can truly make a change for the better.

________________________________

*Jake, Chad, Derek (my brother), and Dr. Weatherly (a professor from my school).

** A local coffee shop here in Cincinnati has one of the best messages on their cup-sleeves that I have ever seen. It simply says: "Don't be a bonehead--this stuff is really hot".

history, or historians?

In a recent USA Today article, the headline simply read: "Majority say history won't be kind to Bush". That phrase alone is immediately problematic because it only takes a moment to see what they classify as the "majority". They say 54% of the people polled believe that Bush is not going to receive flying colors in historical recollections about his time as president.

Cast your eyes leftward--that 54% is only 54% of 1009 adults. They try and make the variables sound more fair by saying this 1009 pool is "nationwide" and that it has a 3% margin of error. The ironic (or, convenient) part about the margin of error is that even if the numbers were 3% less, it would still maintain a "majority" status simply because it is greater than 50%. (Statistical analysis is a careful science that can be used to promote just about anything, if one knows how to set up the test and manipulate the variables).

That aside, there is another problematic element to this article. "History" is not some disembodied critic of human affairs; the historians are the ones who are responsible for how history is critically understood. This truth is nothing new--it has been firmly set for several millennia. The ancient Egyptians were known for only recording that which was beneficial to their imperial autobiography. Very few--if any--overly negative events in Egyptian history were recorded. The historians were the ones who determined what they would write; but their refusal to document certain events does not mean that such events did not actually take place. The same is true today.

If history (or, better yet: "historians") is not going to be kind to Bush, then there is only one culprit to blame. Now, this statement does not proceed from my fingers naively--I fully understand that Bush has made some decisions in the past that were not necessarily "good" ones; but it is only by being on this side of retrospect that we can truly know the quality of a past decision. It is very possible that the points at which various decisions were made by Bush and his committee, they were most likely concluded to be "good". It is impossible to know for certain just how dramatically (or, traumatically) a given choice will unfold once it is made. There are simply too many unknowns.

Historians have the choice to include or exclude certain events in their presentation of history. They have the choice to present Bush in a negative light or in a positive one. They have the choice of focusing solely on his faults or on his accomplishments. They also have the choice to take a "both-and" approach in their presentation--i.e., they could be fair and balanced in their portrayal. They cannot, therefore, hide behind some disembodied entity called "history" and place all blame on such an entity while claiming complete innocence. If historians choose to portray Bush as a completely incompetent president whose decisions plunged this country into the abyss, then that's their choice (not really sure it's a good one); and it's a choice where they already know how it will unfold--"history won't be kind to Bush."