I was always one of 'the smart ones', which sometimes meant I had opportunities others didn't. For example, in middle school I participated in a field trip to a mental health hospital. At least, I think that's what it was. I mostly remember a magician performing various tricks (I got a deck of cards that showed all black jacks if you flipped it a certain way) and also talking about mental health.
Okay, it sounds weird when I type it out like this. Especially as I find myself questioning the details...it was over 20 years ago now. Despite distance and time, however, the magician said something that has stuck with me all these years. He said that maturity was recognizing that your parents were flawed. Imperfect. And loving them anyway.
I would expand on that 'parents' bit, and say it applies to anyone or anything that you idolize and put on a pedestal. See, if you love it only because you think it's perfect...then you are seeing only a partial image of what you love. And you are at serious risk of becoming disappointed, cynical, and angry when the façade inevitably fails.
We are all...imperfect. And there is something powerful in being able to admit our flaws, and knowing we are loved and accepted anyway. Powerful and scary, of course. We try so very hard to pretend they don't exist. We don't want to be vulnerable, get embarrassed when someone sees us screw up. And that is part of why it is so amazing, when someone does see all that, and accepts us anyway.
This view on love and relationships has it's downsides, of course. It makes it harder for me to get swept away, since I believe/know that the initial chemistry/Eros is just that. And in the back of my mind is the question of "what happens when we start seeing past that?" Will this person really stand by me, even when they see me get short-tempered and curt? And can I stand by them, in turn? Can we expand from Eros into Agape and Phileo and Ludus and Storge kinds of love?
Still, it seems more...healthy. Wholesome. I think putting anyone or anything on a pedestal is a recipe for disaster. You're just one eye-opening experience away from having it all crash down on you. Besides, it's a lot of work living on a pedestal. You have to be perfect, you can't make mistakes. (It reminds me a bit of the movie The Full Monty, and the guy who couldn't admit to his wife that he'd lost his job...so he kept leaving the house every day pretending that he was gong to work. His wife, in that case, couldn't be a comfort and support. He was too busy keeping up appearances for her.) Don't put them on a pedestal, but don't get cynical and go looking for flaws. It's about accepting and loving anyway, not tearing people down for not being perfect.
But I titled this post 'Patriotism', because all of this is background for my love of country. That is - I think putting America on a pedestal and insisting we're perfect (and awesome) is as superficial and shallow as that first stage of love. It means acting as though any hint of criticism is an attack, as though anyone suggesting we do things different or better is somehow saying that our country is not worth supporting.
At the same time, there is a strand of exactly that in some critiques. Yes, we have problems. Boy, do we have problems. And yet there's something to be said for a society where the majority of our people feel like it's safe to completely ignore politics. Where we don't have to worry about losing our jobs or being turned in by a neighbor (or family member) if we insult Trump or Hillary. Or Bush, or Obama, or any of our leaders.
I struggle with my definition of love, sometimes. I'll use work as an example. Sure, there's always the honeymoon period. The first year or so, where you think your work place is awesome and really enjoy being there. When something comes to disillusion you, is it just paving the way for a more mature understanding of the company? Or is it a true indication that something is wrong, that maybe this isn't the right fit, and maybe it's time to move on? I thought I gave up on finding that 'perfect' place to work, you see. And yet I find that there are still things that grow more irritating the longer I work here, to the point where I needed to make a change.
So anyways. I'm writing this as a bit of an explanation for why I'm still taking a hiatus on national security. It's not exactly about Trump's election. (I'm worried about what will come, and not too thrilled he won...and yet I'm also kind of pleased at how much the DC establishment is freaking out about it. It's complicated and I may try to explain more later. It's like...I don't like racism, sexism, and his crude and inconsiderate behavior...but the reaction to his win seems to add weight to some long-standing conservative critiques that I'd previously dismissed. And there are such radically conflicting perspectives that I have a hard time sorting it out. But I'm digressing.)
I love my country. I will shamelessly use my military service in support of that statement, because it disrupts the assumption that any criticism comes from a lack of patriotism.
That said...there are times where I really question who we are and what we're doing. I'm having a hard time finishing that book on Kissinger, for example, because so much of what he (and the establishment at that time. I don't want to put it all one guy, he had support) did in Cambodia was just flat out wrong. As in 'banality of evil' wrong. Kind of made me sick to read it, which is sad to say about something that happened well before I was born and that I am completely unable to do anything about. And yet he's considered a well-respected statesman!!! Hillary was talking about how she has his support!!!
The Wikipedia article I linked to said that "One of the key issues that prevented congressional inclusion was the embarrassing fact that five key members of both political parties had been privy to the information and had neither said nor done anything about it".
This is the kind of thing that really bothers me, because it implies that this really isn't about one or two bad decisions. It implies that the bi-partisan establishment consensus supported what happened. And that even if it was only a few key players, the rest of the establishment would rather hush it up and carry on than actually do anything to prevent it from ever happening again.
It's also the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I'm naïve, in thinking that our nation is mostly a force for good in the world. That maybe the corruption really has gone too deep. It's the kind of thinking that, frankly, Donald Trump was able to tap into. (Even though what I just described has more in common with far left critiques. Yes, I know.)
There's more I could get into here. Hillary's e-mails. Foreign policy. Russian hacking. The CIA and FBI and conflicting analysis thereof. The establishment.
A lot more. But...I don't think I'll ever have the access to answer those sorts of questions. Not really. To give you one example of what I'm talking about - I posted something on Facebook about Russian hacking, as almost everything I heard indicated that the Russian government was really involved. Only to have a friend (who has a clearance, has served at the Pentagon, and is now part of the new cyber command) say that there was reason to doubt their involvement. I think she probably has the access to know...and if that's true, then wth is going on with all the news reports saying differently?
This happened before the election, I think it was in response to something I posted about Trump's comments during a debate. And yet that was in the back of my mind during the more recent discussion about CIA and FBI analysis on Russian involvement. If my friend is telling the truth, then the media and CIA are not. Their narrative of Russian interference falls apart. And what are the consequences of believing that narrative? Of having a large and influential group blaming Russia?
And vice versa. If the media and CIA are telling the truth, then there's an alarmingly large and influential group of people who disagree...and what are the consequences of that?
Of course, now the news says that the FBI supports the CIA narrative of Russian interference. So maybe there is a consensus.
Then again, my friend also said she knew members of the Secret Service who confirmed some of the negative stories about Hillary...and yet Secret Service leadership publicly discredited the book written by that ex-Secret Service guy making similar allegations. Which says either the author was writing about second-hand accounts, or that Hillary has enough pull to make the Secret Service cover for her. Or something.
There are a lot of things going on right now, and I'm not really sure what to say in the face of it.
So hey, I'm going back to school and studying computer science. Maybe I can't shape the course of American national security, but I can at least learn something new and interesting and hopefully get a good (non-corporate) career out of it.
Okay, it sounds weird when I type it out like this. Especially as I find myself questioning the details...it was over 20 years ago now. Despite distance and time, however, the magician said something that has stuck with me all these years. He said that maturity was recognizing that your parents were flawed. Imperfect. And loving them anyway.
I would expand on that 'parents' bit, and say it applies to anyone or anything that you idolize and put on a pedestal. See, if you love it only because you think it's perfect...then you are seeing only a partial image of what you love. And you are at serious risk of becoming disappointed, cynical, and angry when the façade inevitably fails.
We are all...imperfect. And there is something powerful in being able to admit our flaws, and knowing we are loved and accepted anyway. Powerful and scary, of course. We try so very hard to pretend they don't exist. We don't want to be vulnerable, get embarrassed when someone sees us screw up. And that is part of why it is so amazing, when someone does see all that, and accepts us anyway.
This view on love and relationships has it's downsides, of course. It makes it harder for me to get swept away, since I believe/know that the initial chemistry/Eros is just that. And in the back of my mind is the question of "what happens when we start seeing past that?" Will this person really stand by me, even when they see me get short-tempered and curt? And can I stand by them, in turn? Can we expand from Eros into Agape and Phileo and Ludus and Storge kinds of love?
Still, it seems more...healthy. Wholesome. I think putting anyone or anything on a pedestal is a recipe for disaster. You're just one eye-opening experience away from having it all crash down on you. Besides, it's a lot of work living on a pedestal. You have to be perfect, you can't make mistakes. (It reminds me a bit of the movie The Full Monty, and the guy who couldn't admit to his wife that he'd lost his job...so he kept leaving the house every day pretending that he was gong to work. His wife, in that case, couldn't be a comfort and support. He was too busy keeping up appearances for her.) Don't put them on a pedestal, but don't get cynical and go looking for flaws. It's about accepting and loving anyway, not tearing people down for not being perfect.
But I titled this post 'Patriotism', because all of this is background for my love of country. That is - I think putting America on a pedestal and insisting we're perfect (and awesome) is as superficial and shallow as that first stage of love. It means acting as though any hint of criticism is an attack, as though anyone suggesting we do things different or better is somehow saying that our country is not worth supporting.
At the same time, there is a strand of exactly that in some critiques. Yes, we have problems. Boy, do we have problems. And yet there's something to be said for a society where the majority of our people feel like it's safe to completely ignore politics. Where we don't have to worry about losing our jobs or being turned in by a neighbor (or family member) if we insult Trump or Hillary. Or Bush, or Obama, or any of our leaders.
I struggle with my definition of love, sometimes. I'll use work as an example. Sure, there's always the honeymoon period. The first year or so, where you think your work place is awesome and really enjoy being there. When something comes to disillusion you, is it just paving the way for a more mature understanding of the company? Or is it a true indication that something is wrong, that maybe this isn't the right fit, and maybe it's time to move on? I thought I gave up on finding that 'perfect' place to work, you see. And yet I find that there are still things that grow more irritating the longer I work here, to the point where I needed to make a change.
So anyways. I'm writing this as a bit of an explanation for why I'm still taking a hiatus on national security. It's not exactly about Trump's election. (I'm worried about what will come, and not too thrilled he won...and yet I'm also kind of pleased at how much the DC establishment is freaking out about it. It's complicated and I may try to explain more later. It's like...I don't like racism, sexism, and his crude and inconsiderate behavior...but the reaction to his win seems to add weight to some long-standing conservative critiques that I'd previously dismissed. And there are such radically conflicting perspectives that I have a hard time sorting it out. But I'm digressing.)
I love my country. I will shamelessly use my military service in support of that statement, because it disrupts the assumption that any criticism comes from a lack of patriotism.
That said...there are times where I really question who we are and what we're doing. I'm having a hard time finishing that book on Kissinger, for example, because so much of what he (and the establishment at that time. I don't want to put it all one guy, he had support) did in Cambodia was just flat out wrong. As in 'banality of evil' wrong. Kind of made me sick to read it, which is sad to say about something that happened well before I was born and that I am completely unable to do anything about. And yet he's considered a well-respected statesman!!! Hillary was talking about how she has his support!!!
The Wikipedia article I linked to said that "One of the key issues that prevented congressional inclusion was the embarrassing fact that five key members of both political parties had been privy to the information and had neither said nor done anything about it".
This is the kind of thing that really bothers me, because it implies that this really isn't about one or two bad decisions. It implies that the bi-partisan establishment consensus supported what happened. And that even if it was only a few key players, the rest of the establishment would rather hush it up and carry on than actually do anything to prevent it from ever happening again.
It's also the kind of thing that makes me wonder if I'm naïve, in thinking that our nation is mostly a force for good in the world. That maybe the corruption really has gone too deep. It's the kind of thinking that, frankly, Donald Trump was able to tap into. (Even though what I just described has more in common with far left critiques. Yes, I know.)
There's more I could get into here. Hillary's e-mails. Foreign policy. Russian hacking. The CIA and FBI and conflicting analysis thereof. The establishment.
A lot more. But...I don't think I'll ever have the access to answer those sorts of questions. Not really. To give you one example of what I'm talking about - I posted something on Facebook about Russian hacking, as almost everything I heard indicated that the Russian government was really involved. Only to have a friend (who has a clearance, has served at the Pentagon, and is now part of the new cyber command) say that there was reason to doubt their involvement. I think she probably has the access to know...and if that's true, then wth is going on with all the news reports saying differently?
This happened before the election, I think it was in response to something I posted about Trump's comments during a debate. And yet that was in the back of my mind during the more recent discussion about CIA and FBI analysis on Russian involvement. If my friend is telling the truth, then the media and CIA are not. Their narrative of Russian interference falls apart. And what are the consequences of believing that narrative? Of having a large and influential group blaming Russia?
And vice versa. If the media and CIA are telling the truth, then there's an alarmingly large and influential group of people who disagree...and what are the consequences of that?
Of course, now the news says that the FBI supports the CIA narrative of Russian interference. So maybe there is a consensus.
Then again, my friend also said she knew members of the Secret Service who confirmed some of the negative stories about Hillary...and yet Secret Service leadership publicly discredited the book written by that ex-Secret Service guy making similar allegations. Which says either the author was writing about second-hand accounts, or that Hillary has enough pull to make the Secret Service cover for her. Or something.
There are a lot of things going on right now, and I'm not really sure what to say in the face of it.
So hey, I'm going back to school and studying computer science. Maybe I can't shape the course of American national security, but I can at least learn something new and interesting and hopefully get a good (non-corporate) career out of it.
