The one thing I hate

Photo credit: http://steelturman.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/kill_tv.JPG

I hate the idea that people hate something. Am I conflicting myself here? Well, I take the blame and use this word for one last time.

The word hate implies utter rejection, irreconcilable aversion, a no turning back footing, a lost chance for understanding or forgiving. It has no reason, no tangible physical appearance, and no constructive energy that would forward any cause. Hate is the springboard for distruction, atrocities, terror, and the historical debris from the down of mankind of the "eye for an eye" mentality. Hate exists only in our head but boy, is it well rooted there…!

As I see it, hate exists in two forms: sensorial and intellectual.

On the subject of “sensorial hate” let me bring up an early childhood memory. In my young age, I used to “hate” carrots in the soup. One day, having been fed up with all the unconsumed carrots piling up on the side of my soup bowl, my daycare teacher made me eat every bit of them. Being obedient as I was, I struggled really hard to swallow the apparently disgusting, overcooked, mushy and tasteless substance. Hard as I tried, within minutes it came back with a violent gush. It covered the table, my fellow tablemates and the teacher’s sparkling white coat with the half digested soup particles that never fulfilled their original purpose of nourishing my rapidly growing body. Did I say I hated cooked carrots?

Well, time has passed, and I changed. One day I noticed that I was not pushing the cooked carrots on the side of the plate any more. No, not because I found it childish, but because I enjoyed eating it. So, what happened to my hatred for cooked carrots!?

I think we can dislike something with different intensity but probably should never feel that we hate it. One day, we might just need to “eat our words”.

As to the “intellectual” hate, I recall my distaste for the Eastern European political system before the changes took place in the 80s. One might say that I hated it there in those days. I was struggling in 1 room sublets, moonlighting just to be able to pay for a few dinners with my girlfriends. I was bickering that I could not see the rest of the world, as I was dying to, because the country had no hard currency to spare for tourism. The organization of society was overly controlling, restrictive, and did not give a real chance to the people to choose their ways. The state socialism heavily manipulated the economy with little attention to basic rules. The leaders, after all, had to look good at the end of every 5-year planning cycle. I think hate is what I may have felt for being cheated, shortchanged and exploited.

Then, I found myself on the polar opposite of that political and economical system. I arrived to the USA. Without getting into too much detail, slowly I started to appreciate some of the good things the socialist system had to offer back in Eastern Europe. Beside the obvious social benefits, people seemed to care about each other. A common goal was almost always on equal footing with individual interests and this provided a certain sense of community. Greed was denounced back there, not considered a “virtue” and a necessity for economical growth as declared, among others, by Rick Newman in his assay “The need for greed”.

So, there went my hate, or perhaps the closest I have ever gotten to it, against an old, discredited political scheme. It mellowed down to a mere dislike. I became a critical viewer of a large-scale social experiment that nonetheless, produced less victims then the settlement of the Americas or the system change in Iraq. Unlike hate, this newly found emotion did not prevent me from noticing and acknowledging certain likeable and desirable features of that defunct piece of modern history.

So, just like with the “sensorial hate”, we also have to be careful with the “intellectual hate”. A person, a view, an action may appear dark or devilish but we always need to leave some wiggle room for the benefit of doubt, room for ourselves to revisit or even reevaluate the subject of our dislike. And hate prevents us from doing that.

A brief exchange about capitalism, on account of Michael Moore's latest movie

Below, I am giving an account of a recent polemic about Michael Moore's (MM) movie (Capitalism: A love story) that quickly shifted into discussion about the current US capitalistic system. Since I did not ask permission from my debate opponent to publish her side, I will only briefly summarize her arguments with my own words.

The original challenge:
Capitalism made MM a wealthy man. Capitalism, as opposed to other systems, gives opportunity to people.

My response

The movie brings up very good points about capitalism, as it is practiced in the US. Even gun ho capitalist believers should take time to ponder about some of his arguments. MM has the integrity to stand up for the small guy, even though he made it big in capitalism. He knows that most people will not have his kind of chance although nearly everyone seems to be duped by the slogans of the Promise Land.

The movie is not saying that you can not be a millionaire in this economical system. It expresses concerns that the realistic desire of people, i.e. not to become a millionaire, but simply to live like a decent middle class citizen, is endangered by an ever more greedy upper class.

Challenge #2:
People are flooding into the US because of the unparalleled opportunities; the success stories of Oprah, Bill Clinton and "even Obama" are mentioned as examples.

Admits that some opportunities do exist in other countries, and that some corruption does exist in the US; in the whole however, the US system benefits those, who are willing to work hard and is superior to any other system.

Takes issue with people not willing to work in low paying job, such as McDonalds.

My response #2:

How do you know that other countries do not have their Oprahs-s, Clintons and Obama-s? Every single one of those newly rich and influential Chinese who are purchasing up the US treasury bonds nowadays, were dirt poor 50 years ago. They got their opportunities in a totally different system.

As to the poor and the middle class, that's exactly the problem in the US and other countries with hard-core capitalism, e.g. the one time "eastern block" countries. In the US, as well as in these other countries, the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider than today. The middle class is slowly slipping toward poverty not by choice, not because they want to "leave off the Government", but because they do not have the same opportunities that the wealthy do.

Look at where MM is coming from: Flint, MI, a once prosperous middle class town. Today, it is among the top 3 poorest towns in the country. Believe me, MM has first hand experience what opportunity capitalism will provide to the poor and middle class, if it does not serve the greed of the rich. That's why he started his career with the first movie back in 1989: Roger & me.

Challenge #3:
The US as the "Land of Opportunity".
China, has a net Emigration rate of -0.39 migrants/1,000 population.
The US, has an immigration rate of 2.92 migrants/1,000 population. (I did not check the data, but sounds credible to me...)

A major problem is that many people "live off the government" by choice: they think they are entitled for better life but are not willing to work for it. These people can't afford to fill their prescriptions, but spend their money on cigarette, drink, cell phones and cable TV.
Decent, hard working Americans should not support these behavior.

Not all rich people are greedy; many worked hard to get from nothing to wealth. These people create job for society.

The efforts of the Americans should be restricted only to help people to help themselves.

My response # 3:

Contrary to your assertion, today's problems are not coming from the small fraction of people who take advantage of the system. This happens everywhere and it should not be a reason to be judgmental of the decent people who fail because the system fails them - this is what MM's movie is about -.

If you say that not all rich people are greedy you are right! But why do you imply that all all of today's unfortunate Americans owe their misery to themselves by buying cigarette instead of paying for prescription? This is a very insensitive and convenient point of view. People with this attitude can justify that they remain unsympathetic to the poor while feeling entitled to their wealth.

The trend is that greed of the rich and the mismanagement of the previous American hard core capitalist leadership lead the country into this turmoil, not the "lazy" 9.8% who have no jobs today.

As to the slogan: Land of Opportunity; it came around the turn of last century when it was indeed true but has become a mere slogan since then. People come here because of a diverse reasons:
1. lax, poorly defined immigration  policy,
2. tremendous poverty in nearby countries
3. easy crossing of the borders on the South,
4. the lingering legend of the "Land of Opportunity".
This country is no more "Land of Oppotunity" today then countless other countries. Had China not had a strict immigration law and closely guarded borders, masses of North Koreans and South-East Asians would flood for the opportunity there.