Thursday, May 29, 2008

"Choices"

People underestimate the power of choices. They do so for a wide variety of reasons; socialists deliberately undermine the power of choice, because people who believe their choices don't matter are much easier to convince that they should let the government "take care" of them. Those who advocate professional victimhood would have you believe that choices are unimportant, because if you can choose, then you're choosing to remain a victim.

But here's the thing. As a rational adult, the only thing you control in your life is your choices. You are not, and cannot be, responsible for the decisions and actions of anyone else; only your own. This same, incidentally, is why I reject wholeheartedly the notion of so-called "original sin." Holding me personally responsible for the actions and choices of someone dead for thousands of years before I was born is utterly ridiculous; the reason - if you buy the theory that they're not - that humans aren't equipped to deserve Heaven is that we're not omniscient, and therefore unable to understand, or comprehend, the Big Picture.

Interestingly, many of the proponents of the idea of original sin understand its illogic in other contexts; just not in religion.

For example: I'm white. In my lifetime, I have never owned a slave; never oppressed anyone; I don't make racist comments, or tolerate those who do; and yet, despite my personal convictions and beliefs, there is a significant movement on the part of people like Louis Farrakhan to demand - from the American taxpayer, in other words me - so-called "reparations" for slavery, because I'm white, and therefore supposedly responsible for the choices of people long dead - and their effects on people long dead.

I would willingly bet that many people, reading that paragraph, would agree that the notion is ridiculous, but turn around and accept, with gaping mouth, the fishhook of original sin: you need the church, because of something someone long dead did that's YOUR FAULT.

And people wonder how I can both have absolute, unswerving faith in the existence of God - and simultaneously hate and fear organized religion.

Back to my point about choices; "The Big Scary Controversial Religion Post" will be up soon enough.

You make choices every day; you have to. Even choosing not to make a choice, is a choice. There's no real escape from that; as a human being you have choices. And you're only responsible for yours; but, see, YOU are responsible for your choices. No-one else is, or can be.

Some of those choices are easy; some are hard; some of them will break your heart.

But ALL of them are yours.

I recently had an experience you've no doubt all shared to some degree; I wrote a blog post that turned into "the one that got away." When I read it - before posting - to my wife, she was sniffling before I was done, which is a sign that I'd really gotten it right.

Click "Post."

"Error - server is unavailable."

And just like that, because I had forgotten to copy it to Metapad first, *poof* all my eloquence, instantly gone.

I admit, I swore a blue streak.

But I couldn't fix it; my first post about choices, totally obliterated, because I made a choice to be less-than-careful with my backups.

Oh, the irony.

But the idea I was driving at is still there.

I posted a quote on my front page a few days ago; it's thought-provoking. Somewhat repackaged, it is: "I gave MY LIFE to become who and what I am today. Was it worth it?"

That's not an easy question, if you're honest about it. Give it a try. Go to your mirror, and look straight into your own eyes. Ignore your surroundings; ignore your appearance; ignore who you HOPED to be, and who you wanted to be, and who you dreamed of being, and look dead into the eyes of who you ARE.

Ask yourself that question.

Was it worth it?

Is who you are, right this minute, unflinchingly honest with yourself, worth every choice you've made to get there? Every dream you've set aside, hope you've abandoned, friend you've hurt - maybe even unknowingly - enemy you've made, tantrum you've thrown, every hurtful thing you've said or done, every action you've seen to be wrong in retrospect; was it worth that?

Looking into your own eyes, honestly, are you who you want to be?

Why not?

You have choices, always. There IS no such thing as a situation where you are without choices. There are situations where the choices are hard, even heartbreaking. But not making those choices is a choice, as well.

Do you think Terry Schiavo's husband was making an easy choice? I think it broke his heart. And I think it might well have hurt him so badly that he might never really recover. I know if I ever had to make that choice, it would utterly destroy me. I also know I would make the same choice he did.

A cancer patient makes choices; whether to fight, or simply die; whether to use it, and grow, or give up.

A drug addict, the same; treatment and help are there, and everyone knows it; someone who stays addicted chooses that, every time they get high. Is choosing treatment and recovery hard? Yes. Even heartbreaking. But it is a choice.

A person abused as a child grows up, eventually. And they have choices. I know. I'm one of them. And it colors your judgement; it adds a filter to the way you see the world. But you know why I'm not an abuser? Because you have a choice. When my wife irritates me, I choose not to swing at her, every time. I choose not to beat my son bloody for minor misbehavior, or send him to the hospital, as often as it happened to me.

We all have choices.

And the people who say you don't - the people who try to excuse a rapist, on the grounds that he was abused or molested as a child, are really saying, to everyone who's ever been abused and NOT turned into a rapist, that the reason they were able to make that choice is that they weren't abused enough.

I had a rough time as a kid. Lots of people had the same or worse. And yet they, and I, manage to get through it, because we made - and continue to make, every day - a choice.

If choice is meaningless, if choice is nothing, you're saying to every person who's ever beaten an addiction that they weren't addicted enough. That they only had those choices because they didn't smoke enough crack, or shoot enough heroin, to take those choices away from them.

And that's not true. Breaking the abuse cycle; beating addiction; staying strong under chemotherapy; those are all choices that are HARD. There's nothing easy about not giving up. But the fact that anyone can do it at all says that claims of victimhood are a lie.

I look at myself in the mirror, and I can answer that question, "was it worth my life, my hopes, dreams, and ambitions, to be who and what I am today?"

Who I am today, is someone who's beaten, and broken, the abuse cycle, and continues to do so every day.

Who I am today, is someone who has beaten alcoholism - I joke about it, but you can ask my wife - who has beaten smoking (fifteen years of three packs a day) and broken the addiction cycle, by making choices, and then sticking to them.

Who I am today is someone who's lost loves, and loved ones, sacrificed dreams, given away hopes and aspirations, and somehow, along the way, chosen to be content.

I work in a hard, low-wage job, that I'm vastly overeducated for, and stuck in because of my choices.

I drive a shitty car.

We never have the money to do spontaneous things of any magnitude.

I am estranged from much of my family.

I have few friends.

But the family and friends I have, I cherish; I have friends that - I don't think, I know from seeing them do it - would take a bullet, or bloody their hands forever, for me.

My own hands bear, from my own choices, stains of blood and pain that will never, ever wash clean.

But I got them in the service of an ideal that I see with steely-eyed clarity, even if you do not.

I got them because of a choice.

I chose to give up my home, many acquaintances, my job, my chance to be with my father in his last years, working on repairing our relationship, my environment; all to be with a woman my friends told me was so very wrong for me.

I chose to accept her love, and give mine, rather than search for a perfect fit; and somehow it turned out to be a perfect fit anyway.

And my choices have led me to a place where I can look into my own eyes in a mirror and answer yes.

It was worth it.

Every choice that led me here, from the inconsequential to the heartbreaking, was worth it.


And every day, I make a new choice; to improve. To grow, and learn, and become better, every day.

I believe that THAT is what God truly wants from us; not perfection, but our choices, or we wouldn't have so many of them.

I can look in the mirror and take ownership of who I am, who I've been, who I am choosing to become. I can look at the stains of my choices on my hands and accept that no-one else made those decisions for me.

I am proud of who I am; you don't have to be proud of me, or applaud, or even care.

But I can look in the mirror and say, "it was worth it."

Can you?

And if not, how long will you choose to remain someone who can't say that?

People can change; most of them don't.

And that's a choice.

You answer to yourself, only, and always; do so. If you can't say yes, if you can't be that honest, ask yourself why.

And then choose to become someone who CAN say that it was worth it.

You owe that to all the people you could have been.

6 Comments:

James said...

so-called "reparations" for slavery, because I'm white, and therefore supposedly responsible for the choices of people long dead - and their effects on people long dead.

You raise a number of excellent points.

The trouble is that the slavery reparations movement isn't about holding people today responsible for the choices of people long dead, and certainly not for the effects on people long dead.

Those who advocate reparations (and I'm not one of them) are talking about the fact that the consequences of slavery and discrimination are still very much with us today. It's about trying to hold society responsible for the consequences of its earlier choices -- in other words, for the impact of slavery today, which gives many of us more than we would otherwise have had, and others much less.

This is true for all Americans. Those whose families never owned slaves, or whose ancestors arrived as immigrants after slavery, still benefited tremendously from the economic opportunities provided by the industrialization of the U.S. economy, which was fueled in large part by slavery. And those benefits still exist today, while the disadvantages to the descendants of slaves haven't disappeared, either.

By the way, you say "so-called reparations." You may believe, as I do, that reparations for slavery don't make sense, for a variety of reasons. But I'm not sure how you can disparage the very term "reparations." After all, the U.S. has given out reparations for other crimes, such as rounding up a hundred thousand Americans into concentration camps in World War II, for which the taxpayer has paid $1.6 billion in reparations.

Xeno said...

Saying "so-called" does not disparage the term reparations; it disparages the idea of applying that term to payments of today's tax dollars, collected from me, to people who are not and never have been slaves.

If you take money from me, and give it to someone who has never been oppressed by me, because of something that happened in the past, BY someone else, TO someone else, then you ARE holding me responsible for it; that's what "responsibility" means.

The taxpayers who paid reparations for the internment of Japanese-American citizens in camps during World War II, did so to surviving internees.

It was still wrong, seeing as it took money, again, from those not even alive when the crime was committed, but at least it was directed the right way.

So, I'll tell you what; I'll give you that one. You find me a surviving person who was a slave in America, and I will gladly support paying reparations to him or her. It will still be wrong - because I DIDN'T DO IT - but I'll go along with it.

The problem with that is that you can't. And racism is by no means unidirectional, despite what delusional crackpots like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan would have you believe; racism is NOT something "only whitey can do."

Racism IS alive and well today; and it's spread around with equal fervor by members of EVERY race, and directed at every OTHER race. Every time a black person says "only whitey can be racist," that is, in itself, a racist statement.

So: these "reparations" are indeed "so-called," because they are in fact no such thing; they are theft, based on race, from white people.

And as such, they are inherently racist.

Thank you for your comment!


As a side note, I will point out that in fact, I went to school in Houston's Fourth Ward, which is about a ghetto as it's possible to get in this country; I did so because my family was dirt poor, and that's where we lived; so, the argument that "slavery is still hurting people today" holds no water with me; the folks I went to school with had EXACTLY the same opportunities I did.

And I am married, with one son; I have a decent job, a nice apartment, a car I own in full, bills that are paid on time; and I no longer live in the ghetto.

Because I had choices to make, and I made them.

If you, or someone you know, chose to stay in the ghetto, that's a CHOICE; you cannot hold me responsible for it.

James said...

the idea of applying that term to payments of today's tax dollars, collected from me, to people who are not and never have been slaves.

Well, you're certainly disparaging that term, as it's been used by Congress in recent years. The Japanese-American reparations were paid from taxpayer dollars to the victims when still alive, and to their descendants when not. For wrongdoing you didn't commit.

then you ARE holding me responsible for it; that's what "responsibility" means.

I think "responsibility" isn't the same as "my tax dollars went to compensate for it." We can disagree about that, but it's the U.S. government which would bear responsibility. The taxpayers merely benefit today, all of them, from what slavery made possible.

The taxpayers who paid reparations for the internment of Japanese-American citizens in camps during World War II, did so to surviving internees.

No, as I mentioned above, when the survivors were dead, they paid to their descendants.

If you believe that was wrong, to compensate victims and their families for a terrible wrong committed by their government, then we simply disagree about that.

Racism IS alive and well today; and it's spread around with equal fervor by members of EVERY race

Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that the consequences of slavery are evenly distributed. The average American benefits tremendously from the economic development made possible by slavery, while the descendants of slaves have never come close to catching up.

If you, or someone you know, chose to stay in the ghetto, that's a CHOICE

Ah, the argument that poverty is the fault of the poor. That being born into poverty, with little in the way of resources, community institutions, stable cultural values, etc., isn't at all responsible for continuing poverty.

I think we can safely leave it off here, as we clearly don't agree.

Xeno said...

First; you make my point for me. As I said, paying reparations to someone who was not personally victimized, from the pocket of someone who didn't victimize anyone, IS WRONG.

You seem to have the notion that someone who is not, is entitled to my money; and they're never gonna be.

I notice that you choose to disagree with my point that racism is inherent in the very idea, without actually providing any evidence or logic to support your assertion. Slick.

I also notice that you continue to use the term "disparages," when you clearly have no idea what that word means. I wish you'd buy a dictionary; "to disparage" means "to belittle," and I've done no such thing; I HAVE, repeatedly, said that the term "reparations" is misapplied here. Clearly you didn't understand my point, so I'll try once again, hmmm?

Going really slowly, the term "reparations" does not accurately apply to payments "for slavery," since NEITHER SLAVES, NOR THEIR IMMEDIATE SURVIVORS, REMAIN ALIVE TODAY. The correct term is "racist entitlement payment."

There is no-one alive who possesses, any longer, any right to ask for payback for slavery. If you personally have been racially discriminated against, then you have every right to try to prove it so in a court of law, and absolutely soak the sonovabitch that did it, and I will support you right down the line; but when you claim that because of my skin color, I owe someone money despite my total lack of involvement in the actions upon which you predicate your insane notion, then you are making an inherently racist statement, right there.

That's ok. You can go on thinking that the term "racist" means "white people" instead of "someone making decisions based solely on race." There's no law in this country against being wrong.

And as far as the "poverty is your fault," comment, you're full of crap. I didn't say that; what I did say, was that given the exact same cultural environment and economic and familial situation - single mother, two kids, no money, living in the ghetto - _I_ got out. And if I could, ANYONE ELSE CAN TOO.

Or, is your argument that I am that automatically and clearly superior, JUST BECAUSE I'M WHITE?

I stand by my original assessment; you are a racist. Your every argument is predicated on one racist concept or another. "Black people can't get out of the ghetto, or stop being poor, because they're black." That's RACIST, chief.

You can wear blinders all you want; but the one of us in this discussion who's REALLY oppressing black people...

...is YOU.


Oh, and as a final note, if your mind is sufficiently closed that you can EVER make the statement "we're NOT GOING to agree about this," then there's not really any point arguing with you - or even talking to you at all - because in your world, it doesn't MATTER what right and wrong are; only YOUR AGENDA matters.

And that's sad.

James said...

you make my point for me. As I said, paying reparations to someone who was not personally victimized, from the pocket of someone who didn't victimize anyone, IS WRONG.

Well, I make the point that the U.S. already pays reparations in ways you don't approve of. Not that paying reparations as we do is right or wrong.

I respect your view, but I have no problem with using taxpayer dollars to compensate for our nation's wrongdoing, at least in cases like the concentration camps. (Whether reparations for slavery would be appropriate is an entirely different matter, of course.)

I notice that you choose to disagree with my point that racism is inherent in the very idea, without actually providing any evidence or logic to support your assertion. Slick.

I agree that it would be racist to try to compensate for past wrongdoing by paying people of a particular race.

I disgree that it would be racist to try to identify people who *actually* suffer from the consequences of that wrongdoing, and attempt to implement targeted programs to assist them.

you continue to use the term "disparages," when you clearly have no idea what that word means. ... I HAVE, repeatedly, said that the term "reparations" is misapplied here.

That would all be true IF the term "reparations" were misapplied here.

As I've said, you can apply any definition to that word that you'd like. But if the word is being used in the same sense as, for instance, Congress uses the term, then it's fair to point out that you're belittling the term as it's widely used, by suggesting everyone's wrong in how they use it.

I apologize if I wasn't clear about that.

the term "reparations" does not accurately apply to payments "for slavery," since NEITHER SLAVES, NOR THEIR IMMEDIATE SURVIVORS, REMAIN ALIVE TODAY. The correct term is "racist entitlement payment."

Fascinating. You may feel that way, but that's not how the term is defined in the dictionary, or in law, or in previous actions to grant reparations.

There is no-one alive who possesses, any longer, any right to ask for payback for slavery.

Well, any American has any right to ask. It's in the First Amendment.

Just because you and I wouldn't support their request for a payback, doesn't mean they can't ask. ;-)

when you claim that because of my skin color ...

I think maybe this is where some of the misunderstanding comes from. I've never heard any reparations supporter refer to paying people on the basis of their skin color. As I said above, that would be racist ....

given the exact same cultural environment and economic and familial situation - single mother, two kids, no money, living in the ghetto - _I_ got out.

I apologize. I didn't realize that you'd grown up in a black cultural environment, with all the cultural and communities inheritances of centuries of slavery and legalized discrimination.

if your mind is sufficiently closed that you can EVER make the statement "we're NOT GOING to agree about this" ...

And yet I never said that.

I said that we do, in fact, seem to disagree: "If you believe that was wrong ... then we simply disagree about that"; "we clearly don't agree."

Xeno said...

And I notice you're not even bothering to argue with my actual moral points here; you're quibbling with semanticisms, and making - again - racist assumptions.

Nice touch.

The concept you seem to miss - repeatedly - is that the assumption that "the cultural and communities inheritances of centuries of slavery and legalized discrimination" somehow dooms an adult human being to a life of poverty in the ghetto, despite their choices, IS RACIST.

And you've made that very assumption several times in your comments.

Nice.

You can babble in circles around that point all you'd like to; you're never going to escape the fact that people HAVE choices.

They may be bitchingly HARD choices, as I pointed out repeatedly in my post; but that doesn't mean they're not there.

When you claim - and your notion that the fact that I'm not black makes my environment when growing up count for less makes that very claim - that being black removes those choices, you're making the racist argument that black people don't possess the ABILITY to change their circumstances.

Not only "it just ain't so," but you're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.

I'll show some love. Follow along, here.

Claiming that someone needs special treatment because of their skin color - is racist.

Claiming that someone is incapable of making decisions because of their skin color - is racist.

Claiming that someone lacks the ability to change their circumstances, because of their skin color - is racist.

YOU have made all of those claims; they're implicit in your arguments.

_I_, on the other hand, said "if you work hard enough, you can get OUT."

Which one of us supports the black people? Hmmm?

I have said, and will say again: the way to advance the cause of black people is NOT to separate them further from society, but to integrate them into it; that means teaching them, by example, how to be a part of it. That means teaching them a work ethic. Teaching them to strive for what they deserve, rather than waiting for a handout.

What you're advocating is keeping them in a separate, special place all to themselves, because they can't make it alone. Which implies the rest of the sentence: "because they're not as good as the rest of us."

Racism, pure and simple.

You can SAY it; this is America. But that doesn't change the actual message you're expressing, which is racism, and the goal of that kind of thinking, which is to perpetuate stereotypes, and try to get black people to live down to them.