Being Valentine’s Day this Tuesday, I’ve been thinking a lot about love. What would best represent love on Valentine’s Day? Flowers? Chocolates? Cards? Sex? Butterfly kisses? Snuggles? Deep conversations? Hate? That last one seems out of place but hear me out. Can hate and love exist together at the same time? Do hate and love secretly have a twisted marriage together? Can love exist without hate? I find it interesting that our culture is so fond of using the word love but strays away from the word hate. A conversation may go something like this.
-“I love Katy Perry, she is the best singer in the world!”
-“I hate Katy Perry, she wants to kiss a girl and I don’t like it!”
-“You don’t even know her how can you ‘hate’ her?”
-“Alright…I extremely dislike Katy Perry and her stupid eyelash commercials.”
“Hate” is such a strong word but “love” isn’t? It makes sense that we shy away from hate because from a young age we are taught examples of nasty people that embody the word like Hitler, John Wayne Gacy, and Mark Cuban. With age came a deeper understanding of the word and its usage expanded. Saying, “I hate the fur industry,” or “I hate McDonald’s” became a normal conversation piece. But there still existed that taboo of associating hatred with a specific person. I think there is a major problem with this. Does our vernacular keep us from truly understanding love? Let me put it another way. Does avoiding the “hate” word keep us from the “love” word?
Let me posit a philosophical question. Can two perfect people love each other in a perfect world? Let’s first define what love truly represents. Love is not a feeling but is an action. One can feel emotion as a result of love but love does not propagate out of thin air. For example, if I give flowers to Christina it is an “act” of love; she subsequently feels happy emotions but those emotions are not love – solely the result of love. So let’s go back to my question about the perfect people in the perfect world. One perfect dude gives perfect flowers to his perfect wife. Is this an “act” of love? If the woman feels happy as a result of the flowers how does she differentiate that feeling from any other feeling – since she is perfect in a perfect world? Would she feel anything different than her normal perfect state? It is an interesting scenario that is obviously impossible. My point is to make you think about contrast. Without actions that are opposite in nature there is no discernible difference in various stimuli. Imagine staring at a blue sky with blue clouds – there is no recognition of either.
This brings me to my point. Without hate there is no love. Without the opposite of love, we cannot understand what love truly represents. The exchange of flowers only means something because we subconsciously understand that hate exists; think instead that I handed Christina a bouquet of snakes that immediately bite her. Can I truly love Christina without hating her? I think the answer is no. We must hate to love. What better example of this then a couple who has been married for 20 years. They know each other’s quirks, pet peeves, and trigger points. They have fought, disagreed, and bickered thousands of times. They both have things that they can’t stand about each other. Those things or events are times of hatred; it may be a mini hatred but it is hatred nonetheless. Without those fun-size hates there would never be the meaningful acts of love: a soft hug after a tearful fight, a difficult compliment that kills pride, a somber admittance of wrong doing. We hate the ones we love. I appreciate Christina because of all her imperfections that drive me crazy. So why is this important to recognize? Because so many times in life we want everything perfect. We always want our relationship to be perfect. We want to live in a romantic comedy. We are afraid of the bad. But do not fret. Those times of despair, hate, and discontent are the times that make our love the strongest. Appreciate the hate because it is the fuel for the fire of love on this Valentine’s Day.
This past week was quite eventful. Donald Trump won the presidency and a lot people were either extremely happy or extremely sad. We are all losers when it comes to America’s election process. Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or even Coreitarian I have some well thought out suggestions for all elections in the future.
- Pass a law that requires a small fee for all political posts/statuses on Facebook
Remember back in the 2000’s when your crazy uncle use to send you those chain emails that usually went like this …send this email to 5 more people if you love Jesus. If you don’t you will be cursed by an evil demon!!!! These emails usually got relegated to the junk folder immediately and most rational people ignored the all caps titles with the tabbed recipient list that went on for 100 lines. Fast forward to 2016 and those chain emails have evolved into the everyday posts that inundate Facebook. Over the past year I have probably seen over 1000 political posts that are churned out, most likely, from Dr. Evil as a plot to destroy all relationships and the world as a whole. These posts have no sources and usually include a grainy picture with a tag line like “Life’s a Bitch…Don’t Elect One,” or “Build a Wall Around Trump, I’ll Pay For It.” We all know these posts are stupid and don’t convince anyone to vote for the opposite candidate. In the end they only make us more divided through annoyance. To fix this I think there should be a five dollar charge for each post that is political – this would exponentially decrease their frequency and make the election process much less miserable. The money will be used to help starving children in Africa. Eventually, we can just go back to what we use to do on Facebook: stalking people’s pictures, wishing we wouldn’t have accepted Grandma’s friend request, and laughing at stupid videos of cute animals.
- Everyone must take a “Test” to be eligible to vote***(See note on bottom)
At current, the only requirements to vote in the United States are your age (18) and that you have some sort of identification (in most states). This is an absolutely awful idea because a democracy depends on an educated populous. Back in the day, the electoral college was implemented because the Founding Fathers feared that an uneducated-demagogic population would elect someone unfit for the presidency. That is why they appointed the most sound-minded-well-respected individuals to the electoral college – being the only votes that really mattered. Today, the electoral college is more a symbolic gesture that is the worst of both worlds – it doesn’t allow appointed electors the ability to vote their will/conscious and it also doesn’t allow them to vote according the overall popular vote. To fix this problem I think we should first get rid of the electoral college and fix the problem of “uneducated” voters by requiring a test. We already take tests so we can drive, carry fire arms, and graduate High School. Why not take a test to decide the most powerful office in the world? The test would entail intermediate principles of government, economics, and history. It would also state the candidates’ policies and relevant facts about their efficacy. These facts can be compiled from a bipartisan panel – informing the test taker beyond mere Facebook posts. Of course, a lot of people will fail the test and a lot of people will be too lazy to take the test. Good. This country should be led by competent leaders who were elected by well-informed educated citizens.
- Require both candidates live in the White House together after the election
Trump and Hillary said a lot of nasty things about each other on the campaign trail. Now imagine that after they said those things, they would have to share the same bathroom for the next four years. Would they change their strategy? Maybe tone down the hate and focus more on policy? Moderate their comments to ensure their toothbrush doesn’t end up scrubbing the toilet? Of course candidates would stay in separate rooms but all meals and facilities would be shared; extra precautions would be taken to keep Bill from sneaking into Melania’s room. Overtime I believe both candidates would become closer, talk more policy, and reach more middle ground in their beliefs. A perfect example of this in real life is a college dorm. Roommates may come from different backgrounds, but when forced together they usually learn new things and grow from the experience. This idea is literally the antithesis of our current daily interactions which are usually through the computer and lack the empathy of face-to-face interactions. We could even extend this principle to congress and have some sort of Red/Blue bunk bed arrangement. I happily imagine conversations going late in the night about the pros and cons of building a wall and the economic theories of trade deals.
To wrap it up, this election made me depressed. I am however staying optimistic and giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. He is my President and one day I will write a blog post about his time in office. I pray that it is one commending a job well done. Who knows, he may implement some of my election policies.
***After writing this it was pointed out to me that this sounds like the days of Jim Crow. I do see the similarities but I didn’t intend it to disenfranchise any minority groups. In a perfect world, where everyone received an equal education and rights, the test would probably work. Since we don’t live in a perfect world my realistic alternative to the test is making election day a national holiday – so everyone can take some time and study up before they go to the polls.
Did Hitler come to power on a Monday and subsequently start slaughtering Jews on a Tuesday? The answer is obviously no but we are primarily taught in school about the events of WWII-not how we got to WWII. Usually our history class did a hop skip and jump to the juicy parts to keep our teenage selves from getting bored. Most people’s history knowledge is best described as someone who watched Titanic but only skipped to the sex scene in the car, the naked painting on the couch, the boat sinking, and Jack falling off the door in the water. I am in this same sinking boat with most people and that is why I wanted to read In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler’s Berlin by Erik Larson. Larson is an excellent writer because he makes nonfiction read like fiction. If you are not the type to read history then you should try Larson-I promise you will not be bored. In the Garden of the Beasts follows the American Ambassador to Germany, William E. Dodd, and his family while they lived in Germany between 1933-1938. The book primarily details the rise of Hitler and the atmosphere of Nazi Germany through the diary of Dodd and Dodd’s daughter-Martha. This family was able to detail what life was like in Nazi Germany and how Hitler slowly morphed into the monster we know of today.
In 1933 Hitler became chancellor of Germany. He did this through subjugating his competition and rallying his people behind the cause of German nationalism. Shortly after Hitler was elected he began to use the Gestapo to put fear into the hearts of Jews, Communists, and anyone who did not see exactly his way. People oftentimes were beaten in the streets or were reported missing for no apparent reason. Even Americans were beaten on many occasions for failing to give the Hail Hitler salute and observing the ceaseless military parades. Furthermore, the Nazis openly passed laws that disbanded Jews from marrying non-Jews, working in certain jobs, and using certain facilities in the city. All these things were well known around the world yet no government spoke up against Hitler’s practices? Why was this? In America it was because of greed and homegrown antisemitism. Firstly, America didn’t want to upset Hitler by condemning these early actions because Germany owed the US a lot of money. The debtors were focused on collecting their interest and Germany was having difficulty making their payments. Secondly, the US had specific immigration policies in place that prevented Jews from coming to the country because there was a clear dislike of Jews among many state officials. This atmosphere was similar in other Western countries and is one reason Hitler was allowed to continue these preliminary policies.
What about the German people? Why didn’t they stop Hitler? Some Germans did try to go against Hitler but most of them were killed or imprisoned for their treason. Most Germans in those early years thought Hitler was not going to last long in politics and would actually step down. Hitler slowly became more forceful in his control over the population and eventually everyone was afraid of espionage and being taken in by the Gestapo. Living in Germany during that time was stressful and scary no matter who you were-no one felt comfortable. It was this atmosphere that allowed Hitler to take full control when President Hindenburg finally passed away. At anytime during those early years Hitler could have been stopped. His policies were disliked by most people in and outside of Germany but nothing was done. Students are taught that the US came in triumphantly, stormed Normandy, defeated Hitler, and freed the Jews in the concentration camps. But when you really look into the details is the US not partially responsible for WWII? Hitler many times over broke the Treaty of Versailles but no Western country stepped in? The reasons for these are many: an isolationist attitude, fear of losing interest payments, the Great Depression, hypocritical racist policies in the South, etc. We can’t go back and change history but what we can do is learn from history. And how can we do this? We need to teach and learn about all the scenes that took place to understand how we got to that point. Without context, Rose getting painted butt naked by her lover, could be Rose getting painted butt naked by her kidnapper. Why is this important today? In America at least, there are still groups of people who are disenfranchised and political leaders who want further disenfranchisement. It seems we want to get right to the action and skip all the details-maybe that is why history repeats itself.
Is there any scenario in which blowing a person’s head off is not a bad thing? Maybe if you were playing Call of Duty, but I would say that 99% of the time killing someone is not the right thing to do. What about the other 1% of the time? This sliver of justified killing occurs during war and is talked about in American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History by Chris Kyle. Chris Kyle, as most people know him, was played by Bradley Cooper in the box-office hit American Sniper-directed by Clint Eastwood. The movie was sweet and I would recommend watching it. The book, that Chris Kyle wrote, went much more in detail about his experiences in the military and the culture of the Navy Seals. In total, Chris spent 10 years in the military where he experienced several tours of duty in Iraq. During those 10 years he accumulated 11 medals and 160 confirmed sniper kills-the highest number in American history. He was a fiercely patriotic man who cared about his country more then his family; being in battle for him was the ultimate experience. Reluctantly, not wanting to give up service to his country, he left the military to take on the role of husband and father to his two children. In civilian life, he started a business that trained police and security organizations how to hone their sniper skills. In his free time Chris volunteered to help veterans with PTSD and other war related injuries. In 2013, he and his friend were killed by a former soldier who was suffering with schizophrenia and PTSD.
Chris was no angel and there has been a lot of controversy about his alleged experiences. Some of the things written have been found to be lies but these lies related more to his personal life than his service in Iraq. I believe he got a little to enamored by the spotlight and started to go overboard with his storytelling. The thing that fascinated me most about Chris was his black and white view of the world. He said in the book that he feels no guilt from killing all the people in Iraq and feels confident that he can stand before God and justify himself. He describes the Iraqi insurgents as “evil” and that they were “savages” that deserved to be killed; every shot he took was done to protect his fellow service men and his country. Were the insurgents truly evil? The insurgents were trying to defend a way of life that they believed in and eject a foreign invader-the United States. Would we classify ourselves as evil if Iraq invaded the US and we tried to defend our way of life? Is there justification to kill an “evil” person outside the realms of war? Why does a declaration of war by a country make killing acceptable? I have a ton of respect for the men and women who fought in the Middle East and they did kill a lot of people who would gladly hurt Americans. I think we need to understand that we are very similar to the insurgents. We have strong opinions, we want to protect our way of life, we believe in a cause, we would defend ourselves, and a large proportion of us would take advantage of others if allowed the opportunity. Why am I drawing these similarities? I think the more we see ourselves in our enemies the more we can understand that human nature is universal, that we need to put ourselves in other people’s shoes, and we need to think about how war creates hate. I commend Chris because he did his job but I don’t commend the US for going to war in the first place. Sadly, for every insurgent Chris killed a new insurgent was born because hate breeds hate-perpetuating a never ending cycle of division between groups.