What is Right?

Rights are a universal notion. They are possessed by all species and are different in every society. In the case of animal rights, "the moralistic extension of animal rights grew out of a greater scientific understanding of the world" (Vivisection On This Campus). Surely, this is true in the Victorian case, but what of the rest of the world? What can be deemed as the cause of the start of the animal rights movement? Does this information even matter? Perhaps their is some value in that knowledge, but there is no application for it. Who made it happen is irrelevant (It is important but understand that a name teaches nothing)! The only valuable knowledge is knowing what happened, why it happened, how it happened. "The who is simply the form, following the function of what" and the what in the most current perspective is the debate which regards the validity of vivisection (V for Vendetta, when V rescues Eve from the Finger-Men).

The Declaration of Human Rights


Vivisection is a foul process in which everyone suffers. The animal suffers the most (physically and psychologically), but the human, I suppose, must lose their morality or at the very least their innocence. For how is it possible, for one to torture a live animal and then go out to meet and greet people with incredible manners as if they were a polite person. If someone can vivisect an animal then they have placed themselves outside the world of ethics and morality, so then if they behave one way with animals and then differently with humans is totally pretentious and hypocritical. Life is life, so we must treat all life forms equally! Either we discriminate against every life form (including ourselves) equally (or in some reasonable manner) or we don't discriminate against any life form. Humans, if considered as one whole entity, do discriminate against all. There are racists, sexists and speceisists just to name a few, but humans seemingly always sympathize with the discriminated. In the case of racism in the U.S., Whites now are sympathizing with Blacks for the suffering that Blacks suffered at the hands of the "superior" race. Men seemingly seem to be sympathizing with women, but this party that sympathizes with the discriminated side is a group of people that is separate from the people who discriminated. So clearly, if we come back to reality and view humanity as a community of individuals rather than a unique identity, then I believe we would realize that humanity as a whole has a long way to go!

Diversity!


We have a long way to go because we often times misidentify markers to ourselves and to our fellow peers. Take the case of Dave Baum (history professor at A&M). He believes that UT is the most confederate campus because of statues that have a link to the Confederacy (U.T. most confederate campus in the nation):

“A stroll past the statues shaded by live oaks along the South Mall of the University of Texas suggests that the university has a soft spot for the Confederacy. After all, four of the bronze figures were leaders of the Southern cause, including Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States, and Robert E. Lee, the chief general. Even the Littlefield Fountain, which anchors the South Mall and at first glance appears to be a generic war memorial, is a tribute to the Confederacy, as an inscription on a stone wall makes clear without actually mentioning slavery: "To the men and women of the Confederacy who fought with valor and suffered with fortitude that states rights be maintained.”

Clearly, the history professor is mistaken. The statues merely represent a portion of history that was trying for the nation, and the only truth in his argument is that there are statues on U.T.'s campus that have significant ties to the Confederacy, but since he's a history professor, I would think that there must be some sense of appreciation he holds towards one of the most trying times for the nation. For example, he interprets U.T.'s appreciation for the Confederacy's call to uphold State's rights as U.T.'s support for slavery. No logic to this argument. If U.T. was serious about slavery, then why would the campus put up the statue of Barbara Jordan and Martin Luther King Jr.? For one, it's arguable that these statues aren't near the South Mall, so Prof. Baum has a little lee-way there, but these statues are still there, and U.T. does has a diverse student body population. To judge the nature of a campus by the statues it chose to erect is also a bit naive. Surely somewhere in history Prof. Baum must have come across the phrase "Don't Judge a Book by it's cover." There is of course more than just one explanation for the 'Confederate' Statues. Perhaps these references could indicate a call by U.T. to its entire student population, or a reminder for students to stand up for their own individual values, beliefs and rights, otherwise you leave your story for someone else to write. These statues, in my view, represent significant moments in history, from the birth of the nation (Pres. Washington) to the Civil Rights Movements (MLK Jr.). Prof. Baum also notices 6 Niles Road (U.T. most confederate campus in the nation), but how did he miss the street that is named after Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps he forgot to mention this, or perhaps he thought that the street bears no connection to U.T. Then I move that we consider the San Jacinto Residence Hall or perhaps the streets that are named after Hispanic Saints (San Jacinto and Guadalupe). Maybe Prof. Baum was judging a book by its cover, but the Aggie didn't even do that right! He missed (or chose to ignore) all of the other physical markers that U.T. has. Maybe he should take another look around campus and notice the etching on the Main Building... "Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set ye free!"

Can't See The Words, but the Truth Shall Set YOU Free!


Prof. Baum sets an example for all of us. Let's not judge people by how they look because that is wrong and often-times (as in the case of Prof. Baum) it leads to misunderstandings. Let's move towards peace together as one being, but in doing so, we can't be inconsiderate to animals. We, the entire human race, is slowly begin to appreciate life in fashions that weren't possible in the olden days. We understand the workings and the science of nature with much more accuracy and precision than the olden days, yet we treat animals with such cruelty by forcing vivisection upon them and justifying it to ourselves as necessary. It would appear that humans consider ourselves as wise species or at least "the elite species on the planet" (Titus). But if we truly are the elite then shouldn't we be kind and merciful to species that aren't as fortunate, shouldn't we be fair in our treatment of them; we should, but we don't. There is no fair treatment of animals as long as we continue to justify vivisection to ourselves. J. R. R. Tolkien has worded my feelings best, “He who breaks a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.” We are clearly not wise! But as I said earlier, the who doesn't matter, so I ask that you pay attention to what Tolkien has said and not his name (I imagine his name carries significant weight).

Shakespeare has some Great quotes!


And because the who is irrelevant, consider the following story of a saint and a scorpion ( http://www.sanatansociety.org/indian_epics_and_stories/the_saint_and_the_scorpion.htm ) and consider your own dharma or nature regarding animals, especially vivisection.

One day a saint was taking a bath in a river. His disciple sat on the bank with the saint's clothes, asana and rosary. The saint noticed a scorpion struggling in the current. Taking pity, he lifted the bedraggled scorpion in his palm and started wading toward the bank.

No sooner had the scorpion recovered than it promptly stung the saint on the palm. The saint felt an unbearable, burning pain shoot up his arm, but he did not drop the scorpion. Instead, he gently shook his hand to encourage the scorpion to move away from the wound.

The saint's disciple, watching from the bank, became alarmed, but did not say anything.

The saint had only taken a few more steps when the scorpion stung him again. A searing pain more intense than the first one went all the way up his arm and throbbed in his hand. The saint staggered and nearly collapsed in the river.

This time the disciple did call out. "Put him down, guruji! He will only sting you again. Leave him to his fate. Your kindness is of no value to such a creature. He will learn nothing from it!"

The saint ignored him and continued walking. He had nearly reached the bank when the scorpion stung him for a third time. The pain exploded into his head, lungs, and his heart. The disciple saw a blissful smile appear on the saint's face before he collapsed in to the river. The disciple dragged the saint to the shore, still smiling and still cradling the scorpion in his palm. As soon as they had reached shore, the scorpion crawled away as quickly as it could.

"Guruji!" said the disciple after the saint had regained consciousness. "How can you smile? That wretched creature nearly killed you."

"You are right, my son," said the saint. "But he was only following his dharma, his nature. It is the dharma of a scorpion to sting, and it is the dharma of a saint to save its' life. He is following his dharma and I am following mine. Everything is in its proper place. That is why I am so happy."

An Illustration of the Saint saving the Scorpion

Nam Le

I was intrigued by Nam Le's Reading in the Joynes Reading Room. He read a chapter from the Yaar (I don't know how to spell it), but the story was relevant to our class discussion at the time. The main persona in this story has an older brother who would frequently beat him. In the most simplest of sense, the main character (younger brother) believes that he is at peace when under the fury of his brother's fists. This may be difficult to fathom, but it makes sense as there are things in life that we don't enjoy and, at the same time, can't imagine life without them. Around the time of Nam Le's Reading, we were discussing our multiple selves in my World Literature class. If you have any siblings, then you know that at times they can be rather annoying; I love all of my siblings more than anything in the world, but every now and then I will feel so annoyed that I just want to scream, "Shut Up!" But I don't. I'm too loving, and I can't bear that sad little face that they pull over themselves. Right there in that moment, I'm at peace.
I'm at peace in that moment, like this woman who's at peace in the mountains!


Even though I can't scream at them, I still try, and whenever I try to, I can't seem to find the strength in my voice. Sometimes, a whisper of the phrase might escape my lips, but never have I been able to yell it. I believe somewhere deep down within me I want to be like my siblings, and therefore, I can't part with some of the obscenities they do because those memories are some of my fondest and most treasured moments. The main persona in the Yaar suffers from this very same dilemma. He wants to be like his brother, but his big 'bro' is a tough fellow. He's sort of the bully, and he's got a girlfriend, so I imagine the little brother wants to have a girlfriend and be a bully as well, but his brother won't let him. He wants his little brother to be a better man, to follow the path of academics and to earn a respectable name for himself in society, and to keep his little brother from following his path, he beats him. Little does he know that during this fit of utter madness, his little brother has found a sense of peace and belonging. I know this probably happens all over the world. Everyone everywhere finds a sense of peace and belonging within their immediate environment. It's sort of like an equilibrium state where everything is balanced and in perfect harmony. Sometimes this harmony is a little twisted as in the case presented by the Yaar, and sometimes, reality is more beautiful than a fairy tale!

The author of the "Yaar," Nam Le


All in all, it's quite surprising that Le has found a means to summarize the most ultimate struggle in the world into a small chapter of his short story titled Yaar. You might wonder what this ultimate struggle is as there is relatively little mention of it earlier in the passage, but relax my friend. This ultimate struggle represents the need of man to belong and to be at peace. There have been struggles in history that you may refer to as examples, but the specific tales are up to you because this place of harmony is an imagined place within our minds, and everyone is different. Perhaps you are like the main persona in the Yaar or perhaps you are a more amiable person like myself, but you are defined by what you imagine yourself to be, and for that matter where, you imagine yourself to be in your place of harmony.

Where is your place of harmony?

Superior

There really isn't much to say on this comparison of human-slavery and animal-slavery. Humans are simply the masters of reason, and with logic, one can make the connection or dismiss the verity of the similarities between these two topics. As this issue is evaluated today, only a handful compared to the entire population of Earth have made this connection. Human slavery, particularly Black Slavery, has already been deemed as morally wrong, so what makes a fox subject to such cruelty? Jeremy Bentham hopes for the best; "[some] have already discovered that the blackness of skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate" [(Spiegel, 32) also (Anthology, 313)].

Not Much to Discuss...


There really isn't much to say because the connection is an experience, and it can only occur if the person is willing to make it. Forget about human superiority, rather think about animal inferiority. A much more shocking term. I for one imagine a pride of lions and a herd of buffaloes with buffaloes as inferior. I don't imagine man is superior in this case because I would be afraid of a lion, and wits wouldn't help me at all (when it comes to lions, I'm more of an ostrich type of person). Now, thinking of humans and lions, I can see a jeep full of hunters simply waiting, in a sense, stalking the lion! This is a very vivid imagination. Already I can feel the heat of the Serengeti, but this is the lion's home. The lion exercises dominion over these plains. One doesn't try and kill a lion, or any animal, for fun! Oops! I'm sorry. I forgot we humans hunt for sport.

This is Fun... terrifying fun!!


Remarkable how we can reason killing as fun. For a long while, I believed there to be a good reason for hunting, but I was disappointed. Imagine the lion again, jaws dripping of blood from a fresh kill, and while you're at it, imagine the whole pride with the same blood and gore again. Beasts dominating in nature. Surely, this is animal superiority, but now, imagine yourself there. With no weapon, only tools like your legs, arms and feet. I can only imagine how precious they must be to you right now as while you're reading I'm running away from the very thought of that hungry and brutal pride of lions! Superiority is for the predator alone, but humans are the most dangerous predator on the planet.

This is What Happens



For this reason, it is crucial to understand how we humans exercise our superiority. It's not with brute force like the lions. No! Our taste is much more subtle, much more cruel and extremely economic. Imagine a calf. Naturally, it's on a ranch; that's where cows are in today's economic world. So imagine hundreds of them. A rancher obviously needs to mark his cows so that he can know exactly which ones are his/hers. So imagine his relation with the animal. I would think it must be personal, but the word industry takes the personal out of everything. Let me provide you with a brief description from an ex-ranch hand of a method of control. "We used to throw 'em on the ground and cut their balls off with a pen-knife. Didn't give them any pain killer, are you kidding? And that's not all; at the same time, we'd brand 'em and cut off their horns" (Spiegel, 28). So, imagine the branding of the calf, the de-horning and the nuder-ing. Now, imagine all of these at once. Can you see the suffering? Can you hear the creature's screams? Can you feel the force of its struggle? This is human superiority. Surely, if we're truly superior, we'd find merciful methods to make animals our means to an end, but we are not superior. We, humans, are the masters of animals. Our will dictates their life.

Calf-Branding!


Maybe now it is clear. There really isn't much to discuss. Perhaps you've been able to understand the nature of animal-slavery. Perhaps you would rather remain ignorant so as to prolong the bliss, but if you can't understand the similarity between animal slavery and human slavery, then you stand as a humble being, firm in your beliefs and unwilling to consider different perspective. Oops! I think I mis-used humble. Can you make the connection?

The Flip of a Coin

Speciesism, sexism, racism, sadism... etc are few terms in the English language that represent to a certain degree the human nature which is to assume superiority. How and between which groups is there a superiority struggle is irrelevant because the mere fact that these words have been created to simply assign terminology to human behaviour reflects upon a core human-view, to assume power. Perhaps one of the most renowned phrases in the world (or maybe its just me thats a huge fan of this phrase) is Vini Vedi Vici, I came.. I saw.. I conquered. These are Caesar's words, and already I know of what you are thinking, Caesar (the Tyrant) or, if you're a fan of great leaders, Caesar the Great. Do you see the point of mentioning this? It's the two sides of the argument, like two sides of a coin; they are inseparable. To omit one demonstrates ignorance of the other, but to side with either side of the coin represents a certain degree of probablistic success, mainly 50-50. This coin metaphor is a style of argumentation that may be applied to any situation so as to learn different perspectives of the same argument. So back to the speciesism and sadism, racism and sexism, are they two sides of the same coin? Is there more than one coin, or is the whole coin metaphor an inappropriate means of reasoning?

Questions are the path to Answers!


First of all, speceisism can be considered to be its own coin. Speceisim is prevalent in the world today. "Approximately 96 million pigs were slaughtered in the U.S. in 1994," and now, the year's almost 2010 (Anthology, 394B); safe to assume that the US is slaughtering substantially more pigs than in 1994. Clearly, this is evidence of man's superiority/dominion over the pig. At one point, "humans' assumption of superiority [was termed] humanism" (Anthology, 394B). As humans, I believe it's important that our world view isn't objective in nature rather subjective to our human perspectives. This is the foundation of the coin metaphor we are considering, and while analyzing speceisim, the other side of the coin seems to be humanism. Similar terms but with different connotations. Humanism is specific to the human species, but speceisism suggests that any species can be superior to another which sparks the logical argument that the very term gives humans the ability to realize that they aren't the only party involved. And this view of the bigger picture when concerned with speceisism is what brings about two sides of the same coin. One view of speceisism is that humans have all the power whereas the other suggests that humans may have all the power, but they are part of a system bigger than them and must consider the welfare of all parties involved if they wish to exercise dominion over an extended period of time. May this be verbose, but the verity in it is plain to see. One suggests we are king of this plannet, and the other gives us a sense of the duties of a king.

Some things speak for themselves...


But as king, should humans be cruel to their subjects? I remember hearing stories about merciful kings when I was little, so clearly, there are people who feel that power needs to be exercised fairly, "... with great power comes great responsibility" (cited from Ben Parker in Spiderman 1). History also tells tales of kings who were renowned for their cruelty. Dracula was renowned for this, and his cruelty was so great that a myth grew about his deal with the devil which forced him to feed off of human blood. This relation to blood exists because Dracula would slaughter entire villages of people who refused his authority, and as an example, he would leave all of them staked upon dry wood, leaving them to bleed to death! Another example of cruelty is in slavery. The very nature of this enterprise was to subject one person into the posession of another person. These are examples of sadism in human history, but there are some current examples as well. In 2004, the military determined that "the Abu Ghraib military prisoner torture and abuse" was the result of "a few bad apples" (website). The sadistic nature of humans is evident in history in our relative present and even in youngsters; I have heard too many bully stories. This is interesting as by simply using the term bully I have related humans, animals and sadism. "Over 99 percent of the U.S. chickens spend their lives in crowded confinement" (Anthology, 389); is this not cruelty? These animals can't even spread their wings with the lack of space around them. We are the kings of the chicken; we have total control over its life and death, and we are cruel kings. Clearly, the other side of the sadistic coin is merely the perspective of the party being treated with cruelty. The purpose of one side of this coin is to destroy and the other side is being destroyed.

We need not be this cruel


The two coins we have discussed, sadism and speceisism, apply to both humans and animals alike, but racism and sexism only apply to humans. These are cases when humans are dividing their species based on gender and race. An inescapable discussion with racism is that of slavery. There is so much involved with racism. Animals were considered more valuable than slaves as property (this is an example of speceisism), and masters were generally sadistic towards their slaves, at times beating them simply for amusement. Racism is by itself is an event occuring within a species where one dominates another, but all too often, racism will involve sadistic measures and a speceisist view. On the other hand, sexism is perhaps the most prevalent coin in history and this statement says it all. Think of history as a word comprised of two words, his- and -story. So history is made from his-story. Can you not see the sexist nature of this coin? However, racism and sexism aren't coins on their own; they are in fact the same sign of a coin called discrimination. And as much as a flaw it may be, discrimination is a part of humans, and we can't avoid it. As much as we may dislike it, at one point or another, we have practiced it.

The black chicks are meanies...


It seems as though when you practice any one of the terms we have discussed here. That there is a certain degree of probability involved. What if history had occured slightly differently and white people were, once, slaves of black people? It seems discrimination was a result of the flip of coin. Now that didn't happen, but that's because they all too many white people and black people were a sort of discovery in Africa; white people were technologically advanced, and thus, were more probable to be the superior of the two races. Recall history and realize that this is true. The events that occured are a byproduct of some probability which is determined by a number of factors. Ultimately, everything could be a flip of a coin. Animals could be speceisits towards humans, and if given the opportunity, they could practice sadism against us, but we may never know. The best approach is simple, I'll flip a coin. All coins have only two sides, heads and tails. Wonder how that came about to be. I know that humans don't have tails, but they do have heads. Is this a coincidence? The probability is 50-50, but so far, the odds have been in favor of the head. The future is in our hands, and I've tossed the coin. You call it, heads or tails?

I call tails

Tyrant

There is one condition of humans that I believe is most important to recognize. This condition is a byproduct of intelligence, and before learning of it, you must first learn a simple logic. This logic is that the word logic itself refers more to our understanding of a certain subject, and in this sense, logic is learned. Reasoning, however, is how humans use the logic to serve their own needs, and this is the one human condition most important to recognize, humans are tyrants. Not just practically or realistically either, no as humans, we can be tyrants with abstract thoughts or intangible ideas. We reason our actions so as to justify them to ourselves. We can understand our effect on the planet in grave detail, yet we seek to first live comfortably in our own accord and then care for the planet. Tyrants of course have three evident markers: lawlessness, hubris and fear.

Tyrant or not... We are the King of the planet!


There is nothing wrong with seeking our own accord to live by, but problems arise when people with different perspectives on how to live confront each other. Meat eaters are in conflict with vegetarians; the smoker is in conflict with the non-smoker; democrats are in conflict with republicans, and there are many more examples of this confrontation, but since we can reason, we also see people arguing over the affect of human development (scientific progress) on Earth (global warming, deforestation, pollution... etc), and we also see humans arguing with other humans over the treatment of animals. By using abstract logic, we are able to identify with the animal and somehow feel its pain, relate its pain with our own at times. This is obvious when we see comparison of slaughterhouses with the holocaust. The cause of all this conflict is that we reason. In a social environment, the dominant species in a region will either allow a foreign species to stroll through their territory one of them will exert dominance over the other. This is how animals conflict with one another, fighting over territory or social dominance. Humans, as species, are bound to do the same as it's only logical. Humans are the dominant species on the surface of the planet; we seek to understand the other species with logic, but how can we? There is a communication barrier, but "to say that animals have their own accounts in accordance with the structure of their own minds, to which we don't have access... is naive" (Coetzee, 91). Humans, as the dominant species, can reason to a certain extent the world perspective of any animal. But if we can all reason the perspective of any animal, why is there conflict? Clearly, we reason differently from one another. We justify our actions with individual reasoning, and by doing so, we break our own justification system; there is no representation of the whole species just individual beings, and as individual beings, we are in conflict with each other. As species, there is no specific order between us. We have laws, but we also have criminals. In this logic, humans are lawless species, but the question remains unanswered, why are humans in conflict with animals?

Obey the Law or else!!!


The answer is subjective to a certain degree. I feel that some humans feel that it's more important for all the species in the biosphere to coexist with one another; these individuals have reasoned that this is a possibility, but they don't represent the masses of human population. Clearly, injustice towards animals is prevalent in human society. Bullfighters, hunters (only the ones who practice it as a sport), poachers... they all are present in our society, and using learned logic, one can reason that because they exist these professions are therefore accepted. Another perspective is that of those who believe in speceisism. Even when confronted with evidence of human cruelty to animals, these people can't recognize our animal treatment as immoral. Nay! These people refuse to accept this. They reason with us saying that humans are the dominant species and treatment of animals isn't a concern. Notice, there is rarely an acknowledgment of the actual treatment of animals because the argument itself is discredited. This exemplifies human hubris. Notice the argument Kafka presents for an Ape in captivity. The ape states, "I learned, gentlemen. Alas, one learns when one has to... ruthlessly. One supervises oneself with a whip and tears..." (Anthology, 369). If humans can indeed reason abstract ideas, then the perspective of this ape ought to be shocking! "One supervises oneself with a whip and tears..." (Anthology, 369). This statement speaks volumes of our treatment of animals, and still, there are those who discredit this argument. This is clearly the effect of our hubris.

Consider the world... not just yourself!


Then of course, there is fear. The very emotion that we presumably instill within animals that drives our actions, or should I say lack of action. Humans will simply ignore the animal treatment issue altogether as presented on Earthlings. Humans are simply afraid to take responsibility for animal treatment. Humans don't wish to question where their food comes from because they fear that they might be unable to bear the knowledge and continue their dietary methods. This is a fear of change, a fear that if I do something then I will bound myself by some social law to become a vegetarian. It's not a probable outcome, but many people claim an inability to consume meat after learning of the actuality of animal treatment. They don't actually fear the concept of themselves as a vegetarian, but I believe they fear the concept of giving up meat. This seems like a ridiculous claim, but understand that it's the reasoning of the masses of a fearful species, and their logic, while present, is reasoned to be irrational. Their perspective is that they simply want to hold on to the traditions passed down from generations, but they can still do this even if they decide to do something about animal treatment. This is why we as a species can and must overcome this fear of change.


Fear Not! Change can be good!


This is an interesting perspective... perhaps there is logical reasoning for change as well



Try to use your own logic to determine whether or not humans are tyrants of this planet. Clearly, we are lawless (at times), and we most definitely have some hubris; we're even fearful. Logically, I have reasoned human beings, as a species, to be tyrants, so why is it that we have become so? Clearly, some of us missed the signs of our transition from a dominant species to a tyrant species, but what to do now? If we are to cease our existence as tyrants, we must ask this question of the person we seek to become inside. We must use our gift of reasoning to reason with ourselves. What is the fair reaction? What is the right thing to do here? Reasoning is our compass, and we must follow its bearing where we reason that to be!

Follow The Reasoning Compass!

Coetzee's Elizabeth Costello

"There is first of all the problem of the opening, namely, how to get us from where we are, which is, as yet, nowhere, to the far bank. It is a simple bridging problem, a problem of knocking together a bridge. People solve such problems every day. They solve them, and having solved them push on" (Coetzee, 1). This is the very first paragraph of the book, and it's the most intriguing introduction I have ever read. It's so abstract, yet the title of the chapter is Realism. I read on the next couple of chapters and realized that they are not even part of the assignment! I didn't mind; the assignment, however, was an interesting read as well. Personally, I'm a numbers type of guy, and when Coetzee points out that we only die once, I was shocked at the realism of that statement. "We have only one death of our own; we can comprehend the deaths of others only one at a time. In the Abstract we may be able to count to a million, but we cannot count to a million deaths" (Coetzee, 63).

These are only 75 deaths, but I can only see them one at a time


How true that line is? It still shocks me. I think this is because there is difference between seeing (or talking) and doing. People, in general, have always claimed to trust what their eyes can see, what their hands can touch, what their senses can pick up. Another man's (human's) word is simply that, their word. It means nothing, but in today's world of marvels, there is the wonder of technology and there is no more room for doubt. I used to believe that dairy cows were the most happiest cows, and their farmer's would treat them nice, but technology, with its wonder of capturing video, has bursted my bubble. I would like to believe that I react with the same fervor as do the people around me (in this case, people in general), I only abandoned my perception when confronted with proof that proves me wrong. This I think is the major problem.

We are clearly above animals... NOT!


People like to be right. It is in our nature, and there is also the view of the consensus which is considered to be right; this is because people also like to share beliefs. I never really thought of where meat comes from or where leather comes from because people around me never really thought of it. When subject is being discussed, people will, at random, jump into the discussion and offer their opinion, but in the case of animal rights, there is little discussion expect of course in Elizabeth Costello, plenty of discussion there. Humans with our abstract thinking honour many things by setting aside a particular day in the year and marking it on the calendar. Birthday, Peace Day, Hunger Day, MLK Day... etc., but what about a day for the animal (apparently, October 4 is not well known)? It appears that animals are considered to be below humans. Whether this is true or not is relevant only to the concerned because the consensus in the world is that animals are below humans.

Happy October 4!!!


This view of animals brought about the obvious in my mind. Humans are viewed as above animals. It's not that animals are actually below us, but the fact that humans feel the need to be superior. To feel differently is to violate the consensus of the world. Galileo tried that once; he was right, but that didn't matter to the Church. My only problem with the consensus is that some humans are considered beasts, "By treating fellow humans like beasts... they themselves had become beasts" (Coetzee, 65). We are human, yet we are (can be) animals; there is a condescending connotation in this sentence that helps the understanding of a consensus belief. It is only natural for humans as predators to consume animals. If this is true then humans are animals, and they are no longer superior, but if this is true, then we must also carry all the qualities that are associated with animals, yet we cannot fly or run with the ferocity of animals. We can't see in the dark, and our hearing doesn't even compare to animals. Obviously, our animal nature is different. Our nature is to understand, "to get from where we are which as of yet is nowhere to the far bank, this is a simple bridging problem... People solve such problems everyday and having solved them, push on" (Coetzee, 1). This is our nature; we strive to understand everything we can about every 'far bank,' so as to bridge the gap and be able to connect with each and every 'far bank.' It's our nature to employ all of the tools necessary to bridge this gap which are namely logic, religion, science, nature, emotion. We have five senses for understanding the world as we have five actual senses.

We use these five senses of understanding to reason with one another and settle arguments. This happens when the consensus is in challenge. When Galileo challenged the notion that perhaps the sun, not the Earth, is the center of the solar system; the senses of understanding reasoned that who is this one man to question the word of the Church. Eventually he proved to be right. The current argument in consensus is animal rights. Are humans right to consume them? Are they superior? If indeed humans are superior then we preside over animals like the strong preside over the vulnerable. We are their guardians in a sense and then, aren't we responsible for them? The answer is simply no. We are responsible for our own actions; doing nothing is also an action, so every single human is responsible for the means by which animals are slaughtered. To treat others as beasts is to become the beast (as I quoted Coetzee earlier). The logic, nature, emotion and science senses deduce that we must do something either accept the current fate and slaughter methods of animals or change it, but we must do something. The religious sense gives us the position that it is okay for either action. There is a reason for choice, and we must choose which side of this argument to support. One can take the Hindu approach in which "[they] might be reborn as animals" (Anthology, 348), or one can take the Greek approach in which "[one] offers oblations to the gods before consuming fuel, animals, and vegetables" (Anthology, 349). With the religious sense, the human emotion of fear is epitomized. If people don't do things in a certain manner, there will be consequences, and people fear the negative consequences of defying the word of God or of the Gods!

Maybe we are PLASTIC PEOPLE for whom Loving is Dead!


In the argument concerning animals, there will be an eventual victor in the consensus argument, and people everywhere will have to accept the result or start a whole new argument. The battle between both sides has begun, but the winning side is determined not through their understanding of the argument but through the number of people on their side, through the notion of superiority, through the 'right' argument that will swing the masses of people who if not for this 'right' argument would rather do nothing. It may seem that I'm arguing for the side that wishes to create some change, but this is only because currently, that is the only action being taken. After it is determined that change is necessary, the people will argue on how to change the current state of animals for the better. Our nature of understanding will force us to 'push on' further and further until there are no more 'far banks' to connect with, until we have bridged all the gaps, but all I want to do is take the animals onto the ark to which no bridge can connect to because for as long as we seek to understand animals our nature will force us to push on, but to help animals, we must let them be. To do this, you must use your emotional understanding and feel for the animals. We should not fear for our fate or reason a better state of being. We must create because we feel it necessary because it our emotional nature is what leads us to push on, so we must use it to push on in a different direction!

Earthlings 1

I didn’t really think about Earthlings right after watching it in World Literature. I take accounting right after World Lit., and I had to focus upon the accounting quiz. Sounds unimportant compared to the message in the video, but I usually base my opinion of any new information I learn upon my thoughts later on in the day. I consider everything from the actual information I learn and the manner in which it was presented to my mood and reactions to anything regarding the subject-matter of what I have learned. So when I got home, I did some thinking and realized that during class the video had no effect. That’s partly because the video was integrated with the class, so I viewed it as a novel that we were supposed to read, but at home, I felt as if I had never seen Earthlings.

'Night' by Eli Wiesel was also a book, but it wasn't fictional


I admit that this is a little confusing, especially since Earthlings is such a gory, or rather graphically vulgar, motion picture. Also, I had a quiz right after class, so I had to switch gears in my head, but still Earthlings is so graphically vulgar that it can completely alter a person’s emotional state. And I say graphically vulgar because the video’s message is simply too powerful. When I hear human screams, I get goose bumps; I’m usually panic-stricken for a few seconds and sometimes the mere nature of the scream will force me to cover my ears, but with Earthlings, I would much rather close my eyes. Most people think the same way; as the saying goes, it’s easy to turn a blind eye. For a short while, that’s exactly what I did. I ignored all of the facts that Earthlings presents, and all of the facts became much more real when I opened my fridge and saw a gallon of milk.

I really thought dairy cows were happy


Right then, the graphically vulgar nature of Earthlings kicked in; upon noticing the milk, I could see, in my mind, the image of a chained dairy cow on the so called milk farms. I thought, “Milk isn’t grown; why do they call it a milk farm?” I hope you ask the same question to yourself because then you can realize that the actual cow is worse off than property. I remember a dairy cow episode on Blue’s Clues; I was only 8 and thought that dairy cows are the happiest cows ever! Then, I saw Earthlings and realized happiness is not even possible for a dairy cow. How could it be? Their diet is so particular, iron-deficient. My cousin was once iron deficient, and she seemed so weak for a few weeks that I thought she was dying. An iron-deficient diet does something similar to the cow. Not immediately of course, no; the life of a dairy cow is restricted to about 2-3 feet of mobility in their small cell where they are chained to ensure little or no movement. After four years of this life, the cow will collapses from exhaustion and is then slaughtered. Surely, there is no possibility of happiness for a dairy cow!

This is a much more accurate account of a dairy cow's life





















The idea of happy animals brought about a new idea. Is there anything that, if done differently, could make me feel differently about Earthlings, make me feel happy? Action is always good. If animals were treated more humanely and killed by more merciful means, I would feel much better, true, but my happiness is irrelevant; it’s the happiness of the animals that really matters. It was the same idea with the Holocaust. The most important thing to do was to ensure the happiness of those being persecuted; primarily, this meant freedom, food and new clothes. If the same could be done for animals so as to end their holocaust, I will be very pleased, but in the case of the Holocaust, the Jews were mainly liberated by a force that did not exercise absolute dominion over them. The question now is who will liberate the animals? Who will fight for the speechless? I say that it would have to be the person that returns your gaze in the mirror every day. That person is so much more powerful than any single human can ever be; they can move mountains and shine brighter than any star. All that you and I need to do is give them the permission. You and I, we just provide a vision, but it’s that person in the mirror who follows through with our dreams. For in some region of our brains, this person is ideal and omnipresent. They exercise judgment when confronted and guide us like a compass through the morally ‘gray’ areas. All we have to do is let this ideal person within us view Earthlings. This person has been judging right and wrong for us ever since we were born, so why not let them do so one more time?


We all need to help shape OUR plannet


Of course the most obvious argument is what can one do? Is there a need to worry ourselves when one is too small of a number? To these people, I say that one is better than none. When one does the right thing, one slowly turns into many, and then, the many become numerous, but it is all through the power of one. Some people question this; they say it’s too hard or too much to ask of an individual. It’s not that it’s too much or too hard because one can and has changed the world. Take MLK Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi. Surely there circumstances were extreme, and they were fighting a cause that was duly their own, but if they were alive now, would they do something? Surely, this is a subjective answer, but the one thing I do know is that I am alive now, and I can make a difference, just one at a time.

One has a unique perspective, allow yours to be known

Copyrighted Androids

Continuing my journey in the elaborate Earth Dick has created, I noticed a very particular idea. I believe that through the representations of androids and of humans Dick is portraying the very idea of a patent or copyright. The development of a new idea grants the creator or owner of that idea some particular rights. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, this idea is represented by the android and the creator will represent the humans. I will address Deckard as the owner because he is the one who has the power of life and death of these androids; he determines their fate, and as the owner of an idea has rights under copyright law, Deckard has rights over androids in Dick’s book.

The Copyright Symbol

http://license.icopyright.net/creator/images/3d-copyright.gif

It is important to understand that Deckard doesn’t own the androids themselves. No, that would suggest that the androids are Deckard’s property which draws parallelism to slaves in the Pre-Civil War times, and I don’t want to go there. I’ll just argue Deckard merely has rights over the androids.

An Android

http://blog.makezine.com/img413_223.jpg
A Representation of Slaves

http://www.ashcombe.surrey.sch.uk/curriculum/english/GCSE/Y11/Paper%202%20English/Cluster%201/Limbo/Slaves%20in%20chains.jpg

Before explaining this any further, I must first make clear my perspective of the androids (andys). Being that they are androids, they are extremely intellectual. Their code seems to reflect human logic, and this is a major problem in understanding Dick’s world. Where there is logic, there is always curiosity, a want, or arguably a need, to know. Curiosity is oftentimes random and seemingly a spur of emotion. This means that with all their logic androids are elegant and intellectual machines, but also with their logic, they inhibit curiosity, rather a short jolt of emotion. Androids are creations, mere machines, but for brief intervals of time, androids are human, and they have “an innate desire to remain-” (Dick, 132). The desire itself is irrelevant; the importance is given to the fact that they desire. If they were purely machines, androids would only have needs, but they desire which means they want as well as need, so andys are more than just machine.

C-3PO from Star Wars was definitely more than a machine

http://goldwingnetwork.com/c3po/c3po.jpg

So there’s something about the androids that makes them more than just machine; androids must have some rights then. Being that humans created androids, andys are property, but the complexity of their logic has allowed the androids to understand and inhibit emotions. Still, androids are humanoid robots, and that title is what grants Deckard his rights over the androids because that title suggests speciesism. This also suggested through the androids because it’s an understanding that humans create the androids. The world as we know it exists in duality, so if humans can create, they can also destroy; this ability to destroy is how Deckard assumes authority over the androids. Deckard’s rights over the androids are then the rights of a slave hunter over the slave; Deckard’s title in the book is that of a bounty hunter which reminds me of a slave hunter, and again, there is a parallelism with slaves. It seems to be unavoidable, but ignore it.

The reason I don’t want to focus on the issue of slavery is because I learned about the androids and slaves in the same manner; I opened a book and read. It was hard for me not to sympathize with the slaves, and at times, I was filled with compassion as I would suffer “as with the distress or suffering of the [slaves],” and I wished I could just end their suffering (Course Anthology 274 J), and I feel similarly about the androids. Are they really dangerous? I think not, but Deckard would disagree with me even though at times he wonders about the same question. Constantly, I see a need for Deckard to be able to specify danger as a fundamental reality of the androids. He is always wondering about this. Why? It is his sympathetic imagination vs. his reason; he is trying to “[perceive] the peculiar ‘truth’ and nature of the [androids]” (Course Anthology, 274-O). As I continued with this train of thought, I realized that is with my sympathetic imagination that allows me to associate with androids with the same sympathy that I felt for the slaves. The compassion without images is always a little diminished, but compassion is quickly generated when I imagine a dead Luba Luft on an elevator floor! In my view, the androids are the slaves of humans Post-World War Terminus, and I would declare Polokov as the Nat Turner of this fictional San Francisco.

"The Dream" A Video on Futuristic-Slavery... relates very well with the Dick's Book

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LULux6OyFIY
So examining this connection between androids and slavery, I begin to wonder is there any determinable means by which I can end the suffering of the andys. I fear not as I can only read Dick’s work, but I hope Dick was compassionate enough towards the androids to end their suffering. As ultimately, Dick is the author; he actually has a copyright of the book! He has certain rights over its characters, including the androids and even Deckard himself! He determines their fate, and I hope that androids don’t dream of electric sheep. Rather, androids ought to dream of liberation, primarily from bounty hunters like Deckard.

Empathy

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Being an android suggests being a humanoid robot, do robots dream at all? To understand the complexity of the question, one must realize what having dreams suggests. Dreams are often considered to be an indication of the inner workings of one’s subconscious, and the subconscious is what leads to the development of intuitive thinking, or the gut feeling. The presence of intuition or a gut feeling is an indicator to the presence of emotions as intuition most often depicts how one truly feels about any subject, so having dreams suggests, to me, the presence of emotions. Furthering this analysis of the title of Dick’s book, I realize that if robots can indeed dream then what do they dream about? Dick suggests electric sheep. Dreaming about electric sheep, androids must care for them or feel for them in some manner, so with his most odd title, Dick suggests to me that a humanoid robot can indeed have emotions, and even more interesting than the presence of emotions in robots would be the presence of empathy within the manufactured entity, and the presence of empathy within the android is the subject of the book, so it’s not an odd title after all!

The Cover of Philip K. Dick's Book


Following on the title analysis, the importance of these two traits becomes a concern. Empathy helps Deckard, the bounty hunter, to distinguish an android from a human. That was his job, to find escaped androids and to retire them. Emotions can be declared as the cause of empathy. In Gale’s view, emotions are what, “in [Dick’s] view made men human” (Anthology, 331). Gale’s analysis seems to be correct as that is exactly how Deckard must differentiate between humans and androids. Also, Dick doesn’t portray the android, Rachel, as having emotion. Sure, during Deckard’s time at the Rosen Association’s Building in Seattle, the reader can sense that Rachel is frustrated, but the conversation prior to the empathy test between her and Deckard there clearly shows the logic behind her frustration; the logic itself is irrelevant, but the striking absence of emotions helps further understanding of the androids.

How Do You Feel About This?


The logic can be deemed irrelevant because the new Nexus-6 Androids have, among other things, ten million possible combinations of cerebral activity” (Dick, 30). The presence of logic simply suggests the capabilities of the android, but one part of Rachel’s logic seems odd. She, or rather it, lies about the owl. It tells Deckard that the owl is genuine. Fittingly, during the walk from the hover-car to the testing room, Deckard’s empathy for animals manifests itself, and Rachel, I think, was testing Deckard’s empathy. When she, it, tells Deckard that the owl is genuine, Deckard’s interest in the owl seems to increase dramatically, to the point where he would like to purchase the last owl on Earth! Rachel’s logic becomes clearer when the owl is offered to Deckard; the android was bating Deckard the whole time. All of this proves the amazing intelligence present in the Nexus-6 models; another proof would be the fact that Deckard superior was almost killed by one of these humanoids. Clearly, the machines are intelligent.

The Shooting of Deckard's Superior


Evidently, Dick has created a world in which emotions can save a human, and the lack of them demonstrates the humanoid robot. What could be the message Dick is trying to deliver? The message lies within Mercerism which seems to be the closest thing to religion on the now sick Earth. A Mercerite according to Deckard “can sense evil” (Dick, 32). This evil is represented as the Killers who try to literally kill the Mercerites during their ascension. Because of Deckard’s reasoning of how to spot the Killers, Dick’s message emerges. Dick wants to eliminate all the evil in the world, and so he defines it with his own explanation. Evil exists where there is a complete void of emotions that allow for a connection to others, and this attribute can lend itself to the real world as most sociopaths and molesters lack empathy (Anthology, 275E). This can merit why Dick portrays the Androids as lacking empathy; he’s portraying them as criminals.

There is so much to discuss with Dick’s book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but Dick’s books have made it past pictures all the way to motion pictures with sound. So how many words is that? At no point, will analysis ever make up for the essence of Dick’s book, for it’s this very essence that captures the reader’s attention and affects their emotions. Dick wants empathy to be omnipresent in the world, so that there can be an end to crime and possibly everything bad with the world. If everyone cares for everyone then, Dick will have succeeded in spreading his message, and until then, find empathy to avoid evil.

The Lessons of Golf

My first true passion was cricket! I used to wake up early for the neighborhood morning matches and stay up late talking about the latest news from the cricket world. One day, during a cricket regional qualifying match, a blackout cut all power in my neighborhood. The electricity returned almost immediately, but the spikes in voltage caused some problems with the cable, and my television channels reset! I just about died of grief when I couldn’t find the cricket channel, so I settled for the bland and boring golf channel! After a few minutes into the match, I asked myself, “What’s the point of golf? Why would anyone play such a tasteless sport?”
My initial view of golf! Please don't mind the language[1]


And, with that thought, I forgot about golf for almost half a decade. I reconnected with golf when I moved to the States; my house juxtaposed a golf course. Gradually, I began appreciating the sport. Golf was relaxing, and I began to learn the values of golf. I began to see the point of golf, and one must understand the game before realizing its purpose. In the words of George Bush, Honorary Chairman of The First Tee Foundation, “Golf is the sport of a lifetime, and it is a lesson in life,” and I have learned many life-lessons through golf.
[2]


The sport is unique as it has different expectations from its players. Football, for example, demands that players be perfect in all aspects of the game, but “Golf is Not a Game of Perfect” [3]. Golf requires patience and persistence like the itsy-bitsy spider. Golfers must be persistent in their efforts because golf is not an action sport like football. Rather, golf is a continual process similar to natural processes like the water cycle. The most important part of the process is to “begin with the end in mind” [4]. Golfers must visualize every aspect of their shot, and in doing so, golfers create every shot twice, once in their mind and then in actuality. This is a key part of golf; the ability to adapt your shot to the golf course. After all, golfers must play with the course, using the usurpations of the hills and the wind, as tools, to their advantage. This is also a key part of life; the ability to use one’s environment to serve their own needs.
Visualize the End Result[5]


Golf also engenders confidence within a person. Before a golfer visualizes their shot, they must believe themselves as able-bodied, or capable of performing their visualization. This is the core of one’s self-confidence, belief in them self. Golf is a game of consistency; if I believe that I can execute a really difficult shot about 3 out of 10 tries, then I must also believe that I will fail 7 out of 10 tries. I’ve actually brought many difficult shots into actuality with my self-confidence, even during tournament play. Reflecting upon myself, these shots weren’t reliable because I wasn’t able to consistently recreate the shot when I tried to do so later, but my confidence in my abilities allowed me to make the best out of some very tough situations. This sort of confidence helps a person in all aspects of their life.
A Difficult Shot[6]


That’s not to say that sometimes confidence becomes overconfidence. If I had failed to recreate my visualization, then, no doubt, I would’ve been in a worse situation. I have played very risky shots, sometimes I had to start the ball towards the out of bounds! If I had failed, I would be responsible for the consequences. Golfers are always responsible for their actions, and this quality is evident in all golfers, no matter what their skill level is. Golfers will indefinitely repair any damage they do to the course, so with this in mind, I realized that the golf impacts the golfer, who in turn gives back to the sport by taking care of the golf course, a natural cycle, or process, present in golf.

Golf, with its many lessons, benefits the player, and the player will benefit the society because the greatest lesson that golf teaches a golfer is selflessness. Each and every golfer realizes that the traditions and rules of the game are larger than the player. My behavior on the course most directly affects me, but it also affects the people around me. Thus, my behavior off the course has the same effects. I realize this, and so do many of professional golfers. Tiger Woods has set up his own foundation called the Tiger Woods Foundation; his foundation has helped millions of kids, and continues to help, with their education! Here is an individual, Eldrick “Tiger” Woods, who has given back in the greatest forms of servitude, the service of education. Another great philanthropic effort inspired through golf is called Eagles for St. Jude; the sponsors and partners of this organization donate a set amount of dollars for every eagle that a partner makes while playing in a PGA or LPGA Tour Event, to help pay for the treatment of a child in the St. Jude’s Children Research Hospital and to fund researchers who are looking for a cure to cancer at St. Jude’s. The major partner of Eagles for St. Jude is golf professional Vijay Singh, and he attracted all of the other five partners of the organization. Tiger and Vijay are an example of how the effect golf has on an individual is advantageous for society. Certainly, there is a plethora of philanthropic efforts that are inspired through golf, and I, myself, have used golf to give back to my community.
The Big Fijian [7]


I was inspired to do this when I found out that my youth committee, Sister Cities Youth Committee, wasn’t going to be funded by the city. Our committee had planned a trip in the summer for a Leadership Conference in Belfast, Northern Ireland, but we were informed of our funding dilemma only three months prior to our planned trip. I proposed a golf tournament to solve our financial crisis, and while making an initial assessment on how much the committee could raise through a golf tournament, I realized that we could raise significantly more money than we needed. I proposed that with that extra money the committee can set up a scholarship for the local high school seniors who will be going to college. Just last year, this scholarship was set up and named after the title sponsor of the tournament, Fernando A. Salinas. Even though the scholarship was my idea, the credit must go to the game of golf. Only through the lessons that I have learned particularly the lesson of selflessness was I able envision and actualize a dream; I was able to give back to my community before going to college.
1st Annual Fernando A. Salinas Golf Tournament[8]

I can’t believe that at one point in my life I thought of golf to be a bland and boring sport. Nothing could’ve been farther from the truth. How can golf be tasteless when there are so many aspects to it? I’d like to say that golf is not a sport; golf is a journey, and the journey is life-long! Through my own personal experiences, I have realized the values present in golf. I have realized how to be in harmony with my environment, and I have comprehensively understood the importance of visualization. I have improved my self-confidence and am, now, a more responsible individual; I’ve even helped give back to my community. If golf impacts individuals, like Tiger, Vijay and myself, in society in such amazing ways, then one can only imagine the true extent of the impact that golf has had in shaping society up till the current year! Golf is a source of positive influences for all who choose to embark on its never-ending journey, and with these positive influences, golf shapes the personality of its players who in turn shape the world. It’s a unique natural process!

________
Word Count = 1536
Word Count without Quotes = 1509
________
END-NOTES

[1] Robin Williams performing live comedy using golf as a medium. When I first encountered golf, I felt that golf is just as Robin makes it to be, a joke, but a wise man once said, "Don't be quick to judge a book by its cover." The wise man was right once more. Video Courtesy of HBO and YouTube user, Barondonvito; Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/v/xDQd49rEF_0&hl=en&fs=1&.

[2] An elderly gentleman who signifies that golf truly is a life-long sport. Image Source: http://www.nestle.com/NR/rdonlyres/6BDCCD9F-C03F-4149-ACE4-ACA8835C375F/0/vitamin_d.jpg.

[3] Bob Rotella, Golf is Not a Game of Perfect (New York: SIMON&SCHUSTER), 1.

[4] Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (New York: FREE PRESS), 98.

[5] This golfer, Camillo Villegas, is visualizing his shot and is beginning with the end in mind. Image Source: http://img.timeinc.net/golf/i/tours/2007/12/dec_camillo_6_299x399.jpg.

[6] Imagine that I am on the other side of the trees that run alongside the course. I had to get the ball over the trees and had to make the ball shift from right to left in the air. This situation can be called a 'blind' shot since the target is not visible from where you hit your shot. Image Source: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhshH3c5ok4pBODG5fiwde9lD474ktHwy2F8d6M_qmNic7X0NuyZtTstwBVqlgz-LQ6g8Fhyyri3vtKJ3rw_pGirxEJX0P3hegcKdqwM_mVbJxhLjmpUkekZbiJwBgr8VAaTgS77CaS7w/s1600-h/5555.JPG

[7] Vijay Singh in an advertisement for Eagles for St. Jude; he has been donating $5,000.00 for every eagle that he has made since 2004. Video Courtesy of Eagles for St. Jude; Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/v/aOe4iCPnI5I&hl=en&fs=1&.

[8] This is an picture of when the golfers finished their round of tournament play and decided to take advantage of the food that was provided for them. One golfer here has just received a free putter as a door prize in the event. Image courtesy of Author.

Leadership

There are countless books; infinite combinations of ink and paper which have attempted to exact upon the role of a leader, and most importantly, to exact upon what it takes, and means, to be a leader. Why is so much energy, mainly time and money, being spent on such a simple quality? Is there no other quality present in people that deserves the same attention that leadership is given or is leadership simply one of the more desired traits in a person? I wondered on and on about this topic, and all the meanwhile, I was indulging in Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.

By Stephen R. Covey
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhSk8CWxtOBhBq101l-6BJ5ICRmcunU_XB3TpZ1nimyUbcO80l5tQNFl9yH8eF87r_oYYOz5X1oKS257PBj-a5Pa8yZaU3cBEkb6jqCJGT0xniHR2-lqr07a0f51RvPfFFWtcVPRMi3xQ/s1600-h/stephen-covey-7-habits-of-highly-effective-people.jpg

I thought of myself as a hypocrite. I agreed with Covey, but when I thought about applying some of the habits he talks about in his book, I couldn’t bring myself to even read one sentence out loud. In my mind, I could yell it out so loud that my eyes would become distracted from the reading. There is logic within Covey’s argument. All throughout India, people are aware of the Gandhi’s quote, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” I was extremely fascinated to see Covey strengthen the power of Gandhi’s words within me. Before even explaining the seven habits, Covey explains the importance of starting any change from the “inside-out” (Covey, 42). Covey explains his reasoning to be that our actions are determined by our perception of things. Gandhi went about making that statement because he wanted peace in the world; he became proactive. Gandhi promoted all sorts of non-violent methods through which he would help India to gain its independence, and he was successful because he started this change from within himself. I thought myself a hypocrite because I thought leadership was easy, but when I try to follow Gandhi, I can’t decide upon a change that I want to see in the world. I think leadership is just another simple quality, yet the hardest part about leadership is that I must first lead myself before I can take upon the role of a leader for a group.

A Tribute to Gandhi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B26Uqk63Xfw&feature=related

I really love the fact that I could admit this to myself. The assigned reading on Covey forced me to realize that as a leader I must first understand the role of a leader. Is a leader necessary to keep order in a group or is the leader necessary to ensure that a group is headed in the right direction? Consider Covey’s use of Frank Koch’s article in the Proceedings, this article really identifies the perception affects decision. “[The Captain] spat out, ‘Send, I’m a battleship. Change course 20 degrees.’ Back came the flashing light, ‘I’m a lighthouse.’ [The battleship] changed course” (Covey, 33). Now, this captain was in a power struggle with another flashing light which he assumed was another ship, so as the captain of a battleship, he felt that he should not have to change course, but the moment he learned that the other flashing light was a lighthouse, not a ship, he immediately changed course. Using the same idea of perception, I asked myself, “What is a leader?” My first response was very simple. The leader must be a guide because others will be dependent upon the leader. When I moved to Austin, I didn’t know my way around town. My brother decided to drive me around town so that I could get a sense for my bearings. I was dependent on my brother for that entire trip. He was my guide, and without him, I wouldn’t have known how to get back home! He was my leader, and if there had been someone else in the car, then my brother would’ve been their leader as well. I think the most vital role of a leader is to make sure that the group continues to move in the right direction. I like making business connections, so imagine Apple to be a group, Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple, would then be responsible for ensuring that Apple continues to make an annual profit.

Steve Jobs in an Interview.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidUo3mctLWKpDmPiVijbzSgtnKvPw8DlHJ83PCUgpnLUUKZxw2nyy2lPCSsHoEGY0rCA2uFuKsfvqBQLWIi9B4nvS8Pl2vJGKD40UUnxzmAKX1wHnvK9RGDUEpCQrjHhHqrRNvwFA9XA/s1600-h/steve-jobs.jpg

So a leader is the guide of a group, and in order for me to become a leader, I must start by “[becoming] the change I want to see in the world” (Gandhi). Covey states, “Any time you think the problem is out there, that very thought is the problem” (Anthology, 238). A leader must be proactive and start by first changing him-/herself. They must change their perception, and only then, will they be able to create a positive change in their environment. Gandhi was successful at this, and this very idea brings me to the last question. Why is leadership one of the more desired traits in a person? Leaders are perceived as being the people that cause change, like Gandhi, but the change is created by the masses who follow the leader. Gandhi had supporters who followed his principles; Gandhi was popular! Leadership is one of the more desirable traits in a person because leadership offers the opportunity to be remembered. Leadership offers a legacy; Covey arranges the four needs of people in a circular chart, and at the center of this chart, there is a need for the spirit “to leave a legacy” (Anthology, 230). A legacy offers glory, and the one person that always comes to mind when I think of legacy is Julius Caesar. His words shall always be remembered, “Veni, Vidi, Vici,” which means, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” When these words ring, like a siren, in my brain, I can relate with Caesar’s legacy, and a part of me would like for me to leave my own legacy so that people may remember me for generations to come.

Caesar has Conquered!

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBY5CstYwdjioxlG_zLy1b9N9FBz4L3FcxOl5rlutuzm7KIQcGHObZ3ACBkK7xxpsQ7QJtbXEg5vZ-fxv_-A2MvouEOg3RhLxgtG6SsaahOoND9ZtR17j-jtaXPJe3_Qez8Yq6BMhsYA/s1600-h/caesar-d.jpg

After pondering for a short moment, at least 30 minutes, about what my legacy would be, I realize that I’m making an investment just thinking about leadership. As I sought to find the answer to my questions, I realize that I was actually creating a road which I may use to, one day, become a leader. I must know what a leader is and what his responsibilities are before I can decide if I want to be a leader. Now that I have a goal for myself, that “[I have begun] with the end in mind,” I can embark upon my journey to becoming a leader (Covey, 98). I feel like, with this investment of time and energy, I have arrived upon a great goal, and I also felt like I had acquired a new mental perspective; I had grown, intellectually. Again, I find myself indulging upon a quote, “Self-growth is tender; it’s holy ground. There’s no greater investment” (Covey, 62).

The Point of an Education

Why is an education important? I was only eleven when I felt that this is an important question, but my age brought about the need for an answer to this question that would keep my mind focused on learning rather than thinking upon abstract ideas. I was told that an education is important as I will learn how to positively contribute to society, to the world that I live in. This thought was a courtesy of my mother, and I dwelled upon the question and its answer for ages.

Eventually, that question and its answer faded away into the part of my brain where everything becomes a blur. As I started high school, the question slowly began resurfacing, but the answer, it seemed, was lost in the depths of my mind. I asked myself, “What do I want to learn?” It was apparent to me, at the time, that an education required someone to teach and someone to learn, but what do I want to learn? I was fourteen years old, and I couldn’t think of anything I wanted to learn about?

What do I want to learn?

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsdT3FFuhzvgkyzHGAVB-ASykwUncovsINnT7drXIpsA6IRmqAoHw5QV1XYkMptSmc5-oGkUNDTeo1pD0mDKBFfT7oY3lpJCM2xJqsbnmYBBPjkfw89lO8rr0HdzwYUULjmxdkzBr77Q/s1600-h/teaching.jpg
I decided to approach the next logical question. Why do I want to learn? Immediately, I began answering. I wanted to learn so that, one day, I will be able to make large sums of money in relatively small periods of time. I was so happy! I could use this answer to figure out what I wanted to learn; I knew that I wanted to learn more about business. At this thought, I stumbled upon a few hidden feelings within myself. I screamed on the inside! I wanted to learn more about business, but I also wanted to learn more about the sciences, mathematics, and history. This sudden want to study a variety of different subjects began to perplex me.

Among other subjects, I wanted to learn about business...

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSXlt63Ltqd2L-DGDs9tpV3Z6qjfAri9l_ap4IIbIIcE4Ojn7mKn7QaszWkyTeOAGXGktr58fIxcduZBY8yug3M-pEH2A5aLtZ1B2iogUpqhM2E7b-v2a7H2e3OAPiSDo75FdSjtuAiA/s1600-h/200802.business.diagram.jpg
... and astronomy

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi26juU_fSCw5hEuFMMCxWFT0HKUbuMEgYmYqD2BKg_tlIXxIU_xe4-bkM9Bsz_yf9M-LKnGtwRkhEaBojUDoP1U_GneKyaT9djUlKjUrxf4Swsi4oFb3yxXeKvRD0Obkfg6BYGpAMflA/s1600-h/randomlearning.jpg
What was the point of learning everything? I asked my father. He explained that the more I knew, the more I would be able to connect; at that sentence, he left me to interpret my own meaning. I, however, was clueless. More questions were forming, but the main question was, “What can I connect?” The answer struck me in my junior year of high school, in the middle of my AP Chemistry class. There was a formula for Kinetic Energy on the overhead projector, and my teacher showed how that formula was derived from the Physics formula for Kinetic Energy. “Wow!” Apparently, I said this out loud. Avoiding the confused gazes of everyone in the class, I sat back in my chair and thought. “Sciences… have multiplied bearings one on another… They complete, correct, [and] balance each other” (Anthology 165). At this, I thought that anything can be connected to something else.

The Dalai Lama

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYngd1HsnAEa3_mYFsAxA3IESbOtc-qxV56lUCPSzDgrYNVQDIVzljilT7cKgnGSD-ZYZxwtvlvPSUlOy08vLpioyDvMNvTxMRmW0RL1rL2NXFeTSqZ3O-scbMz4l-dYIVk30oMEkokQ/s1600-h/dalai_lama.jpg

And that I have found to be true. There is nothing in this world that is unconnected. The religion of one place affects the lifestyle of the people that live there, and the lifestyle of one person can be inspirational for another person. The Dalai Lama is a prime example of this. People travel thousands of miles to seek the advice of one man who has completely devoted himself to his religion. Giant corporations have started huge philanthropy programs based upon the words of the Dalai Lama. It’s apparent to me that knowledge that you learn impacts knowledge that you’ve already learned. I call this true learning, and it is absolutely vital for making connections. What my dad said was true; the more I know, the more I can connect! “All branches of knowledge are connected together” (Anthology, 165).

An example of Corporate Philanthropy

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCKsZ-m7fewqn3dfO8iTt_EDwrnGy9qz6wX8I8Y-ia1LcbeBn9vFyT02L6CBS0EVPalAYCZ1FcZ_qXSn-KOHoaLzv2X34xFNR_dHzHMFMlNcd7SQvj464OIB_IUzmYrdw8BH0fMRj-tQ/s1600-h/onion_news1237.jpg
Again, I was inspired by a great thought. This connectivity with everything around me forced me to realize that I will be able to better understand the world around me, the real world that I live in, when I truly learn new information. This makes learning a very vital experience. I wanted to learn about business and to better understand the real world, the world that I live in, so I started working with my dad at his business to start my learning experience with some actual experience (Anthology, 184). Because of my personal experiences there, I have learned, first-hand, the skills that are required to successfully manage a business entity in its day to day activities. I can take all of this knowledge to any business and help it be more successful in the real world today because I can connect my knowledge with the day to day activities of any business.

I engender a new thought as I connect my knowledge with the world, and once more, I am inspired! There is an infinite amount of knowledge present in the world today, and it is humanly impossible for one person to know everything. This signifies that the process of learning can last an entire lifetime. Keeping in mind that the process of learning is very art of education, I realized that “the journey of education is lifelong” (Anthology, 171). I will forever, till the end of my days, continue to learn, continue to educate myself. And as I learn more, I will undoubtedly help others around me learn more as well. I say undoubtedly because I am at facility of higher education. I will learn from others, as well, as I’m sure they will learn from me (Anthology, 169).

By doing this, I will contribute to the educational environment present at a University. I will learn through interaction with my professors and fellow students. I will contribute to the world around me, to the world that I live in. Right then, I remembered the answer to the question I asked my mother when I was just eleven. The value of education was apparent to me through my own personal experiences, and I realized the wisdom in my mother’s words. The point of education, the reason education is valued and the reason I’m attending the University of Texas at Austin, is to help an individual, to help shape their life in such a fashion, that they will help benefit their community, help shape the world they are a part of.

An example of you can literally shape your world!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeobYHQqtg