If We Were Communist, This Wouldn't Have Happened...Maybe...

A National Tragedy

By now, September 24 of 2013, even the most uninformed American has at least heard a mention of the tragedy that occurred in the secured Navy Yard, in Washington, D.C. 12 lives were claimed 9 days ago, by gunman Aaron Alexis, who was himself killed by the police who swarmed the area in response.

The Problems Presented

• A lack of national security (e.g. anyone remember Ed Snowden?)
• How can security clearance to an area of such importance be given to a man of such potential danger?
• A lack of awareness for mental disorders.
• Surely if this wasn't the case, a red flag would have raised when even considering giving access to a mentally hurt person.

What if...

Hear me out now, for I know the wound is still fresh and a nation is still morning, but allow me to propose a radical idea -- a strange answer to solve all. Communism. Yes, if the nation were to follow the ideology of Communism, the shooting at the Navy Yard, the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary, and nearly every other national tragedy could be averted! By following the code of Communism, written out in Marx's Communist Manifesto, the United States would (and I'll point out the ones only relevant to my current point, Communism is such a vast topic, one could go on forever, and ever, and ever...&c, &c.):

1. Abolish all private property!
2. Make education a national priority!!
3. Abolish the state...*cough* sounds radical, right?

Bare with me. 1) If all things were public, the people themselves (and I emphasize the individuals) would make it a personal matter to uphold national security. It would be in the benefit of everyone to protect themselves, and whatnot. 2) If education was a national priority, like in the nearly-socialist Scandinavian countries, public education would be free, even up to university levels. Social issues, especially health and sciences, would would be emphasized. Most likely, people like Aaron Alexis would be helped before a crisis would erupt. 3) With the end of the State, i.e. The Man, The System, &c, the authority and well-being of everything would rest in the direct hands of the people. This in itself raise awareness on all levels, hitting a near Utopian high.

Of course, I'm a hopeless romantic...

Communism on paper is a beautiful, Utopian paradise (and I don't mean A Brave New World sort of stuff). But if the rode to such wellness was that simple, everything would have already transitioned to such a state. Communism in practice is scary, simple because the 3 main points above have never been fully realized. 

Never forget Tienanmen Square.

"These are the stakes..." Economist v. Moralist

The Bottom Line

The reality is this: with the rise of individual interest (i.e desire for democracy) in Syria, the Syrian government has responded with violence to several peaceful protest. Worst of all, chemical weapons were deployed -- on citizens, WOMEN AND CHILDREN included. Should we, the world, intervene?

What does the Economist have to say about this...?

"Although there has been a mass exodus of Syrians since the civil war, and the unemployment rate is dropping to an all-time low, prospects for the future look promising. Putting it in basic terms -- after a stable force takes control over the environment, production of local goods will begin to resume and open jobs will be filled with the formerly jobless populace. Yet, with no one to buy such pricey goods, prices will be forced to plummet, allowing for the now employed population to buy, augment there lives, multiply their numbers, and be prosperous. So in the long run, this conflict will make room for more economical growth than ever before. Simply look at Japan after its reconstruction, and anyone would agree with my theory. Out with the old suffering system, in with the new... Who are we to affect the development of a nation's new economy, nay, a nation's greater prosperity?! Mandeville would find this to be fair: that in the interest of a greater economy (and thus the better welfare of future citizens), the onslaught of the many is justified. We should not intervene. Let's sit this one out, and let the fires calm themselves." - Steven Soto, the Economist

What does the Moralist have to say in response...?

"Pure utter non-sense! Of course, looking in a purely narrow point of view, the economy of that war-scarred nation would recover to a better state than pre-civil war, but is it worth it? I disagree with Mr. Soto completely, believing that the morality behind the economic system of any nation-state, i.e. Syria, defines the future of said political body. Would we have Bashar Hafez al-Assad revert the set of values in Syria's economy back to barbarianism? For anyone who knows anything about the era of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islam) in the Middle East, al-Assad would have morality set back to those dark ages. Before we know it, it'd be okay to bury alive first born female children -- rather, it'd be considered economically sound! Swift, satirist and defender of virtue in economics  would be appalled to see their values degrade to the point where citizens find it OK to eat their own youth. As far as economics are concerned, Adam Smith would agree that the means of reaching Mr. Soto's mentioned glory do not justify the means, esp. if the morality of the nation is compromised in the process...making it truly a pariah in the global community. There's no public good in this, not at all." - Steven Soto, the Moralist

Note from the Editor...

I favor the latter, rather than the former opinion. The future of lives, not simply an economy, is on the line. A mass genocide is taking place where human right are being violated. IF we were to sympathize, or empathize -- place our feet into the hell fires of the war zone, were innocent mother, father, brother, and sister are torn asunder by the raining bombshells and chemical missiles -- we would definitely find cause for a military intervention. If peace is not an option, place the knife against the enemy (not kill), and make peace an option. Our family, the global human family, is in danger. It is our obligation to end the violence against our brothers. - Steven Soto, the Editor

"These are the stakes! We are to make a world in which all of God's Children can live, or go into the dark. We must either love each other, or we must die." - Lyndon B. Johnson

"THE WORLD". Steven Soto. 2011  Prisma Colors on 11'' x 8.5'' drawing paper. 

Hutcheson Understands Visual Arts & Fashion

"Men, who have a Sense of Beauty in Regularity, are led generally in all their Arrangements of Bodys to study some kind of Regularity, and seldom ever design Irregularity: hence we judge the same of other Beings too. Viz. that they study Regularity, and presume upon Intention in the the Cause wherever we see it. Making Irregularity always a Presumption of Want of Design: Whereas if other Agents have different Senses of Beauty, of if they have no Sense of it at all, Irregularity may as well be design'd as Regularity." (Hutcheson, Francis. An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue [1726])

Let's translate the above phrase to modern lingo...

Men, who have an understanding of beauty in order, tend -- in all they're organized activities/things -- to seek out order, and hardly ever try to design something chaotic: moreover we think others do the same. In other words, they (we) seek out order, and assume (this order) was intentional to whatever caused it, wherever we see it. We believe chaos (i.e not order) as always an assumption of the lack of orderly design. In contrast, if others have a different sense of beauty, or if they have no sense of it at all, chaos would be labeled as orderly.

So What is Hutcheson Saying about Art, or even Fashion?

Simple, there are two main points that señor Hutcheson makes in the said quote: 1) Humans have a common sense of beauty, in that it is found in order/design, 2) humans assume the order/design was intentional. As an artist, I see these points as important elements in one of the cornerstones of the industry; the concept of the construct of beauty.

Allow me to elaborate on the second point, first. Let's construct a scenario. Imagine a framed landscape painting of a mountain range hanging in a room, and three people from different areas of the world examining it: a Middle Easterner, an Asian, and a European. The painting was made to mimic it's subject, with the paint strokes realistically true to the model. What happens?... As they people examine the wilderness, immediately the elements of design (Texture, Space, Shape, Color, Tone, Line) begin to draw their eyes throughout the composition, and they make analytical observations of the piece. Either consciously or subconsciously, they'll find a sense of order (principles of art: Harmony, Unity, Movement, Balance, Contrast, Proportion, Pattern, and Rhythm) in the wilderness depicted. From this chaos of a painting, a design is understood, by the Asian, Middle Easterner, to be made there by the artist. Thus, there is beauty. 

This then leads to the first point. Terms such as "good" or "bad" are based on human preference and have little to do with beauty, rather pre-experienced beauty effects this preference. The Middle Easterner may hate the mountain range depicted, favoring more his native desert oasis, but by no means can call the composition of the masterpiece horrendous. This can further be extended to abstract art, where the subject matter is not necessarily clear. Famous pieces like Picasso's "Three Musicians" (1921) may not be quickly understood, but the same elements and principles of design are still present -- and the world, as history will tell, has deemed his work to be beautiful. In short, design = beauty, and vise versa. The better the design, the more beautiful, but again "better" is based on preference.

So what does fashion have to do with this?

If beauty is a concept that is sensed by humans, order carved out of the chaos of things, then products of mankind, with intended design, are inherently beautiful. This includes today's modern fashion, that consist of anything from Miley Cyrus' teddy bear non-sense to the most covering  arabic burka, from an adult actress' slingshot bikini to a nun's habit. 

Hutcheson would say, that when properly examined, you might not like all of today's fashion but you'll find some order in the design -- you might be even able to call that odd plaid jerkin beautiful, in some sense or another.

Some links:
Cyrus' Teddy Bear Non-sense
Burka
(You'll have to find a Slingshot Bikini reference on your own)
Nun's Habit
Plaid Jerkin