Cognizance

"Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom."

-Aristotle

Standards

When the topic is brought up people sometimes ask me, "What did you do to lose weight?" From experience I know they're expecting an answer from among the following:

-stopped drinking soda
-reduced fat intake
-tried the Atkins plan
-gastric bypass
-acupuncture
-diet and exercise

While these are all methods people have used to achieve weight loss, none of them are the answer to the generalized question: "How does one improve?"

Getting somewhere implies that one has a destination. That mark is the standard. Seven percent body fat. One hundred words per minute. Eighty cases an hour. The word "goals" is distracting. They are too readily viewed as landmarks--as opposed to constants--and can have a funny way of disrupting progress. In themselves they are not bad (to a degree this is a semantic exercise) but their adoption and how they are pursued can be. To be better is to adopt a new standard.

Then what's the difference between standards and expectations? One seems more concrete than the other, though they essentially carry the same idea: How should this be done?

People can have standards; for the food they eat, the neighborhood they live in, who they date, their personal health or the conduct of their government. It's very interesting to note that these views are as readily applied to others as they are to ourselves*. Moreover, the adoption of such attitudes is completely voluntary and as a result inconsistent among the population. It's unfortunately common then to encounter people who have no standards and the problems that thrive as a result. Think of some examples.

Entities, like a store, can also have standards. The quality of the products they sell, employee productivity, target demographics and customer service. I have seen stores with high standards flourish and those with none squander. The fate of an entity rests more on this than that of a person, though it must not be forgotten that the latter composes the former. Even the federal government considers a corporation as a single person on paper. For tax purposes.

Standards largely determine the quality of a thing. It was the adoption of specific expectations for what I eat and how I live that enabled me to improve. Drafting any rule is to think about "what is acceptable in this regard?" Thought, of course, makes all the difference. To have any minimum expectation implies that the topic has been deliberated, which is the key to advancement. People don't create a new world or a better human just listening to their feelings.


*An interesting development in the construction of [Social Views].

The Military

It was National Armed Forces Day 2005, the cafeteria neatly adorned with regalia. Flanking the entrance were tri-fold displays dedicated to each particular branch of the service. At the table were myself, a good friend enrolled in the Air Force ROTC* and several proud civilians. One of them, who wasn't aware of our military presence, had several choice words about the subject as well as the commemoration. Keep in mind our country had just reinstated George W. Bush for a second term. He offered criticisms of the military construct as well as the national administration and questioned the decision to celebrate either. My friend stayed his tongue but clearly held grievance with the man's observations. Sensing visibly his growing incontinence my non-confrontational self moved to prevent a strong encounter over the undeserving dormitory fare. In retrospect, the guy just failed to employ prudence in his half-hearted tirade.

"The military" is simply a tool and is only as good as how it is used. There is a strong difference between the construct and its application. In many ways armed forces stay the same while being manipulated by ever-changing bands of elected and appointed kings-of-state. Get the right president to start two concurrent wars that swiftly become unpopular and you will likely see a decrease in military favor. What detractors often don't recognize is that they disagree with the use of the tool and not the thing itself.

Everybody loves armed forces because animals kill each other. That's what made Ghandi so powerful and remarkable, he made himself an exception to the universal rule. All creatures possess the fear mechanism; everything knows as soon as it can think that something else might try to kill it. The military addresses this issue at the macro level, we fend for ourselves at the micro level. Perhaps even more admonishing to those who would blindly criticize is the fact that most military personnel--particularly high-ranking officers--respect and follow whoever the president is, regardless of party affiliation. We all know the rhetoric because it's true. On paper and in practice the military exists to protect the country and is directed by the commander in chief in meeting that task. They have great utility in this regard.

Beyond the political implications are other interesting considerations. The hallmark of any fighting force is discipline. Order. Efficiency that begs descriptions such as "well-oiled machine." As a thing, in and of itself, it is wonderful: A system that develops strength and ability in the subject in both mental and physical aspects leading to improvement on a level approaching literal augmentation of the human being. It instills courage and skill, ultimately rendering capable, productive people. Then one man can take it and exercise illegitimate use of force.

I have a problem with that. For the sake of humor, here's a thought from Lewis Black^# that effectively illustrates my sentiment here:


"The major lesson that can be learned from the hurricane [Katrina] is this: that while we were fighting the terrorists, god bit us in the ass!"


The military are our finest and strongest, most able and vital. It's troubling to recognize that this rather unique faculty could be readily used in ways that are not intended. That's where all the lying came from. In order to bend the rules they had to say we were "protecting national security" by pre-emptively attacking a country for reasons that were ultimately false. We grapple with the concept that our military is subject to arbitrary application.

I'm wishing for another entity. Very much like "the military" as we know it but in key ways different. It maintains similarly high standards for conduct and ability. It provides training and education to its ranks as well as support and protection for society. It is capable of waging war but is very restricted in how it can be deployed internationally. It could provide support in the stead of presently defunct agencies. It's what homeland security never was. It would be there when we need it.

People hesitate to join the armed forces because they don't trust in the prudence of those who wield them. In contemporary language, they "don't wanna get sent to Iraq." It's unfortunate that the end of such a thing would negate all its positive means. If there were another option that provided a sure return on one's civil service it would be greatly received. We need a safe haven for such a resource so that it can be reserved for where it matters most.

* Recruit Officers' Training Corps
# http://www.lewisblack.com/audio.asp#audio (The Carnegie Hall Performance, Track 12 - The Real Problem is Gay Marriage)