environs politik

I'd like to think I may have coined a phrase. However, there are problems abound with such a thought.

The first is it is presumptious. Not only because there is a likelyhood I am not the first to say it - given the likehood of impending dateline for the reaching of critical mass of infinite-monkey-time-and-typewriter scenarios. By the way, I like much of the monkey's work.

But also presumptious because coining a phrase implies someone else gives a shit, uses it, and adds veracity by their use. Coining a phrase depends not as much on the person saying it, but of others accepting it and putting it to their own use. It's anathema to copyright and fact-checking.

"The phrase has no value unless I agree with it."

Which oddly enough, is very similar to the phrase of instant. "Environs politik" My thought process (which any reader of this blog should surely question) leads me through a review of belief systems, point of view, subjectiveness, and absolute truth and how each of these affect one's opinion on any given matter.

It is not the same as situational ethics or moral relativism. I interpret the works of Fletcher and Doris to impune the their title holder as 1) doing something wrong or immoral and 2) the holder values subject to change. Addressing the 2nd point, if the value changes it either 1) denies an absolute truth or 2) veres from that truth and makes the value wrong or immoral.

Not to push the Abortion Flame Post Button, but consider this:

There is much heated dislike, name calling, and flat hatred in the debate of Reproductive Rights v. Right to Life. Both edges of the proponents commonly label eachother as lacking in knowledge. Commonly as unbelievers from a faith standpoint or as uneducated and in denial from a scientific standpoint.

Back to monkeys though. And their requisite issued wrench. The two sides in the Abortion debate will incestently hurl insults unless they can be convinced of one thing. When does the (insert term here) become a human life?

When I wrote (insert term here) your environs politik may have betrayed your belief and provided the term. Either embyro, child, baby, fetus etc.

Can you really say I'm a bad person if I believe life starts at conception? If I do believe that, then how can you disparrage me for trying to protect a human life? Inversely, if I believe life begins at XX weeks or whenever, can someone be blamed for the distrust of Pro-Life people wishing to interfere with a woman's medical choices.

I am certainly not trying to hash out the abortion debate. Rather, I am making a point about how one's personal experience, upbringing, and other influences define their decision making process.

There are certainly societal norms. Perhaps varying between societal groups. Again, a function of the environs politik.

My next example. I originally posted this on 09/17/2006 as a Live QnA response to the question: What is a terrorist?

The word terror originates from Old French, Middle English, and Latin meaning "to Frighten" and implies an intense fear. Today's popular use of the word is somewhat subjective and the use is rarely self applied, rather it is applied by someone other than the person being so labled.

In my opinion, a terrorist is someone who is:
1) A member of a group not widely recognized as a nation.
2) Uses violence, fear, intimidation, or similar actions.
3) Intentionally, without regard or remorse targets both Military and Civilian
4) Those acts are considered criminal by the Government in place where the act occured
5) And the acts are conducted to pursue some idealistic political, social, or religious goal.

I think the term is a label which is truly subjective. Please don't take this to mean I support such behavior, as I find such acts to be disgusting. Rather, I mean the term is commonly applied by the victors or those in power. In the histories of many nations there are those people who are heralded as "freedom fighters" or "heros" when the person applying the term believes in what the "terrorist" has done.

The same "perception based value" can be seen in civil wars. If a group successfully breaks away, it's a war of Independence. If the nation is held together, it's a Civil war.

My last opinion is this: The intentional targetting of civilian peoples to pursue a political goal by a group who can not bring about change through internationally accepted means is diabolical.

I used the term "perception based value" in that response. I didn't feel it adequately represented what I meant. I believe "environs politik" does. Bizzare, however it may be since I brought it up, I don't think it applies to terrorism as I define it.

As I see it, envrions politik applies no fault. It only works for me when the resultant action does not strike me as "immoral". Then again, immoral implies an absolute truth which will vary on one's environ politik.

If I consume beef in the US it is one thing, in India quite another. The acceptance of felines, dogs, pork, cheese on a hamburger, and onward elicit varied responses. Those responses and tangential legalism are likely results of the environ politik.

I think it's a useful phrase. Your assistance in veracity addition is welcomed. Less it should suffer the fate of hapax legomenon.

Some scenarios

Scenario 1.

You walk into the local diner with some friends. You invited more but only a few came. You told your friends you had a coupon for a free meal for all. The food is okay. The service is somewhat lacking. You start looking through your wallet for that coupon.

The problem is you don't have that coupon. You knew that going in there. In fact, you're not sure you ever had it. Other patrons are staring and pointing fingers. Perhaps you thought your friend who is a waitress might help you out.

Slowly, your friends start to realise you don't have that coupon or any money whatsoever. Those friends begin to slip out the door. Now you're wondering if you should do the same.

Scenario 2.

You're a younger, suave, male with great aspirations and noble ideals. You befriend a stunning young lady who trusts you without question. You mistake infatuation for love. She lives in an abusive home and was looking for security. You tell her you will always be there for her and this is the ultimate act to express that love.

As in all "After-School-Specials" you fail to wear the appropriate protective gear. That stunning young lady is now carrying a child. Her parents reject her along with her friends and peers. She wants to keep the baby and she wants your help.

You expected a quick, enjoyable, relationship. Now everyone is telling you to run.

Scenario 3

You're a surgeon who has begun a heart transplant. Admittedly, the heart had problems. It was causing the lungs to work more than they should. Instead, you (the surgeon) tell the patient the heart has to be replaced because the brain-heart widget is broken. Being wondrous studies of anatomy and physiology, we know there is no brain-heart widget. However, the patient is on the table, you have removed the heart, and Oh? Did I mention we don't have a donor?

The point.

In each situation you have done something you perhaps should not have done. You are responsible for the situation, if not fully, at least in part. You made the mess. You clean it up.

Just because you may have created the mess under less than honorable motives, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities.

That said, make WMD the coupon. Iraq the diner. Iraq the poor girl and stability and sovereignty the child. Or, lastly, Iraq is the patient.

Many activists are calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq because the pretense for the invasion is lacking in veracity at a minimum.

Well too bad. You've eaten the meal, the young lady is expecting, and you better find a suitable heart.

The withdrawal of forces from Iraq will not rectify any injustice incurred. Certainly, it will only amplify the problem. It is naive to think such a withdrawal will improve the situation. In a politically unstable region such as the middle east where human rights violations abound, such a withdrawal would lead to greater chaos. Chaos which undoubtedly would lead to a larger theater war destined to re-draw the US military into a larger and likely more distasteful engagement.

Perhaps the conflict is about oil. Fair enough. Get off your high horse... Scratch that. Get on your high horse and stop driving yourself to work. Stop running your PC 24/7 and using up power generated from fossil fuels. It is easy to take the road of nobility when you don't have to be accountable for your personal actions.

Anyone who purports to believe a complete and unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would improve the situation needs to lay off the psychoactives. The world is a shitty place. Yes, hindsight clearly shows there are better routes. Guess what though? You can't go back. It's done.

It is incredibly irresponsible and immoral not to clean up this mess.