A new kind of super hero

When I hear stuff about the bad things people are doing around the world, I always wish I could go over there, somehow being protected from harm, and tell people to do the right thing, and out of those thoughts came the idea for a new kind of super hero.  The idea is that he, or she, doesn't have super strength, or invisibility, or lasers shooting out of their eyes, or anything like that.  They have no power to do anything, but they are impervious to people doing something to them.

In fact, what I'm thinking is that, if anyone tries to kill him, or injure him, the injury just kind of bounces back to them.  If anyone tries to kick him in the face, he will be fine, but the person doing the kicking would suddenly feel a foot in their own face.  If anyone tries to shoot him, the instant the bullet reaches his chest, it will suddenly enter the chest of the shooter instead.  If anyone tries to cut off his head, the sword will pass through his neck without doing damage, and the executioner's head would suddenly be separated from his body.

But, what happens if the executioner is only following orders?  Is he really the one responsible for the act, or is it the guy who gave the order?  When I described this to my daughter, she thought it should be the guy actually swinging the sword, but I thought it should be the guy who gave the order.  I'll describe the reasons a little later, but let me give some more description first.

My original idea was that the guy would be a reporter, but then I realized they could just take his camera and cell phone, and he wouldn't be able to let the rest of the world know anything, so I decided that he also had the power to broadcast what he saw to the rest of the world.  That way, any injustices he saw, everyone would know about.  And I think he should be able to broadcast his own ideas, in addition to just images of what he's seen.

However, there should be a limit to the way in which these ideas are broadcast.  I think he should only be able to broadcast words, and not actual thoughts.  Thoughts are too compelling, and I want what he transmits to be on equal footing with any words that anyone else might say.  His only power is really to break down the barriers of communication, not convince people that he is right.

Since I originally envisioned this person as being me, and since I originally envisioned myself as going to the middle east to solve the ISIS problem, I also wanted to have the ability to speak and understand all languages, but if this is going to be some kind of comic book super hero, I wouldn't want it to appear that we thought it should be some westerner going over there to fix things.  It would probably be more effective if he was actually some poor farm boy from the Sunni Iraq area, and then he wouldn't need to learn the language.

However, what if, after he (or 'she', my daughter keeps reminding me) solved all of the problems in the middle east, wanted to go to, say, North Korea to solve that problem?  Either then they would have to have the power to speak Korean, or maybe, once one problem is solved, the power transfers to someone else from within the culture that is being fixed.  I actually like this better because we can then get to know another person, and see the world through a new persons eyes.  Also, I envision each of these stories as lasting quite a while, so by the time one story is finished, we'll be ready to meet someone knew.

And should we really call them problems?  I'm trying to not be judgemental here (or, actually, I'm trying to be judgemental, but with the appearance of being non-judgemental).  What he's really doing is simply breaking down the barriers of communication and letting everyone know what's really going on, and then letting them decide.

What I kind of envision here is that this guy, or girl, simply woke up one morning knowing they had these powers, but not really knowing what to do with them.  They probably start locally by exposing a few crimes, but then get inspired to tackle bigger and bigger issues.  They have this vague feeling that they were given these powers by God (or Allah, or aliens or whatever), that they have a mission, and that the powers could be taken away at any moment if God (or Allah or whatever) suddenly decided he, or she, were unworthy.

However, there is no actual confirmation that this is the case.  God, or whatever, didn't actually speak with this person, and didn't tell them what to do with it.  The person isn't perfect, but thinks that maybe God chose him or her because they had good ideas of what's right and wrong, and thought that they would make mostly good decisions and give good direction to everyone.  This is important.  I've never liked religions that claim that their sacred texts are infallible, such as the Koran claiming to be the exact words of God, or the Bible having been inspired by God.  If God hasn't actually spoken to this person, he has no real authority other than by convincing people that his ideas are right.

Now you might think:  "So what?  So what if the guy can go anyplace without being harmed?  He still can't stop bad people from doing bad things!  He can't put the bad guys in jail!"  But, he can let the world, including their own followers, know what they're doing.  If potential ISIS recruits could see what ISIS is really doing, can see soldiers gunning down innocent women and children, they would be a lot less likely to be recruited, and the soldiers already working for ISIS would probably think twice about what they were doing.  If the people of other nations really saw what was going on over there, and their leaders knew that everyone knew what was going on over there, they'd have a lot more incentive to become involved themselves.  Also, in the case of North Korea, not only could this person let the rest of the world know what was really going on there, but, more importantly, they could let the people of North Korea know what the rest of the world was like, and let them know more about what was really going on in their own country.

Some interesting things that can be done with this:

The guy is powerless, so they could just lock him in a cell so that he can't see all the injustices being done.  However, by the time this happens he would have already become well known, and transmitted a lot of views of injustices.  By then he will already have a lot of people on his side, even from withing the group who has captured him, and he'll still be able to transmit from within his cell; then, you could have one of his captors set him free.

In the beginning, the hero would tell people who he was and what would happen if they tried to kill him, but they wouldn't believe him, and they would try to kill him anyway.  Then people would try to get smart and order someone else to kill him, but that wouldn't work, and the person who ordered the killing would be the one who gets killed.  People who still try to think of ways to "outsmart" the power, but it would always know who the guilty person was, and they would always be the one who dies.  Eventually people would stop trying to kill him, and he would be able to just walk through the conflict effortlessly.

There are two ways a person can lose the power.  Once peace is restored, and the hero no longer needs the power, the power should just leave him one day, and he goes back to leading a normal life.  However, if the power goes to the hero's head and he begins mis-using it, he should lose the power at the most inopportune time, and end up getting killed.  Then the power would transfer to someone else to continue trying to restore peace.

Why do people rural areas tend to be more conservative, and those in cities more liberal?

I've wondered about this for a long time. For a while I figured that those living in cities tend to be more educated, and that more education allowed you to see the truth more clearly, and the truth was that liberal was better. Since I'm a liberal, this fit in nicely with the way I viewed the world.

However, I was never completely satisfied with this. "Uneducated" people may not have had a lot of formal education, but that doesn't mean they haven't learned anything, just that they got their learning through real-life experiences rather than in a class room. Also, there are a lot of uneducated people in the cities, and yet they still tend to be liberal.

This morning, I came up with a different theory. The idea is that we have a natural tendency to establish a certain level of social pressure in our societies. Where there are more people, the amount of social pressure that each person expresses has to be less in order to maintain this level, and where there are fewer people, each person has to express more social pressure.

To put it another way, when there are strangers all around you, you always feel a certain pressure to behave properly, and the last thing you want is more rules telling you how to behave. If you live in an area people live farther apart, there's a lot more opportunity to just do what you want, and people naturally feel a lot more responsibility to keep the people around them in line.

Of course, as I write this, I'm thinking of a lot of other possibilities as well. In the country, people tend to all know each other, whereas in the cities, there is a lot more anonymity. You often hear people who move from the country to the city saying that in the country, you can't do anything without some neighbor finding out about it and telling your parents. (Okay, I guess I heard this back in college from people who'd come from rural areas, but I think it applies to all age groups.) It may be that people who prefer more social freedom move to the cities, so it may be that the cities attract more liberal people rather than the cities make them liberal.

Another related factor may be that people feel the most pressure to conform during their teen years, after which, they've internalized the rules of their own society. It may be in the country, where everyone knows each other, and more importantly, know your parents, there is a lot more pressure to conform. If you stick it out, rather than moving to a large city, you adopt the rules of your society as your own.

It may also be that, in a rural society where everyone knows each other, there's really only room for one set of social rules. As you grow up there, you're only exposed to one set of rules, so you naturally assume that those are the right rules and everyone else should have those rules as well. In the city, there are a lot more people, and they tend to form sub-cultures, so people who live in the city can witness a lot of different ways of thinking first-hand.

And we shouldn't rule out the "education" effect either. The ideas that we learn through a formal education tend to come from people who've written books. Social ideas come from people who've written books about society, and these tend to be people who've done a lot of thinking about society. People think about the challenges they face, so the people who think a lot about society may tend to be those who don't fit well in their own society, and who wish their society was a little different, or at least a little more forgiving of their eccentricities, i.e. liberals.

There are probably a lot of factors that feed into this difference between rural and urban areas, some of which may be opposing, but the end result is as obvious as looking at a red/blue political map during an election. Rural states, and rural counties within states, are almost always red, and urban states and counties are almost always blue.

ISIS

I finally found something to inspire me to start blogging again, and no, it's not the Egyptian goddess.  I'm inspired because, in a lot of ways, I support what ISIS is, or at least originally was, trying to do, I just don't like some aspects of it.

Here is what I like:

At the end of the Iraq war, I thought the best course of action was to split Iraq up into three parts:  Give the Sunni part to Syria, give the Kurdish apart to Turkey, and trade the Shia part to Iran in exchange for their Kurdish region, which would then go to Turkey along with the Iraqi Kurdish region.  I think it's very hard for a government in such a sectarian region to truly represent all three ethnic groups, and all three ethnic groups have counterparts in these other countries, so I thought it made sense to split them up.  Also, the current national borders are simply left over from when the British pulled out of the area (I'm not too sure of the history here), and these borders were not made with any consideration for the borders of the various ethnic groups.  I thought re-drawing new borders along existing ethnic lines made a lot of sense.

One of ISIS's original goals was to create a Caliphate that included the Sunni regions of Iraq and Syria.  It seemed like what they wanted was only what should have been created in the first place.  Also, they wanted this for the legitimate reason that the Syrian and Iraqi governments were not fairly satisfying the needs of their Sunni populations.  If those governments can't represent all of their people fairly, then they deserve to be overthrown.  Of course, since then ISIS's ego has gone a little out of control, and they now also want to take over the entire Sunni world.  I don't think they have a legitimate claim here because many of these countries are being well enough run.  Even if one can argue that a single Sunni Caliphate makes sense, it should only happen for areas whose populations revolt against their government, and then decide to join.  It should happen through internal revolution, not through conquest.  This is a case of "Don't fix what ain't broke."

ISIS has shown that it's strong enough to take these lands (Syria and Iraq), and it has shown that it can provide the services that people need (such as schools, police, trash pick-up, etc.), and I think that gives it more legitimacy than a puppet government that's kept in power only by the backing of the U.S. or some other outside entity.

Here is what I don't like:

Kidnapping and killing journalists!  There are few things that all Americans stand behind, but Freedom of Speech is probably our most sacred credo.  To me, an atheist, it is the closest thing to a religious principle that I have.  I personally think that when ISIS killed the first American journalist, Obama should have turned to his Secretary of Defense and said "They're all yours, give 'em hell!"  Unless ISIS apologizes for killing our journalists, frees any journalists that it is currently holding, promises to never kidnap and kill journalists again, and promises to respect their right to impartially gather and report on what's going on in the world, then we should wipe their asses from the face of this earth.  I like what they're doing above, and I think they provide a real opportunity for some stabilization in the area, but killing our journalists is a deal breaker.  There is no negotiation on this.

Genocide!  A lot of people might consider this more important than the killing of journalists, after all, a greater number of people are involved, but I'm listing it second for two reasons.  First, without our journalists, we might not even know about the genocide, and ISIS might have succeeded in wiping out the Yazidis.  Second, just judging by the news, I think Americans responded more strongly to the killings of the journalists than we did to the Yazidis; maybe in part because the journalists are Americans, but I think also because we admire the journalists for willingly putting themselves in harm's way in order to expose the injustices that go on in the world.  Nonetheless, Freedom of Religion is right up there with Freedom of Speech in terms of being a sacred credo among Americans.  We could never tolerate a group that commits genocide against minority populations that are hurting no one.

There are other issues that are important to large groups of Americans, such as Women's rights, and the potential threat to Israel that a united Sunni Caliphate might pose, but I'm not sure they would rise to the level of inciting us to war, and events are bearing me out on this.  We didn't start bombing ISIS until they started attacking the Yazidis, and then it was only to protect the Yazidis.  We didn't start an all-out air campaign until they killed our journalists.

Why should ISIS care what Americans think?  Because we are the only country in the world with both the power and the inclination to stop ISIS (China and Russia have the power, but I doubt they have the inclination).  For ISIS to be successful, they need to stay just shy of doing anything that would cause us to physically oppose them.  Let us whine and rant all we want in the media, they can still succeed in their goals, but if they incite us to war, then they lose.

I would like to see ISIS succeed, within the parameters I've outlined above.  I think a people have a right to work together as a single entity to become as strong as they can, and I think having a strong leader rise up from among them with the strength, courage, and good judgement to unite his people is a good way for this to happen.  Either way, I will respect Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for what he has been able to accomplish, I will simply oppose him because I don't like the world that he is trying to create.