The other day I was reading an article about a program in which students, middle-schoolers I think, were pitted against adults in an academic contest. One of the questions was “what is the grammatical term for the expression “jumbo shrimp”. The answer was “oxymoron”. And I found myself thinking, “well no, that’s not really an oxymoron at all. In that case “jumbo” is merely being used as a term of relative size, to denote a shrimp larger than other shrimps. I understand that jumbo shrimp is used commonly as an example of an oxymoron. But my mind immediately drifted off to other more serious forms, as “military intelligence”, or republican ethics”, both now fine examples of the form. And that got me to thinking about such terms.
Military intelligence—is that a reasonable interpretation of the military mind and it’s thinking potential? The more I think about that term, the more I am drawn to the notion that our military leaders are not so much lacking in intelligence, but rather that they narrow their focus to the tasks they understand and are committed to achieving. When military leaders committed their forces to the attack as in, say Gallipoli, they lost very large numbers of their troops in a vain attempt to capture the day. Similarly, the “Charge of the Light Brigade” is now a famous example of foolish leadership. But in Vietnam, we have a different kind of failure. There, the military did what they know how to do—kill as many of the enemy as they could identify, in an attempt to forge something called “victory”. Yet, lose we did, mainly though because of failures in our political leadership. Military intelligence had little to do with our eventual defeat there.
But the oxymoronic term, “republican ethics”, or perhaps more broadly, “conservative ethics” has more staying power these days. Is it true that republicans/conservatives are entirely unethical? Well, no, that would never be the case, any more than thinking that all Muslims want to kill innocents by committing suicide, or that all Christians want to bash Gays.
But conservatives really seem to have defined a territory of their own. That territory includes:
• All political battles are to be defined as zero-sum games, in which they can win only by forcing the other side to lose;
• All social issues are to be defended on the basis of the most conservative, narrowest interpretation of Christian tenets, regardless of their impact on society at large;
• All economic issues are to be argued on the basis of what is good for corporate America—generally following that old axiom, “what’s good for "GM" is good for America”, again without regard to the overall well-being of the American people;
• All advertising campaigns aimed at convincing Americans of their various causes are to include material that appeals to either greed, or fears, regardless of whether the required material includes patent lies. Lying works, so that makes it ok.
• Finally, the only thing that counts is power. Anything that will achieve or consolidate republican/conservative power is by definition good and acceptable. That is the principle that gave us an ok to employ torture as a routine interrogation approach.
So, I will continue to believe that conservative ethics will remain as the classic example of an oxymoron, until such time as responsible, thoughtful conservatives come out of their closets and re-engage in the battle for a healthy, ethical American Nation. I look forward to that day.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Tribalism
I have written a bit about religion and my lack of empathy for most religions, or their followers. Mainly, as I have noted, I find this disconnect between religion and God, so I find the whole subject to be a cynical exercise in power aggregation. Further, it is akin, I think to one of our more recent sad economic activities, namely Ponzi schemes. In the most egregious, the Bernie Madoff Ponzi. Bernie basically took money from friends and colleagues in exchange for promises of grand returns on their investment, returns no sensible person should have found believable. Yet believe him they did. See, they believed in Bernie, so they followed his dictates, regardless of how absurd his promises. But that’s what religions do. In exchange for your obedience, and often your money, the high priests promise you things they can’t deliver. You want what they are offering so badly that you gladly give up your intellectual freedom in exchange for their empty promises. In the case of Ponzi schemes, eventually the truth comes out, because nobody can keep a Ponzi going forever. Sooner or later, the Ponzi masters run out of fresh sources of money and they run out of their ability to keep the Ponzi going. The whole enterprise then comes crashing down, and everyone involved discovers the awful truth that they have been conned.
In religion, nobody ever literally discovers the fraud, because they die first. Nobody ever returns to rat out the Ponzi master—the high priests. So, the religious Ponzi continues.
But where does all this belief in the absurd originate? My theory is that it originates from tribes and tribalism. Man seems naturally drawn to tribes, for protection if no other reason. Early tribes must have been simply early man and his/her close relatives living within the same caves, and looking out for predators. Acting in concert would have been more effective than acting alone. As the tribes acquired more members, they increased in strength. So, larger tribes could intimidate smaller tribes, forcing them to move farther away.
Within the tribes, physical strength, and eventually skill in fighting or in weapons handling, when they became available, led to leaders, chiefs and subchiefs. Over time, the tribes organized rituals to ward off bad events, or to encourage good events, such as weather for their crops or animals. Periodically, odd events would occur, events for which the strong chiefs had no answer. Over time, some men would have stepped forward with explanations that satisfied the tribe. These men became the wise ones, men less physically able than their chiefs, but more glib. Surely, as rituals were invented by the strong ones, even more rituals would have been invented by the wise ones. All the rituals offered the promise of protection in the future—greater food stocks, health over time, victories over neighboring/warring tribes. The key is that, sometimes the rituals seemed to work—the food stocks increased because the weather cooperated, or the neighboring tribes were subdued. Probability laws figure here. So, what happened when the rituals seemed not to work?
Here is the true genius of religion, even in its earliest stages. The wise men always asserted that, when rituals failed to deliver, they had been carried out incorrectly. Someone, never the wise men, was flawed. Scapegoats could always be found, or virgins sacrificed. The priests always supervised. In early times, the priests actually carried out the sacrifices, but later, the priests withdrew from personal participation, so as to seem above the entire enterprise.
One could imagine that periodically, the strong men and the wise men would differ over policies. While it certainly would have been the case that the two fought, it is as surely the case that the two groups would have decided that working together produced the strongest hold over the larger population to be commanded. The chiefs could command the tribe’s warriors, and the priests could command the people’s fears. Together, they could rule without any fear of tribal revolution.
Over time, it seems clear that the two merged the belief systems, such that the chiefs were accorded even more mysterious and higher order powers—thereby enabling the notion of “divine right” to enter the systems of rule. Kings/chiefs were said to be endowed with their earthly authority by none other than God. Their children were accorded the same mystical authority, thereby eliminating challenges from other earthly sources (the people). Clashes between the two groups proved difficult, as in those cases where kings decided to operate against the wishes of the ruling priests. Such clashes were never easy to resolve, because they involved a clash between raw power—armies, and otherworldly power—threats of damnation and banishment to the burning fires of hell (after priests decided to invent the concept of everlasting punishment through fire, e.g., hell).
It is not difficult to envision the even larger clashes that were to come, between a population that was becoming educated, and that population’s ruling classes. As people become better educated, the people can themselves begin to ponder the questions of life, mortality, its aftermath, and the earthly powers granted to both chiefs/kings, and the priests of the world. Over time, as the population became increasingly educated, or increasing discontented with the privileges accorded the ruling classes, rebellion was inevitable. Thus, in France, the ruling classes were eliminated by the sword/guillotine. In places such as England, the ruling classes also acquired enough education to understand that ceding power to the people was the only way to stave off their almost certain elimination through harsher methods. It is interesting to observe the various ways divine authorities were overthrown. In France, the crowds of discontented—mobs—acquired power and killed the rulers, paving the way for initially rough forms of democratic power-sharing.. In England, wiser ruling heads decided to cede to the people, in the form of elected subrulers, much of the power they had enjoyed. In Russia, crowds prevailed, much as in France, but these crowds simply substituted their own forms of absolute rule, giving rise to the Soviet state, which killed millions of the people, in the name of saving the people from their monarchical rulers. In Iran, a modern version of substitution occurred, when, in 1979, the religious classes overthrew the monarchical classes, throwing out the king, and bringing in an even more absolute dictator, in the form of a high priest, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
As tribes became nation-states, clashes between the tribes were inevitable, and wars became the way to resolve the conflicts. Humans have rarely conceived and implemented intellectual approaches to conflict resolution, when arms can be employed. Modern man seems curiously primitive when it comes to conflict resolution. Tribal preservation seems to represent the dominant motivation in these cases. People are taught to think of themselves as tribal members, as distinct from individuals with free will and a capacity to think. Tribal preservation becomes substituted for preservation of the individual as the “greater good.” People no longer think for themselves.
On average, I see an inverse relationship between education and people’s willingness to be led over the cliff, as in sheep/lemmings, by their leaders (who never by the way, actually lead their people over the cliff, instead, stepping to the side while urging on their followers). Where the relationship exists, it seems to have something important to do with the polar opposite notions of ambiguity--certainty. We must all be born, or acquire as we age/mature, with fear of the unknown—the dark, strangers, other cultures and rituals, and death and its aftermath.
As people acquire more education, they acquire an ability to define more colors in the world than black and white. We begin to see subtlety in the world. We begin to see that many other cultural rituals are just different, rather than inherently threatening. We begin to understand that the world is in fact a more interesting place if variation is preserved. Other tribes and other tribal customs need not be viewed as potentially hostile. Yet tribalism remains the dominant cultural fact of life today, seemingly as alive as it was hundreds of years ago, with all of its sinister implications. I keep wondering whether in a StarTrek fantasy world, hundreds of years in our future, mankind will have overcome this cultural device that divides us all, conquering our seemingly innate desire to look down upon people in other “tribes.” Perhaps in that world, Republicans and Democrats will be able to discuss problems rationally and reach solutions based on what is best for the people at large. Perhaps Christians will no longer seek to demonize Gays who wish to marry, and Muslims will no longer strap on dynamite vests so as to blow up innocents in a marketplace. What a wonderful world that would be.
In religion, nobody ever literally discovers the fraud, because they die first. Nobody ever returns to rat out the Ponzi master—the high priests. So, the religious Ponzi continues.
But where does all this belief in the absurd originate? My theory is that it originates from tribes and tribalism. Man seems naturally drawn to tribes, for protection if no other reason. Early tribes must have been simply early man and his/her close relatives living within the same caves, and looking out for predators. Acting in concert would have been more effective than acting alone. As the tribes acquired more members, they increased in strength. So, larger tribes could intimidate smaller tribes, forcing them to move farther away.
Within the tribes, physical strength, and eventually skill in fighting or in weapons handling, when they became available, led to leaders, chiefs and subchiefs. Over time, the tribes organized rituals to ward off bad events, or to encourage good events, such as weather for their crops or animals. Periodically, odd events would occur, events for which the strong chiefs had no answer. Over time, some men would have stepped forward with explanations that satisfied the tribe. These men became the wise ones, men less physically able than their chiefs, but more glib. Surely, as rituals were invented by the strong ones, even more rituals would have been invented by the wise ones. All the rituals offered the promise of protection in the future—greater food stocks, health over time, victories over neighboring/warring tribes. The key is that, sometimes the rituals seemed to work—the food stocks increased because the weather cooperated, or the neighboring tribes were subdued. Probability laws figure here. So, what happened when the rituals seemed not to work?
Here is the true genius of religion, even in its earliest stages. The wise men always asserted that, when rituals failed to deliver, they had been carried out incorrectly. Someone, never the wise men, was flawed. Scapegoats could always be found, or virgins sacrificed. The priests always supervised. In early times, the priests actually carried out the sacrifices, but later, the priests withdrew from personal participation, so as to seem above the entire enterprise.
One could imagine that periodically, the strong men and the wise men would differ over policies. While it certainly would have been the case that the two fought, it is as surely the case that the two groups would have decided that working together produced the strongest hold over the larger population to be commanded. The chiefs could command the tribe’s warriors, and the priests could command the people’s fears. Together, they could rule without any fear of tribal revolution.
Over time, it seems clear that the two merged the belief systems, such that the chiefs were accorded even more mysterious and higher order powers—thereby enabling the notion of “divine right” to enter the systems of rule. Kings/chiefs were said to be endowed with their earthly authority by none other than God. Their children were accorded the same mystical authority, thereby eliminating challenges from other earthly sources (the people). Clashes between the two groups proved difficult, as in those cases where kings decided to operate against the wishes of the ruling priests. Such clashes were never easy to resolve, because they involved a clash between raw power—armies, and otherworldly power—threats of damnation and banishment to the burning fires of hell (after priests decided to invent the concept of everlasting punishment through fire, e.g., hell).
It is not difficult to envision the even larger clashes that were to come, between a population that was becoming educated, and that population’s ruling classes. As people become better educated, the people can themselves begin to ponder the questions of life, mortality, its aftermath, and the earthly powers granted to both chiefs/kings, and the priests of the world. Over time, as the population became increasingly educated, or increasing discontented with the privileges accorded the ruling classes, rebellion was inevitable. Thus, in France, the ruling classes were eliminated by the sword/guillotine. In places such as England, the ruling classes also acquired enough education to understand that ceding power to the people was the only way to stave off their almost certain elimination through harsher methods. It is interesting to observe the various ways divine authorities were overthrown. In France, the crowds of discontented—mobs—acquired power and killed the rulers, paving the way for initially rough forms of democratic power-sharing.. In England, wiser ruling heads decided to cede to the people, in the form of elected subrulers, much of the power they had enjoyed. In Russia, crowds prevailed, much as in France, but these crowds simply substituted their own forms of absolute rule, giving rise to the Soviet state, which killed millions of the people, in the name of saving the people from their monarchical rulers. In Iran, a modern version of substitution occurred, when, in 1979, the religious classes overthrew the monarchical classes, throwing out the king, and bringing in an even more absolute dictator, in the form of a high priest, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
As tribes became nation-states, clashes between the tribes were inevitable, and wars became the way to resolve the conflicts. Humans have rarely conceived and implemented intellectual approaches to conflict resolution, when arms can be employed. Modern man seems curiously primitive when it comes to conflict resolution. Tribal preservation seems to represent the dominant motivation in these cases. People are taught to think of themselves as tribal members, as distinct from individuals with free will and a capacity to think. Tribal preservation becomes substituted for preservation of the individual as the “greater good.” People no longer think for themselves.
On average, I see an inverse relationship between education and people’s willingness to be led over the cliff, as in sheep/lemmings, by their leaders (who never by the way, actually lead their people over the cliff, instead, stepping to the side while urging on their followers). Where the relationship exists, it seems to have something important to do with the polar opposite notions of ambiguity--certainty. We must all be born, or acquire as we age/mature, with fear of the unknown—the dark, strangers, other cultures and rituals, and death and its aftermath.
As people acquire more education, they acquire an ability to define more colors in the world than black and white. We begin to see subtlety in the world. We begin to see that many other cultural rituals are just different, rather than inherently threatening. We begin to understand that the world is in fact a more interesting place if variation is preserved. Other tribes and other tribal customs need not be viewed as potentially hostile. Yet tribalism remains the dominant cultural fact of life today, seemingly as alive as it was hundreds of years ago, with all of its sinister implications. I keep wondering whether in a StarTrek fantasy world, hundreds of years in our future, mankind will have overcome this cultural device that divides us all, conquering our seemingly innate desire to look down upon people in other “tribes.” Perhaps in that world, Republicans and Democrats will be able to discuss problems rationally and reach solutions based on what is best for the people at large. Perhaps Christians will no longer seek to demonize Gays who wish to marry, and Muslims will no longer strap on dynamite vests so as to blow up innocents in a marketplace. What a wonderful world that would be.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
I perceive, therefore . . .
I stood outside on our porch one morning, just the other day. I often come out early, as the sun is rising, just to look. As I stood there, I began thinking; someday this will all be gone. I will no longer stand here looking out at the sky and the trees, and the houses with their residents just beginning to awaken. It will all be gone.
Then I corrected myself.
No, one day, it will remain, and only the image in my brain will be gone. But if there is no image in my brain, does it actually exist, this thing I now see? It’s the old, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does the tree actually fall? Perhaps, if I am no longer here, then nothing exists.
So then, what are we all doing here? Are we all simply sitting around, waiting for Godot?
I think of the expression about people who, “are simply taking up space.” That is, they aren’t doing anything useful, but what is useful anyway? Is useful getting up in the morning, strapping on a vest filled with dynamite, driving to some crowded marketplace, and then detonating the vest?
Is useful deciding to feed a hungry child?
Is useful, then, a relative term, meaning, in the final analysis, exactly nothing?
In a million years, would being useful matter?
We fuss about such terminally stupid things, like whether two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry, while ignoring the fact that half of the “correctly married” will eventually divorce one another, some after great stress, and even violence. But of what consequence are such things anyway? Will the earth cease to rotate if we do one thing and not another?
Did it matter that Adolph Hitler decided to kill six million people simply because they were Jews, or Gypsies, or some other condition he deemed un-Germanic?
Well, it turns out that it did matter, but only briefly, and only to the people he killed, and the people who loved the people he killed. In a million years, Hitler will be as though he never existed. He’s the tree that fell in the forest while no one was around to see it or hear it fall. And the people he killed will also be as though they never existed.
What matters then is the moment . . . now. And the only moment that matters is that which I perceive. And if I act, always act, so as to create beauty, then for those brief moments that I exist, I may fulfill the only possible purpose for which I exist. And if I understand that beauty exists in many forms—a work of art surely, but also the smile of a child, the caress of a loved one, the rising of the sun, or its setting, the low whirring of a hummingbird’s wings as it caresses your path. These matter, even if only for the briefest moments. For those moments, I truly exist.. .
Then I corrected myself.
No, one day, it will remain, and only the image in my brain will be gone. But if there is no image in my brain, does it actually exist, this thing I now see? It’s the old, “if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, does the tree actually fall? Perhaps, if I am no longer here, then nothing exists.
So then, what are we all doing here? Are we all simply sitting around, waiting for Godot?
I think of the expression about people who, “are simply taking up space.” That is, they aren’t doing anything useful, but what is useful anyway? Is useful getting up in the morning, strapping on a vest filled with dynamite, driving to some crowded marketplace, and then detonating the vest?
Is useful deciding to feed a hungry child?
Is useful, then, a relative term, meaning, in the final analysis, exactly nothing?
In a million years, would being useful matter?
We fuss about such terminally stupid things, like whether two people of the same gender should be allowed to marry, while ignoring the fact that half of the “correctly married” will eventually divorce one another, some after great stress, and even violence. But of what consequence are such things anyway? Will the earth cease to rotate if we do one thing and not another?
Did it matter that Adolph Hitler decided to kill six million people simply because they were Jews, or Gypsies, or some other condition he deemed un-Germanic?
Well, it turns out that it did matter, but only briefly, and only to the people he killed, and the people who loved the people he killed. In a million years, Hitler will be as though he never existed. He’s the tree that fell in the forest while no one was around to see it or hear it fall. And the people he killed will also be as though they never existed.
What matters then is the moment . . . now. And the only moment that matters is that which I perceive. And if I act, always act, so as to create beauty, then for those brief moments that I exist, I may fulfill the only possible purpose for which I exist. And if I understand that beauty exists in many forms—a work of art surely, but also the smile of a child, the caress of a loved one, the rising of the sun, or its setting, the low whirring of a hummingbird’s wings as it caresses your path. These matter, even if only for the briefest moments. For those moments, I truly exist.. .
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Rupert & His Right Wing Whores
I guess the world has changed. It used to be that we thought yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre was a No-No. But in today’s weird world, we have the whole of the Fox network yelling “FIRE” daily, even hourly. Why, I wonder?.
What could this far right wing agenda really be all about?
I am tempted to consider Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity as mere right wing entertainers, the way I once looked upon Dennis Miller. But, whereas Miller simply told jokes about Bill Clinton, years after he had Bush as a potential target, these other guys really do seem to fit Hillary's definition of a "vast, right wing conspiracy." That they are well paid entertainers goes without saying. But who is pushing their buttons? And Why?
I keep coming up with Rupert Murdoch. He owns them, lock, stock and barrel--in that regard, I guess they're all just lively whores. Presumably, he could stop them, or urge them on. He chooses the latter. But, again, Why?
The "why" thing bothers me a lot. What is it Rupert wants, and why is nobody asking that question? I know, I know, we have this freedom of speech thing in this country.
But is this really just all about money? Does Rupert simply make a lot more money with his gang of right wing media thugs, than he would with responsible programming? Does anyone know? More to the point, I guess, is, does anyone in the country care?
I actually envision the possibility of a hard-right, fascistic takeover, or at the least, serious right wing violence triggered by this gang (I think of the Fox network as an anti-American, organized crime ring). They will deny any responsibility should that occur, because they lie for a living.
But do the rest of us have to simply sit back and allow them to destroy what is good about this country?
The only thing I can imagine is to boycott all of the advertisers who support both Fox and anything Rupert Murdoch owns.
Just a thought.
What could this far right wing agenda really be all about?
I am tempted to consider Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Hannity as mere right wing entertainers, the way I once looked upon Dennis Miller. But, whereas Miller simply told jokes about Bill Clinton, years after he had Bush as a potential target, these other guys really do seem to fit Hillary's definition of a "vast, right wing conspiracy." That they are well paid entertainers goes without saying. But who is pushing their buttons? And Why?
I keep coming up with Rupert Murdoch. He owns them, lock, stock and barrel--in that regard, I guess they're all just lively whores. Presumably, he could stop them, or urge them on. He chooses the latter. But, again, Why?
The "why" thing bothers me a lot. What is it Rupert wants, and why is nobody asking that question? I know, I know, we have this freedom of speech thing in this country.
But is this really just all about money? Does Rupert simply make a lot more money with his gang of right wing media thugs, than he would with responsible programming? Does anyone know? More to the point, I guess, is, does anyone in the country care?
I actually envision the possibility of a hard-right, fascistic takeover, or at the least, serious right wing violence triggered by this gang (I think of the Fox network as an anti-American, organized crime ring). They will deny any responsibility should that occur, because they lie for a living.
But do the rest of us have to simply sit back and allow them to destroy what is good about this country?
The only thing I can imagine is to boycott all of the advertisers who support both Fox and anything Rupert Murdoch owns.
Just a thought.
Friday, September 11, 2009
To Muse or not to Muse on 9/11
It’s 9/11 again, only without President Doofus and his gang of thugs. 9/11 always makes me wonder about a lot of things. For example, I still don’t know whether George W. Bush caused the attacks to occur, by doing nothing in response to an obvious threat, or whether the attacks were just one of those numerous awful global events that occur, like hurricanes and earthquakes. I remain convinced that the CIA was complicit, simply by being so inept. And that the FBI compounded the problem by their unwillingness to collaborate. But I still weep internally for the victims and their families. Assigning blame doesn't seem to help those people.
I continue to be amazed at all the continued killing around this poor benighted globe of ours. For a brief moment after 9/11, I hoped that perhaps mankind would declare all this killing crap off and sit down and actually talk to one another. How silly of me.
Now, I just wonder how long the world’s population needs to remain both this ignorant and this brutal, in the name of (take your pick) God, or Greed. I alternate myself. Isn’t this phenomenon, all by itself, proof that there is no Godly intervention in the affairs of mankind, and there never was? Note, it is not the case that global killing is proof that there is no God. On that we have no evidence. But, for me it is compelling evidence that God does not ever intervene.
But on another line of inquiry, I also have begun to wonder why such a large percentage of the world’s population needs to remain stuck mentally in the 12th century. Part of it, I know, is caused by religion, i.e., the conscious desire of the world’s religious leaders, regardless of their belief system, to keep their respective populations ignorant. But it seems to me that the people happily cooperate in this crazy endeavor. Some do escape, generally by a personal decision to actually use the brain with which they were born. But so many seem unwilling to rely on their own brain, and instead rely on someone else for their life directions (often crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Ayatollah, or the Pope). How else can you explain the personal decisions of people to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings full of people who have never harmed them? Or to strap on an explosive belt, walk into a crowded marketplace and explode themselves and dozens of innocents? Even given the inane promises made to them by charlatans who promise them a discrete supply of virgins after death (I wonder, do the virgins come supplied with wine and cheese--but I digress.), it seems a stretch that someone would actually buy into those crazy tales. Of course, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck sold people on the notion that Obama was creating death panels that would send grandma on her way to her own nirvana. And most of these people were actually “educated” in this country. So, I guess we should not be surprised that people living a 12th century life in an isolated village in the middle of Afghanistan, would buy into such crap.
But how long does this go on, I wonder, before someone makes a huge goof, and commits some act that triggers all the crazy people to push the buttons of global destruction? Do we all really need this kind of crazy lifestyle? I mean, waiting for Godot is one thing, but this seems totally whacko.
I did hope, for a while, that someone both intelligent and with a social conscience, President Obama for example, could talk us down from our nutso desire to blow up everything. But since the election, republicans have been doing their best to destroy my hopes. And I can’t even figure out what they really want? Should we all just march back into the 12th century, and allow republicans to dictate from on high? Give them all the money, and everyone else jump off a high building. Is that what they want?
But then I keep thinking of that old saw, “Suppose they gave a war . . . and nobody came?” Where’s Jon Lennon when we need him?
I continue to be amazed at all the continued killing around this poor benighted globe of ours. For a brief moment after 9/11, I hoped that perhaps mankind would declare all this killing crap off and sit down and actually talk to one another. How silly of me.
Now, I just wonder how long the world’s population needs to remain both this ignorant and this brutal, in the name of (take your pick) God, or Greed. I alternate myself. Isn’t this phenomenon, all by itself, proof that there is no Godly intervention in the affairs of mankind, and there never was? Note, it is not the case that global killing is proof that there is no God. On that we have no evidence. But, for me it is compelling evidence that God does not ever intervene.
But on another line of inquiry, I also have begun to wonder why such a large percentage of the world’s population needs to remain stuck mentally in the 12th century. Part of it, I know, is caused by religion, i.e., the conscious desire of the world’s religious leaders, regardless of their belief system, to keep their respective populations ignorant. But it seems to me that the people happily cooperate in this crazy endeavor. Some do escape, generally by a personal decision to actually use the brain with which they were born. But so many seem unwilling to rely on their own brain, and instead rely on someone else for their life directions (often crazy people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Ayatollah, or the Pope). How else can you explain the personal decisions of people to hijack airplanes and fly them into buildings full of people who have never harmed them? Or to strap on an explosive belt, walk into a crowded marketplace and explode themselves and dozens of innocents? Even given the inane promises made to them by charlatans who promise them a discrete supply of virgins after death (I wonder, do the virgins come supplied with wine and cheese--but I digress.), it seems a stretch that someone would actually buy into those crazy tales. Of course, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck sold people on the notion that Obama was creating death panels that would send grandma on her way to her own nirvana. And most of these people were actually “educated” in this country. So, I guess we should not be surprised that people living a 12th century life in an isolated village in the middle of Afghanistan, would buy into such crap.
But how long does this go on, I wonder, before someone makes a huge goof, and commits some act that triggers all the crazy people to push the buttons of global destruction? Do we all really need this kind of crazy lifestyle? I mean, waiting for Godot is one thing, but this seems totally whacko.
I did hope, for a while, that someone both intelligent and with a social conscience, President Obama for example, could talk us down from our nutso desire to blow up everything. But since the election, republicans have been doing their best to destroy my hopes. And I can’t even figure out what they really want? Should we all just march back into the 12th century, and allow republicans to dictate from on high? Give them all the money, and everyone else jump off a high building. Is that what they want?
But then I keep thinking of that old saw, “Suppose they gave a war . . . and nobody came?” Where’s Jon Lennon when we need him?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Republican Crankiness
Well, for heaven’s sake, I guess they were right after all, those cranky republicans. They didn’t want their kids exposed to President Obama’s socialist political message. I mean, if the school system isn’t a safe place, protected from all those nasty politicians from the wrong side of the tracks, where is?
And the President delivered just as they expected. What was his message?
Stay in school
Work hard
Listen to your teachers and your parents
Man, how unAmerican is that? This guy, our pseudo-president (see he’s not a real president, cuz he wasn’t born in Amurrica. He was born in Hawaii, and we all know what than means.) is appealing to kids to be rational and to pay attention to their academic studies.
Is he kidding? Doesn’t that sound like Commie propaganda? It’s obviously lifted directly from Mein Kampf, or some other Fascist, or socialist booklet.
These clever republicans have certainly acted in the best interests of their kids by keeping them home, or better yet taking them out to Pizza Hut. Wouldn’t want them exposed to a successful Black man, now would we?
And the President delivered just as they expected. What was his message?
Stay in school
Work hard
Listen to your teachers and your parents
Man, how unAmerican is that? This guy, our pseudo-president (see he’s not a real president, cuz he wasn’t born in Amurrica. He was born in Hawaii, and we all know what than means.) is appealing to kids to be rational and to pay attention to their academic studies.
Is he kidding? Doesn’t that sound like Commie propaganda? It’s obviously lifted directly from Mein Kampf, or some other Fascist, or socialist booklet.
These clever republicans have certainly acted in the best interests of their kids by keeping them home, or better yet taking them out to Pizza Hut. Wouldn’t want them exposed to a successful Black man, now would we?
Friday, September 4, 2009
Thinking Out Loud
Suppose, just suppose that George W. Bush was not an imbecile. I know, I know; it stretches the mind to imagine such a thing. But, just for laughs, suppose. And suppose, as a result, he actually understood what happened on 9/11—that is, that airplanes hijacked by mostly Saudi Arabians who had been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for destroying the World Trade Center, et al.
Now what would a smart person have done?
Attack Iraq? Hmmm, I think not.
I’m imagining that a truly smart person might have convened the world’s powerhouse nations, together with the world’s Muslim nations (wealth and power often don’t seem to go together) to decide that we had all had enough of this Jihad crap. That maybe it was time for the world to end the jihadi nonsense before it led to Armageddon.
Now the Taliban in Afghanistan, protecting Osama & Co., might have objected to such a meeting and such a decision, especially since they reside mentally somewhere in the 12th century. But screw them. Surely the world powers, with the help of the World’s Muslim Nations, could figure out a way to isolate the Taliban. Note, there isn’t any sensible way to quickly bring democracy to a country such as Afghanistan, with or without the Taliban. Democracy is a 20th century concept and the Afghans are a 12th century people. Never the twain shall meet.
But I’m thinking that the Europeans, the Arab sheiks/kings, even the Pakistanis, might have been convinced to cooperate in a global jihadi-pacification campaign, one that wouldn’t lead to destroying the world. Who knows, if we (the powers that be) actually managed to succeed in talking down the Irish from their decades-long campaign to terminate (with extreme prejudice) one another of their several religions, perhaps the Arabs and the Jews might have been convinced finally to end the 60-year war in Palestine.
Think of what the world would have thought of George then.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. But then Sadaam Hussein would still be in power. So what? So would the latest leader of North Korea. And so would the latest leader of Burma/Myanmar or whatever the hell it’s now called. And so would the crazies who now lead Iran.
And some of you are thinking, “yeah, but the world’s powers would never have agreed to any such thing.” Again, so what? How could we possibly have been worse off than we are right now?
Would our national debt now be in the range of $12 trillion?
Would Osama Bin Laden still be at large?
Would there still have been between four and five thousand American soldiers dead?
Would there still have been between 100,000 and one million Iraqi’s dead, not counting the several million refugees created by our war in Iraq?
Instead, because George W. Bush was an imbecile, and his cabal of neo-con-men and women pursued war policies only the stupid could love, we now have a president whose every option seems constrained by the idiocies that were put into place before him.
Makes the mind reel.
Now what would a smart person have done?
Attack Iraq? Hmmm, I think not.
I’m imagining that a truly smart person might have convened the world’s powerhouse nations, together with the world’s Muslim nations (wealth and power often don’t seem to go together) to decide that we had all had enough of this Jihad crap. That maybe it was time for the world to end the jihadi nonsense before it led to Armageddon.
Now the Taliban in Afghanistan, protecting Osama & Co., might have objected to such a meeting and such a decision, especially since they reside mentally somewhere in the 12th century. But screw them. Surely the world powers, with the help of the World’s Muslim Nations, could figure out a way to isolate the Taliban. Note, there isn’t any sensible way to quickly bring democracy to a country such as Afghanistan, with or without the Taliban. Democracy is a 20th century concept and the Afghans are a 12th century people. Never the twain shall meet.
But I’m thinking that the Europeans, the Arab sheiks/kings, even the Pakistanis, might have been convinced to cooperate in a global jihadi-pacification campaign, one that wouldn’t lead to destroying the world. Who knows, if we (the powers that be) actually managed to succeed in talking down the Irish from their decades-long campaign to terminate (with extreme prejudice) one another of their several religions, perhaps the Arabs and the Jews might have been convinced finally to end the 60-year war in Palestine.
Think of what the world would have thought of George then.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. But then Sadaam Hussein would still be in power. So what? So would the latest leader of North Korea. And so would the latest leader of Burma/Myanmar or whatever the hell it’s now called. And so would the crazies who now lead Iran.
And some of you are thinking, “yeah, but the world’s powers would never have agreed to any such thing.” Again, so what? How could we possibly have been worse off than we are right now?
Would our national debt now be in the range of $12 trillion?
Would Osama Bin Laden still be at large?
Would there still have been between four and five thousand American soldiers dead?
Would there still have been between 100,000 and one million Iraqi’s dead, not counting the several million refugees created by our war in Iraq?
Instead, because George W. Bush was an imbecile, and his cabal of neo-con-men and women pursued war policies only the stupid could love, we now have a president whose every option seems constrained by the idiocies that were put into place before him.
Makes the mind reel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)