I have often been frustrated by the willful ignorance and obstructionism of conservatives. I can understand defending one's point of view. I can even understand becoming emotionally invested in it. But I can't understand people, especially politicians, who are elected to serve this nation and it's people, who will lie as a method of simply winning.
Why don't these people reconsider their positions when presented with clear evidence that they are wrong?
Some of it has to do with the Dunning-Kruger effect. The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. We've all met them. People who are convinced that they are surrounded by a world full of idiots, or the lazy, or the immoral. But that doesn't answer everything. People have a comfort zone, and change of any kind annoys some, and terrifies others. But that's still not the whole answer.
I'm going to posit a very loose theory attached to an example. People who believe in, say, proclamations of doomsday prophecy, instead of rejecting those notions when the day never comes, often dive deeper into those beliefs. Why is that?
Certainly, the Dunning-Kruger effect is one answer, but another lies in power relationships. When people are presented with evidence that suggests they have lost the game, what options do they have? They can reconsider, repent, and change to the winning side, effectively negating their previous existence--a total loss of power. Or, they can begin creating conditions in which the game is not over, the rules have changed, and/or the game might be subverted. I use the term "create" because that's what it is, a fiction crafted of the mind to protect one's power.
When it looks like there are no moves left on the chessboard, what is the only move left? You kick over the table. Or, you create a third dimension of movement for pieces. Or, you challenge the legitimacy of your opponent's moves (facts).
Because of the postmodern age's focus on "relativistic truth', this seems like a fair and very effective maneuver to some. The losing party can remain alive forever in a constant stream of subversion, which, unfortunately, guarantees the halt of any possible progress.
They lie. They know they're lying. They know that we know they're lying. They don't care. I find this morally reprehensible.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Found Among the Ruins, and My Own Errant Thoughts
From Hank Fox:
The existence of the (GMO) technology doesn’t bother me in any extreme way. But that technology in the hands of nice corporations like Monsanto, in an oversight environment that includes a very friendly, very compliant pro-business government … that spooks me more than a little.
The downside of being emphatically yourself is that you can never slip easily into a group. You will always feel just a little bit ill-at-ease, a little bit off-balance, no matter where you are or who you’re with. For me, that price has almost always been acceptable. Still, I think I can understand the great numbers of us who make the other choice.
This is why I find the religious rights' passionate defense of marriage so amusing. A few excerpts from an article called: Marriage by Barbara G. Walker
Thomas Paine, in 1793, explains skepticism:
"The biggest failing of Libertarianism is the inability to distinguish liberty (the rights guaranteed by the state) from freedom (the practical ability to exercise those rights). Libertarianism ensures maximum liberty, but actual freedom is reserved only for the very rich."
-nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks
The deception began, at least in the modern age, with Milton Friedman, who said "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people...He moves fastest who moves alone."
This unflagging adherence to free-enterprise individualism is consistent with Social Darwinism , the belief that survival of the fittest (richest) will somehow benefit society, and that the millions of people suffering from financial malfeasance are simply lacking the motivation to help themselves. Social Darwinism is a feel-good delusion for those at the top. Or, as described by John Kenneth Galbraith, a continuing "search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
A tenet of progressivism is that a strong society will create opportunities for a greater number of people, thereby leading to more instances of individual success. This is the common sense attitude suppressed by conservatives for over 30 years.
There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.
A static society must break down sooner or later, one of the best examples for this is the late Soviet Union, where nothing new happened and which was completely dominated by old men who still evaluated everything in terms of an economy based on heavy industry. And when society breaks down (what it does regularly in human history, this is inevitable), most people will then lose the access to this life-prolonging technology.
I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance.
The existence of the (GMO) technology doesn’t bother me in any extreme way. But that technology in the hands of nice corporations like Monsanto, in an oversight environment that includes a very friendly, very compliant pro-business government … that spooks me more than a little.
The downside of being emphatically yourself is that you can never slip easily into a group. You will always feel just a little bit ill-at-ease, a little bit off-balance, no matter where you are or who you’re with. For me, that price has almost always been acceptable. Still, I think I can understand the great numbers of us who make the other choice.
This is why I find the religious rights' passionate defense of marriage so amusing. A few excerpts from an article called: Marriage by Barbara G. Walker
The word marriage came from the Latin maritare, union under the
auspices of the Goddess Aphrodite-Mari. Because the Goddess’s
patronage was constantly invoked in every aspect of marriage, Christian fathers were opposed to the institution. Origen declared, “Matrimony is impure and unholy, a means of sexual passion.” St. Jerome said the primary purpose of a man of God was “to cut down with an ax of Virginity the wood of Marriage”.(1) St. Ambrose said marriage was a crime against god, because it changed the state of virginity that God gave every man and woman at birth.(2)
St. Augustine flatly stated that marriage is a sin and St. Paul damned Marriage with faint praise, remarking that to marry was only better than to burn ( 1 cor. 7:9).
Saturninus said God made only two kinds of people, good men and evil women. Marriage perpetuated the deviltry of women, who dominated men through the magic of sex(8). Centuries later, St. Bernard still proclaimed that it was easier of a man to bring back the dead to life than to live with a woman without endangering ones soul.(9)
Priests abandoned the churches’ rule of celibacy and began to take wives during the 5th and 6th centuries. This continued to the 11th century, when papal decretals commanded married clergymen to turn their wives out of their homes and sell their children as slaves. (5) The church displayed remarkable reluctance to deal with the matter of marriage at all. During the Middle Ages there was no ecclesiastical definition of a valid marriage nor of any contract to validate one.
Churchmen seemed to have no ideas at all on the subject(6) The earliest form of Christian marriage was a simple blessing of the newly wedded, “in facie ecclesiae” –outside the churches closed doors– to keep the pollution of lust out of God’s house. This blessing was a technical violation of canon law, but it became popular and gradually won status.(7).
There was no sacrament of marriage until the 16th century (3). Catholic scholars say the wedding ceremony was “imposed on” a reluctant church, and “nothing is more remarkable that the tardiness with which liturgical forms for the marriage ceremony were evolved.” It is perhaps not remarkable to find that these liturgical forms were not evolved by the church at all, but borrowed from pagan common law (4).
1-William Fielding, Customs of Courtship and Marriage, 82, 114
2-Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol 3, 373
3-William Fielding, Customs of Courtship and Marriage, 233
4-Robert Briffault, The Mothers, Vol 3, 248-249
5-Jacobus de. Voragine, The Golden Legend, 90-91
6-Ronald Pearsall, The Worm in the Bud , 162-63
7-Encyclopedia Britannica, “Marriage”
8-Vern Bullough,The Subordinate Sex, 103, 112
9-Joseph Cambell, Myths to Live By, 95
Thomas Paine, in 1793, explains skepticism:
"Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet; as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.
Each of those churches shows certain books, which they call revelation, or the Word of God. The Jews say that their Word of God was given by God to Moses face to face; the Christians say, that their Word of God came by divine inspiration; and the Turks say, that their Word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from heaven. Each of those churches accuses the other of unbelief; and, for my own part, I disbelieve them all.
As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some observations on the word ‘revelation.’ Revelation when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hand of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so, the commandments carrying no internal evidence of divinity with them. They contain some good moral precepts such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver or a legislator could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention. [NOTE: It is, however, necessary to except the declamation which says that God 'visits the sins of the fathers upon the children'. This is contrary to every principle of moral justice.—Author.]
When I am told that the Koran was written in Heaven, and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes to near the same kind of hearsay evidence and second hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and therefore I have a right not to believe it.
When also I am told that a woman, called the Virgin Mary, said, or gave out, that she was with child without any cohabitation with a man, and that her betrothed husband, Joseph, said that an angel told him so, I have a right to believe them or not: such a circumstance required a much stronger evidence than their bare word for it: but we have not even this; for neither Joseph nor Mary wrote any such matter themselves. It is only reported by others that they said so. It is hearsay upon hearsay, and I do not chose to rest my belief upon such evidence."
"The biggest failing of Libertarianism is the inability to distinguish liberty (the rights guaranteed by the state) from freedom (the practical ability to exercise those rights). Libertarianism ensures maximum liberty, but actual freedom is reserved only for the very rich."
-nigelTheBold, Abbot of the Hoppist Monks
The deception began, at least in the modern age, with Milton Friedman, who said "The free market system distributes the fruits of economic progress among all people...He moves fastest who moves alone."
This unflagging adherence to free-enterprise individualism is consistent with Social Darwinism , the belief that survival of the fittest (richest) will somehow benefit society, and that the millions of people suffering from financial malfeasance are simply lacking the motivation to help themselves. Social Darwinism is a feel-good delusion for those at the top. Or, as described by John Kenneth Galbraith, a continuing "search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
A tenet of progressivism is that a strong society will create opportunities for a greater number of people, thereby leading to more instances of individual success. This is the common sense attitude suppressed by conservatives for over 30 years.
There is a very good reason evolution invented death. The cycle of life and death ensures that a species adapts much better to changing circumstances. Imagine a society where everybody is immortal. It quite inevitably culminates in an ultra-conservative nightmare, where “everything is like it was forever”. Imagine a society where the industry tycoons of the 19th century still own the majority of money and influence.
A static society must break down sooner or later, one of the best examples for this is the late Soviet Union, where nothing new happened and which was completely dominated by old men who still evaluated everything in terms of an economy based on heavy industry. And when society breaks down (what it does regularly in human history, this is inevitable), most people will then lose the access to this life-prolonging technology.
I am glad that death exists, and when my time arrives, I will go, to make place for the young generation. They deserve their chance.
Just So You Know Where My Head's At
Ah the good old days, back when there was actually such a thing as a lucid Republican. Granted, I disagreed with him on many issues. But that's the point. He was able to prioritize and discern real issues, rather than the stupidity and minutia that today's Republicans focus on.
This speaks for itself.
Pretty much sums it up.
Sound familiar?
Admittedly, I'm not as chipper as I once was....
This speaks for itself.
Pretty much sums it up.
Sound familiar?
Admittedly, I'm not as chipper as I once was....
Sympathy
I haven't posted in a while. My brother passed two months ago today. It was sudden and unexpected. One of those cancers that show little in the way of symptoms until it's too late.
I'm not exactly what one would call emotionally demonstrative, unless you count being perpetually glib an emotion. (Yeah, I know. Yada yada defense mechanism...I'm workin' on it, alright?). So I was caught off guard as far as how much his loss affected everything I was doing. Especially writing. I usually write a blog post down on paper, then go back and read it a day or so later. At that point, I usually think, "What crap", and try again.
You're welcome.
My brother and I weren't close growing up. He was 15 years older, and out on his own before I was really aware of his presence. As a teenager, I spent a couple of summers with him and his family. I had a lot of hair, and an equal amount of angst. But he was patient with me, and I was lucid enough between bong hits for some of it to take. He would occasionally get the look on his face that hard to describe. It was his way of calling bullshit when I did or said something stupid. Whatever it was, it worked.
After I became an adult, my brother and I found that we had two diametrically opposing political viewpoints. This made for some interesting Thanksgivings, and a couple of decades' worth of spirited emails.
For me, it began when Reagan was elected. I knew it was bad. Really bad. I knew that the consequences would be far-reaching. Being able to say, "I told you so" isn't as fun as I thought it would be.
I suspect now that, much of the time, my brother was playing devil's advocate in order to get me to think logically, and back up my opinions. If so, I owe him a debt of gratitude.
But what I've learned, is that logic and reason must be tempered with empathy and compassion. Otherwise, we tend to end up doing what is expedient, rather than what is right.
Part of my liberalism, and my atheism for that matter, is the belief that most people are good, decent, hard-working folks just trying to do the best they can. Sometimes this is little more than a carefully cultivated delusion. But it's a necessary one, I think. When I'm wrong, it is often spectacularly so. But the times I'm right more than make up for it. If I'm to err, I prefer it to be on the positive side. The problem is, that it requires a strength which I don't always posses. It's at these times, I tend to go into a sort of hibernation until it passes.
Otherwise, I run the risk of seeing, in my mind's eye, that look on my brother's face.
I'm not exactly what one would call emotionally demonstrative, unless you count being perpetually glib an emotion. (Yeah, I know. Yada yada defense mechanism...I'm workin' on it, alright?). So I was caught off guard as far as how much his loss affected everything I was doing. Especially writing. I usually write a blog post down on paper, then go back and read it a day or so later. At that point, I usually think, "What crap", and try again.
You're welcome.
My brother and I weren't close growing up. He was 15 years older, and out on his own before I was really aware of his presence. As a teenager, I spent a couple of summers with him and his family. I had a lot of hair, and an equal amount of angst. But he was patient with me, and I was lucid enough between bong hits for some of it to take. He would occasionally get the look on his face that hard to describe. It was his way of calling bullshit when I did or said something stupid. Whatever it was, it worked.
After I became an adult, my brother and I found that we had two diametrically opposing political viewpoints. This made for some interesting Thanksgivings, and a couple of decades' worth of spirited emails.
For me, it began when Reagan was elected. I knew it was bad. Really bad. I knew that the consequences would be far-reaching. Being able to say, "I told you so" isn't as fun as I thought it would be.
I suspect now that, much of the time, my brother was playing devil's advocate in order to get me to think logically, and back up my opinions. If so, I owe him a debt of gratitude.
But what I've learned, is that logic and reason must be tempered with empathy and compassion. Otherwise, we tend to end up doing what is expedient, rather than what is right.
Part of my liberalism, and my atheism for that matter, is the belief that most people are good, decent, hard-working folks just trying to do the best they can. Sometimes this is little more than a carefully cultivated delusion. But it's a necessary one, I think. When I'm wrong, it is often spectacularly so. But the times I'm right more than make up for it. If I'm to err, I prefer it to be on the positive side. The problem is, that it requires a strength which I don't always posses. It's at these times, I tend to go into a sort of hibernation until it passes.
Otherwise, I run the risk of seeing, in my mind's eye, that look on my brother's face.
Life Eternal
I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife. If you think I'm happy about that, you're wrong. The average 78 year lifespan of an American male is entirely too short for my liking.
On the other hand, if one were to think it through, eternal life would be a fate worse than death. After a relatively short time (compared to infinity), you would have thought your last original thought. No more sense of wonder, your every action done by rote. Assuming finite memory, you would eventually forget how you came to be, everyone you ever loved, everything you once thought important. Eternal life as a zombie? Thank you, no.
I'm sure there's a happy medium in there somewhere. We may even achieve it someday. How long is long enough to reach one's full potential? I'm sure the answer is as varied as every member of humanity.
Early in our relationship, I tried to explain to my wife (a believer) how I came to be an atheist. As I did so, I began to see a sort of fear, even panic behind her eyes. For days afterward, she was depressed. I felt horrible, and I've never brought up the subject again. I vowed then, that if a person's belief did them no harm, and gave them comfort, I'd leave them their illusion. In the end, they'll never even know they were wrong.
As for me, I've taken Carl Sagan's advice: "Better a hard truth, than a comforting fable."
Unfortunately, believers like my wife, people whose moral compass isn't swayed by people like Pat Robertson, and other prophets of hate too numerous to mention, are becoming an endangered species.
There are those, so conditioned by their beliefs, that they would cheerfully commit the most horrible of atrocities if they believed it to be the will of their god. For them, the wage of sin is death. Of course, their definition of sin is often a matter of convenience.
These arbitrary definitions are a common occurrence in the Middle East, and could easily be here, if Dominionists ever succeed in their efforts of doing away with the secular nature of our government.
It is these people that should be fought tooth and nail, with every resource at our disposal. Their vision of the future is this twisted, monocultural utopia where selfishness is a virtue, compassion is a sin, and diversity is not tolerated.
On the other hand, if one were to think it through, eternal life would be a fate worse than death. After a relatively short time (compared to infinity), you would have thought your last original thought. No more sense of wonder, your every action done by rote. Assuming finite memory, you would eventually forget how you came to be, everyone you ever loved, everything you once thought important. Eternal life as a zombie? Thank you, no.
I'm sure there's a happy medium in there somewhere. We may even achieve it someday. How long is long enough to reach one's full potential? I'm sure the answer is as varied as every member of humanity.
Early in our relationship, I tried to explain to my wife (a believer) how I came to be an atheist. As I did so, I began to see a sort of fear, even panic behind her eyes. For days afterward, she was depressed. I felt horrible, and I've never brought up the subject again. I vowed then, that if a person's belief did them no harm, and gave them comfort, I'd leave them their illusion. In the end, they'll never even know they were wrong.
As for me, I've taken Carl Sagan's advice: "Better a hard truth, than a comforting fable."
Unfortunately, believers like my wife, people whose moral compass isn't swayed by people like Pat Robertson, and other prophets of hate too numerous to mention, are becoming an endangered species.
There are those, so conditioned by their beliefs, that they would cheerfully commit the most horrible of atrocities if they believed it to be the will of their god. For them, the wage of sin is death. Of course, their definition of sin is often a matter of convenience.
These arbitrary definitions are a common occurrence in the Middle East, and could easily be here, if Dominionists ever succeed in their efforts of doing away with the secular nature of our government.
It is these people that should be fought tooth and nail, with every resource at our disposal. Their vision of the future is this twisted, monocultural utopia where selfishness is a virtue, compassion is a sin, and diversity is not tolerated.
Courage and Common Sense
Liberals aren't generally big fans of firearms. But there are those whose fear is such, that they would turn this country into an armed camp in order to feel secure.
The mistake that our founding fathers made was in assuming that their descendants would have courage and common sense.
Certainly, risk can be managed to a point (that's the common sense part). But after that, you begin trading liberty for what is often the illusion of security. As far as courage, well, the conservative obsession with the myth of a risk-free existence is indicative of a cowardice that is embarrassing to watch. Their response to that fear is to actually make things more dangerous. Maybe it's because they believe that it's not their liberty that they'll be trading.
There is no such thing as a risk-free existence, nor should there be (that way lies extinction). A certain amount of stress and strife is necessary. Of course we would prefer it to be more in the way of positive challenges. But, life is risk, and all the firepower in the world won't change that.
Big business, and the politicians that they own realized long ago that fear is a great tool for manipulating the masses. A very lucrative tool, at that. It's unlikely that those who crave power could ever take our freedom by force. But they don't have to. They have frightened people to the point where they've been gladly voting against their own interests, and selling their security and freedom, a little at a time, for decades.
It isn't a TV show, or a video game. I can guarantee that anyone who says that they could have prevented a tragedy like this, if only they had been present and armed, hasn't ever actually had real bullets shot at them. A firefight is the very definition of chaos, and, unlike TV, someone who is mortally wounded rarely has time to deliver a moving soliloquy before a graceful exit. The end is most often horrifying, undignified, and immediate.
It's impossible for a sane person to take a human life without some damage to the psyche. It's the curse of having imagination and empathy. In times of war, or self defense, it has to be overridden, and that's when the damage occurs.
Most recover, but like any injury, there are scars.
So when I read about people like Russell Pearce, and his armchair heroics, I find it decidedly less than credible.
Aurora
I won't go into much detail about the tragedy in Aurora. Nor will I address the question of gun control, and the NRA. The situation speaks for itself. We're just not listening. I will say this:
There is a difference between the 2nd Amendment's intent, and what's going on today. The founding fathers were worried about tyrannical government, and foreign invasions.
They never considered the possibility that their descendants would actually allow public policy to be decided by those whose only qualification is a large pocketbook. They never thought we'd be so short-sighted as to allow our nation to be sold out from under us for such a pittance. They trusted the future of this nation to us. Their mistake was assuming that we'd be worthy of that trust.
Indeed, I think they would feel betrayed, and that we deserve whatever we get for that betrayal.
And they would be right.
There is a difference between the 2nd Amendment's intent, and what's going on today. The founding fathers were worried about tyrannical government, and foreign invasions.
They never considered the possibility that their descendants would actually allow public policy to be decided by those whose only qualification is a large pocketbook. They never thought we'd be so short-sighted as to allow our nation to be sold out from under us for such a pittance. They trusted the future of this nation to us. Their mistake was assuming that we'd be worthy of that trust.
Indeed, I think they would feel betrayed, and that we deserve whatever we get for that betrayal.
And they would be right.
Logic, Reason, and Fascism
For years, I've been trying to figure out why a number of affluent, educated people in this country would suddenly (in my perception, at least) turn against logic, reason, science, history -- in short, reality. That is, until I had the difference between Philosophical Conservatism, and Political Conservatism explained to me.
Philosophical Conservatism is a tendency -- a way of thinking. Although I never agreed with those ideals, they were, at least, consistent. William F. Buckley was a Philosophical Conservative. Probably the last.
Political Conservatism is an ever-evolving set of talking points used by some, in an infantile attempt to get want what they want, when they want it, without having to go through the tedious process of discussion, debate, or even thinking things through to their logical conclusion.
Without reason and logic, one does not have opinions, one only has affectations. Here's a quote from Ortega's "Revolt of the Masses" He is writing here during the rise of Fascism, as a philosophical Liberal:
As for me, I'm too damn young to see history repeat itself.
Philosophical Conservatism is a tendency -- a way of thinking. Although I never agreed with those ideals, they were, at least, consistent. William F. Buckley was a Philosophical Conservative. Probably the last.
Political Conservatism is an ever-evolving set of talking points used by some, in an infantile attempt to get want what they want, when they want it, without having to go through the tedious process of discussion, debate, or even thinking things through to their logical conclusion.
Without reason and logic, one does not have opinions, one only has affectations. Here's a quote from Ortega's "Revolt of the Masses" He is writing here during the rise of Fascism, as a philosophical Liberal:
The "ideas" of the average man are not genuine ideas, nor is their possession culture. Whoever wishes to have ideas must first prepare himself to desire truth and to accept the rules of the game imposed by it. It is no use speaking of ideas when there is no acceptance of a higher authority to regulate them, a series of standards to which it is possible to appeal in a discussion. These standards are the principles on which culture rests. I am not concerned with the form they take. What I affirm is that there is no culture where there are no standards to which our fellow-man can have recourse…
Under Fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions. This is the new thing: the right not to be reasonable, the "reason of unreason." Here I see the most palpable manifestation of the new mentality of the masses, due to their having decided to rule society without the capacity for doing so. In their political conduct the structure of the new mentality is revealed in the rawest, most convincing manner. The average man finds himself with "ideas" in his head, but he lacks the faculty of ideation. He has no conception even of the rare atmosphere in which ideals live. He wishes to have opinions, but is unwilling to accept the conditions and presuppositions that underlie all opinion. Hence his ideas are in effect nothing more than appetites in words.
To have an idea means believing one is in possession of the reasons for having it, and consequently means believing that there is such a thing as reason, a world of intelligible truths. To have ideas, to form opinions, is identical with appealing to such an authority, submitting oneself to it, accepting its code and its decisions, and therefore believing that the highest form of intercommunication is the dialogue in which the reasons for our ideas are discussed. But the mass-man would feel himself lost if he accepted discussion, and instinctively repudiates the obligation of accepting that supreme authority lying outside himself. Hence the "new thing" in Europe is "to have done with discussions," and detestation is expressed for all forms of intercommunication, which imply acceptance of objective standards, ranging from conversation to Parliament, and taking in science. This means that there is a renunciation of the common life of barbarism. All the normal processes are suppressed in order to arrive directly at the imposition of what is desired. The hermeticism of the soul which, as we have seen before, urges the mass to intervene in the whole of public life.Sound familiar? Think about it the next time you watch a freak show disguised as a political debate.
As for me, I'm too damn young to see history repeat itself.
Pardon Me
I have a bit of a confession to make. About 10 years ago, I had a drug problem. It progressed as one might expect, and, as a result, I ended up a convicted felon. Stop for a moment, and think about those last two words. I'm betting that, without even a thought, they evoked an immediate negative response. It's not your fault. We've been conditioned to respond that way, myself included. The problem is, in a society where just about every human endeavor carries with it a zero-tolerance policy, it takes relatively little to become a felon.
When I first got out of prison, I was curious as to how I would be welcomed back into society, if at all. So, I posted my background (anonymously, of course) on a number of internet forums. I tried to make them as varied as possible. I wrote that I'd recently gotten released from prison for drug possession, and that I'd done 2½ years for what the state deemed a "non-dangerous, non-repetitive" crime.
The responses I got were, for the most part, negative. I expected that. I did commit a crime, after all. Though, in my defense, I can honestly say that I never committed any of the crimes usually associated with drug use (theft, fraud, domestic violence, and the like).
What I didn't expect was the level of venom associated with those negative responses. Up to, and including, death threats (posted anonymously, of course). What I learned from it was that, by and large, most believe that my debt to society will never be fully paid. That even my small trespass warrants a lifetime of second-class citizenship, no matter how well I live my life from here on.
So, I've come to accept that because of my mistakes, there will be certain things I will never have in this life.
I'll never have a job that will pay enough for me to own my own home, or retire, or have anything other than basic first aid as health care. I won't be able to buy my right to vote back, or own a firearm. (on that point, the only thing that would make me consider owning a firearm is the complete collapse of civilization, in which case, having permission to do so would be moot).
I've resigned myself to spending the rest of my days doing menial work in one service industry or another. So be it. In the scheme of things, I still have it better than most of the people on this planet, whose lives are often hard, brutal, and short. So, if I'm to serve, I'll endeavor to do it well.
Back in the days of sailing ships, if a sailor was found guilty of some transgression, the punishment was usually swift and severe. But afterward, when the 40 lashes, or whatever were done with, he was once again a member of the crew, and the incident was never spoken of again. It was simple economics, of course. There were a finite number of able-bodied men aboard ship, so they were of value. Now, there are more of us. So many, in fact, that even the best of us are considered inherently expendable.
So, I have a question for those of you who would wish me, and those like me, dead; Those for whom the claim of good citizenship is marked by the simple ability to follow orders. What happens when there are more of us, than there are of you?
Yeah, I don't know, either.
The responses I got were, for the most part, negative. I expected that. I did commit a crime, after all. Though, in my defense, I can honestly say that I never committed any of the crimes usually associated with drug use (theft, fraud, domestic violence, and the like).
What I didn't expect was the level of venom associated with those negative responses. Up to, and including, death threats (posted anonymously, of course). What I learned from it was that, by and large, most believe that my debt to society will never be fully paid. That even my small trespass warrants a lifetime of second-class citizenship, no matter how well I live my life from here on.
So, I've come to accept that because of my mistakes, there will be certain things I will never have in this life.
I'll never have a job that will pay enough for me to own my own home, or retire, or have anything other than basic first aid as health care. I won't be able to buy my right to vote back, or own a firearm. (on that point, the only thing that would make me consider owning a firearm is the complete collapse of civilization, in which case, having permission to do so would be moot).
I've resigned myself to spending the rest of my days doing menial work in one service industry or another. So be it. In the scheme of things, I still have it better than most of the people on this planet, whose lives are often hard, brutal, and short. So, if I'm to serve, I'll endeavor to do it well.
Back in the days of sailing ships, if a sailor was found guilty of some transgression, the punishment was usually swift and severe. But afterward, when the 40 lashes, or whatever were done with, he was once again a member of the crew, and the incident was never spoken of again. It was simple economics, of course. There were a finite number of able-bodied men aboard ship, so they were of value. Now, there are more of us. So many, in fact, that even the best of us are considered inherently expendable.
So, I have a question for those of you who would wish me, and those like me, dead; Those for whom the claim of good citizenship is marked by the simple ability to follow orders. What happens when there are more of us, than there are of you?
Yeah, I don't know, either.
Finding Logic
I've probably spent my whole life trying to figure out the Tea Party. Of course they weren't always called that, but these people have always been with us. I'm not talking about simply conservatism, though that's bad enough. That, I can understand to a degree. I don't agree with it, but I can at least see how they arrived at their (often incredibly wrong) conclusions.
No, I'm talking about folks who claim to venerate freedom, but would take it from their neighbor for the smallest of trespasses. Who claim to want a better world for their children, but have no problem sacrificing them to endless, pointless wars. People who hate and fear the one real constant in this world -- change.
I'm also talking about those they elect to hold public office. It's hard to tell which is worse: Those who seek power by pandering to fear and hatred, or those that give it to them. But I believe Paul Begala gives a good explanation in a recent article as to how we got to where we are today:
I can't understand people who's beliefs are so firmly held, that no amount of logic, reason, or quantifiable proof will sway them. They are, in fact, so adverse to this, that they would just as soon see this world end, rather than face any number of inconvenient truths.
To cite Mr. Begala again:
But I've realized that out of all the (deservedly negative) adjectives I've used to describe them,they are one thing above all others.
They are dangerous.
No, I'm talking about folks who claim to venerate freedom, but would take it from their neighbor for the smallest of trespasses. Who claim to want a better world for their children, but have no problem sacrificing them to endless, pointless wars. People who hate and fear the one real constant in this world -- change.
I'm also talking about those they elect to hold public office. It's hard to tell which is worse: Those who seek power by pandering to fear and hatred, or those that give it to them. But I believe Paul Begala gives a good explanation in a recent article as to how we got to where we are today:
Specifically, they did four things:After reading a news story about changing demographics in America, someone asked me if I was afraid that the white race would disappear. After quelling the urge to punch him in the nose, I told him that my concern was for the species as a whole, and that there was no such thing as a purebred human being, nor should there be (Change, remember?). They were less than happy with my response.
- Cut taxes (with a heavy tilt toward the rich).
- Caged two wars on the national credit card (one of which was against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no serious threat to America).
- Passed a prescription drug benefit with no pay-for (the first entitlement in American history without a revenue source), and deregulated Wall Street (which helped turn the American economy into a casino and touched off the Great Recession).
I can't understand people who's beliefs are so firmly held, that no amount of logic, reason, or quantifiable proof will sway them. They are, in fact, so adverse to this, that they would just as soon see this world end, rather than face any number of inconvenient truths.
To cite Mr. Begala again:
It has become a trope of the right to accuse Obama and the Democrats of trying to remake America in the image of Europe. That, of course, is silly as well as insulting to the people who gave us the Magna Carta and the Enlightenment, not to mention spaghetti. But in whose image would the radical Republicans remake us? Certainly not in the image of the Founding Fathers. The Republicans are already seeking to make Swiss cheese out of Mr. Madison's masterpiece, littering the Constitution with amendments on budgeting, the line-item veto, gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, restricting birthright citizenship, and more.These people hate knowledge, complexity; they hate the infernal need to explore. They are the petty, bigoted, greedy people who lack compassion, empathy, imagination, even common courtesy.
Seems to me the GOP seeks a banana republic: a toxic blend of right-wing populism, anti-intellectualism, debt defaults, and an end to the ladder of economic opportunity.
But I've realized that out of all the (deservedly negative) adjectives I've used to describe them,they are one thing above all others.
They are dangerous.
On the Tracks
A few days ago, Texas executed a Mexican national for the rape and murder of a 16 year-old girl in 1995. His guilt was never in question. But as a Mexican national, he had a right to notify his embassy or consulate at the time of his arrest. He was not informed of that right. President Obama, the United Nations and others asked Texas Governor, Rick Perry, to stay the execution, but he refused. In doing so, he violated a treaty we have not only with Mexico, but with every other civilized country on the planet. And we just told them all that our word is worth nothing. Governor Perry's motives had nothing to do with getting justice for a teenage girl, and everything to do with political expediency. The Supreme Court agreed with him. Killing someone was just their way of thumbing their collective noses at the feds, and at the President in particular. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, even innocence isn't enough to stay an execution. He once wrote,
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry our a death sentence properly reached."This is just one of many symptoms of a much larger, and potentially lethal, disease. I'll leave you with the words of Jon Nichols, who states it with more eloquence than I possess.
Face it, America. You've been bought and sold.
Only an idiot would believe our political leaders, regardless of their party affiliation, to be altruistic patriots who only want what's best for us. If you are in political power or if you are the CEO of a corporation, the last thing in the world that you want is to have a general populace that is capable of thinking for themselves or formulating their own opinions.
You want people to keep their words about the nation sweet, for fear that they might otherwise seem to be the bitter seeds of treason. You want people to think that "women's suffrage" means keeping them in the kitchen.
Sheep, brainless sheep who hold no concept of where they have been or where they are going, who need only to have a cloth of red, white, and blue waved in their faces to lead them. Oh and docile, too. Don't forget docile. Provided your bank account is sizable, your carnal needs are sated, and your TV is all reality, then it's all good, right?
We're standing on the railroad tracks. We can see the train coming, but we're too comfortable to get off. And yet we'll still probably be surprised when the train mows us down.
Sinner
I think the greatest damage done to humanity by religion, is the concept of original sin. To be sure, we are all flawed. Nothing is perfect, nor should it be. But that is not the same as the idea that we are all born unworthy, requiring of forgiveness by some divine being.
This concept isn't exclusive to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Almost all religions contain some facet of this idea. The folly of basing one's life on the fear of eternal damnation became obvious to me early on. It's a scam. Not even a good one. We were told that we had a disease, and that God was the only cure. Later on, as the lie gained more power, we were told that we had a disease, and if we didn't take their cure and tell everyone how great it is, we'd be tortured and killed. Why wait for damnation?
Even today, there are politicians in this country that would have no problem bringing back the Inquisition. We are so saturated by batshit crazy, that it's now become the new norm.
Consider, a newborn has no capacity for good or evil. Both are things that are learned. A brand new human being is almost pure potential -- and a learning machine. The first year or two is spent establishing neural pathways, and beta testing the ol' pattern recognition software. In short, we observe.
If what we witness is hatefulness and stupidity, especially if actively reinforced later, then we tend to turn out hateful and stupid. Luckily, the opposite is also true. Of course there are exceptions. Randomness makes the universe interesting.
Original Sin is a get-out-of-jail-free card that absolves us of responsibility, and reinforces the scam. Kahlil Gibran once said that we are not completely blameless for the crimes done against us. This world is a collective reality that we are all responsible for. If there is too much evil, and not enough good in it, then it is not God's will, but our own.
This concept isn't exclusive to Judeo-Christian beliefs. Almost all religions contain some facet of this idea. The folly of basing one's life on the fear of eternal damnation became obvious to me early on. It's a scam. Not even a good one. We were told that we had a disease, and that God was the only cure. Later on, as the lie gained more power, we were told that we had a disease, and if we didn't take their cure and tell everyone how great it is, we'd be tortured and killed. Why wait for damnation?
Even today, there are politicians in this country that would have no problem bringing back the Inquisition. We are so saturated by batshit crazy, that it's now become the new norm.
Consider, a newborn has no capacity for good or evil. Both are things that are learned. A brand new human being is almost pure potential -- and a learning machine. The first year or two is spent establishing neural pathways, and beta testing the ol' pattern recognition software. In short, we observe.
If what we witness is hatefulness and stupidity, especially if actively reinforced later, then we tend to turn out hateful and stupid. Luckily, the opposite is also true. Of course there are exceptions. Randomness makes the universe interesting.
Original Sin is a get-out-of-jail-free card that absolves us of responsibility, and reinforces the scam. Kahlil Gibran once said that we are not completely blameless for the crimes done against us. This world is a collective reality that we are all responsible for. If there is too much evil, and not enough good in it, then it is not God's will, but our own.
Nothing changes
Among all the images floating around the internet, I came across this.
Does the rhetoric sound familiar? Trade Kennedy's face for Obama's, and it could have been written today.
They call themselves the Tea Party, but they've always been around. The intolerant, ultra-religious, racist, mouth-breathing fools may always be with us.
We fail to impart the mistakes we've made to our children, so the cycle repeats. Or, worse, we feed them the poison that was fed to us, and the ignorance continues.
They call themselves the Tea Party, but they've always been around. The intolerant, ultra-religious, racist, mouth-breathing fools may always be with us.
We fail to impart the mistakes we've made to our children, so the cycle repeats. Or, worse, we feed them the poison that was fed to us, and the ignorance continues.
How the world works
Just in case you were wondering...
UPDATE:
This apparently offended someone, as they hacked my site, replacing the image above with something much more poorly drawn. Dang kids on 4chan...
This apparently offended someone, as they hacked my site, replacing the image above with something much more poorly drawn. Dang kids on 4chan...
The Death of Religion
A recent BBC News story says that the end of religion is inevitable, and uses census data and physics to prove it. The irony of this is not lost on me. If accurate, it would also be the death of the root cause of two thousand years of death and horror. From radical Islam, to the extreme religious right in this country, and everything that has come before, religion has kept humanity stunted and ignorant.
Why value this life, or anything in it, when you've some mythical heaven to look forward to?
What I personally resent most is the myth perpetrated by the religious, that in order to be a good person, one must believe in a deity. Or, conversely, that one is evil if they believe in no god.
Buffalo bagels.
The greatest evils have been done in the name of god. When reading the bible, it's apparent early on that god is petty, even on human terms, which leads me to believe that the book was written by men. Ignorant, petty men who sought power over others. The same type of men that today, use religion for personal gain.
When legislation regarding uranium mining is enacted by those who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, the irony and dangerous ignorance is hard to miss. It's the kind of thing that can get people dead.
Were religion to be replaced by logic and reason, the world would be a better place. After all, decency and altruism are logical concepts.
The lord isn't my shepherd, because I know the ultimate fate of the shepherd's flock.
Why value this life, or anything in it, when you've some mythical heaven to look forward to?
What I personally resent most is the myth perpetrated by the religious, that in order to be a good person, one must believe in a deity. Or, conversely, that one is evil if they believe in no god.
Buffalo bagels.
The greatest evils have been done in the name of god. When reading the bible, it's apparent early on that god is petty, even on human terms, which leads me to believe that the book was written by men. Ignorant, petty men who sought power over others. The same type of men that today, use religion for personal gain.
When legislation regarding uranium mining is enacted by those who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, the irony and dangerous ignorance is hard to miss. It's the kind of thing that can get people dead.
Were religion to be replaced by logic and reason, the world would be a better place. After all, decency and altruism are logical concepts.
The lord isn't my shepherd, because I know the ultimate fate of the shepherd's flock.
Conservatism by the numbers
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." ~William E. Gladstone, 1866
I think I figured out what been happening to this country. The extreme religious right has gotten a serious toehold, via the Tea Party, and morally weak republicans. The middle class has all but been wiped out, and now comes their assault on the poor.
Since the Reagan administration, class politics in the US has waned; the Republican Party benefits from the fact that many lower-income citizens vote against their economic interests because they oppose the social liberalism of the Democratic Party.
Many vote against tax increases on the rich, because even if they themselves are not wealthy, there is a tiny chance they one day will be. There is also the prevailing mythology that the wealthy class earned their place and should not be punished. They somehow believe that the rich will show some sort of loyalty or gratitude to their servants.
I've noticed that conservative humor usually ends with a punchline that describes a (woman / liberal / poor / person of color) being killed, maimed or imprisoned (in order of their preference).
Like the 91 year-old freshman senator (Freshman? Really?) from New Hampshire who recently resigned after suggesting the the mentally ill be shipped off to Siberia. Or the State Rep. from Kansas who thinks illegal immigrants should be hunted from helicopter, and shot "like pigs". Both claimed that they were just joking. Well, they though it was funny...
The playbook from the extreme right must include this:
I think I figured out what been happening to this country. The extreme religious right has gotten a serious toehold, via the Tea Party, and morally weak republicans. The middle class has all but been wiped out, and now comes their assault on the poor.
Since the Reagan administration, class politics in the US has waned; the Republican Party benefits from the fact that many lower-income citizens vote against their economic interests because they oppose the social liberalism of the Democratic Party.
Many vote against tax increases on the rich, because even if they themselves are not wealthy, there is a tiny chance they one day will be. There is also the prevailing mythology that the wealthy class earned their place and should not be punished. They somehow believe that the rich will show some sort of loyalty or gratitude to their servants.
I've noticed that conservative humor usually ends with a punchline that describes a (woman / liberal / poor / person of color) being killed, maimed or imprisoned (in order of their preference).
Like the 91 year-old freshman senator (Freshman? Really?) from New Hampshire who recently resigned after suggesting the the mentally ill be shipped off to Siberia. Or the State Rep. from Kansas who thinks illegal immigrants should be hunted from helicopter, and shot "like pigs". Both claimed that they were just joking. Well, they though it was funny...
The playbook from the extreme right must include this:
This works for politicians, pundits, corrupt county sheriffs, equally corrupt corporate CEO's, insane cult leaders - essentially any conservative who is focused on their own interests, to the exclusion of all else.
- Use apocalyptic rhetoric that exacerbates fear, bigotry and extremism among the uneducated and intolerant.
- Counter any liberal criticism of your inflammatory calls for action by saying they can't take a joke.
- Keep turning up the heat and act shocked when somebody heeds your calls for extreme action.
- Be sure to maintain you were only speaking figuratively and you are being unfairly blamed when violence occurs (extra credit for insinuating that liberals set this up themselves).
- Keep your celebrations behind closed doors.
American Media
Ok, so I'm a boomer (although just barely, thank you). I remember Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, John Chancellor, and others growing up. They just reported the news. They did it without spin, innuendo, and to the best of their ability, truthfully.
I'm not usually prone to nostalgia, but like so many other things, the decline of American journalism was too subtle for me to notice. I was too busy with the day to day business of living to take notice. I bear some of the blame for neglecting my duty as a citizen, and assuming that simply voting was enough. It's my country - my government, and I should have more informed and involved. I don't know if I could have made a difference, but at least I'd have the comfort of knowing I tried.
So here we are.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday. While doing so, she made some long overdue comparisons of the American media to Al-Jazeera. She said,
I figured it out about a year ago. I'd had it with the right-wing lies of Fox, the left-wing cheerleading of MSNBC, and the fluff of CNN. The only real news I was getting was from the Daily Show. As much as I like Jon Stewart, it wasn't enough.
My first stop was NPR, but their perspective was inherently American. The BBC was the next step. It's been the standard for exceptional journalism for years, though I often had to wade through a lot that I found less than relevant. Then I found Al-Jazeera. It was an eye-opener. I was outraged at some things. They would have people on that were blatantly anti-American. In some instances I could understand why they felt the way they did. Our foreign policy over the last half-century has been less than honorable. In other instances, their guests were simply the mirror image of the extreme religious right in this country. Opposing views, but the same hate.
Then I took notice, not so much of the content, but how it was presented. Whether pro, anti, or neutral, the reporting was just that, backed up by empirical data and sources.
It was then I realized how far we'd fallen. The American media isn't in the business of providing factual information to people. It's in business to sell the attention spans of those watching to other corporations. I'd like to think it's more complex than that, but it really is that simple.
No ethics, no integrity. Just money.
Somewhere along the way, big business decided that every human thought, every human endeavor, was theirs to profit from. No regard for privacy, or ethics. No thought as to what is morally or socially acceptable. It's whatever one can get away with. If it happens to be against the law, well, that's what lobbyists and campaign contributions are for. Perhaps it's always been that way. It's just more pronounced now.
This is America with Republicorp running things.
No more middle class. Just the stockholders, and those that serve them.
I'm not usually prone to nostalgia, but like so many other things, the decline of American journalism was too subtle for me to notice. I was too busy with the day to day business of living to take notice. I bear some of the blame for neglecting my duty as a citizen, and assuming that simply voting was enough. It's my country - my government, and I should have more informed and involved. I don't know if I could have made a difference, but at least I'd have the comfort of knowing I tried.
So here we are.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last Wednesday. While doing so, she made some long overdue comparisons of the American media to Al-Jazeera. She said,
“In fact viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,” Clinton said. “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”Perhaps she was following the lead of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Juliette Kayyem, who urged cable providers to carry al Jazeera in her recent oped, “Let us see Al-Jazeera”.
I figured it out about a year ago. I'd had it with the right-wing lies of Fox, the left-wing cheerleading of MSNBC, and the fluff of CNN. The only real news I was getting was from the Daily Show. As much as I like Jon Stewart, it wasn't enough.
My first stop was NPR, but their perspective was inherently American. The BBC was the next step. It's been the standard for exceptional journalism for years, though I often had to wade through a lot that I found less than relevant. Then I found Al-Jazeera. It was an eye-opener. I was outraged at some things. They would have people on that were blatantly anti-American. In some instances I could understand why they felt the way they did. Our foreign policy over the last half-century has been less than honorable. In other instances, their guests were simply the mirror image of the extreme religious right in this country. Opposing views, but the same hate.
Then I took notice, not so much of the content, but how it was presented. Whether pro, anti, or neutral, the reporting was just that, backed up by empirical data and sources.
It was then I realized how far we'd fallen. The American media isn't in the business of providing factual information to people. It's in business to sell the attention spans of those watching to other corporations. I'd like to think it's more complex than that, but it really is that simple.
No ethics, no integrity. Just money.
Somewhere along the way, big business decided that every human thought, every human endeavor, was theirs to profit from. No regard for privacy, or ethics. No thought as to what is morally or socially acceptable. It's whatever one can get away with. If it happens to be against the law, well, that's what lobbyists and campaign contributions are for. Perhaps it's always been that way. It's just more pronounced now.
This is America with Republicorp running things.
No more middle class. Just the stockholders, and those that serve them.
Time and Distance
So, we have a little over a week's worth of distance from this tragedy. One goes through certain stages in a situation like this. Shock, disbelief and grief initially. Then anger and outrage, aggravated as I witnessed the transparent attempt by those on the right to deflect blame from themselves, and assign it to others. It only got worse as the days wore on.
There was Sarah Palin's video (which I could only watch in 30 second intervals, punctuated by a lot of drinking.), in which she portrayed herself as the true victim in all of this. It was such an embarrassing, self-serving display of insensitivity, that any presidential aspirations she may have had probably ended right there. Then again, Arizona recently elected a governor who can barely form complete sentences, and those she can form are often lies. I never underestimate stupidity. Palin's latest quote is, "I will not shut up!" There's a surprise.
Then there was Trent Humphries, co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party, who had the distinction of being the first person of the extreme right to actually blame the victims for the crime against them (I would have bet money on Fox). Immediately after which, he began to express fear for the safety of himself, the Tea Party, and his family (in that order, I assume). Before this, many, including myself, hadn't even heard of him. I believe his initial inflammatory statements were designed, at least in part, to rectify that situation. The most recent incident happened at a town hall meeting, at which Eric Fuller, one of the victims of the shooting, was arrested after taking a picture of Humpries, and muttering "Your dead." It's my belief that Mr. Fuller should have stayed home. The trauma of being shot, and watching those around him brutally murdered was only a few days old, and I think he was still in shock. I also believe that Mr. Humpries knew this, and deliberately provoked a man he knew to be in a fragile state of mind. When Humphries was asked if he wanted to press charges, he declined (smartest move yet).
Right. What is it with sociopaths always referring to themselves in the third person?
I could call Humphries a subhuman slug, but it would be doing a disservice to slugs everywhere.
There are others. Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, all whose comments I found to be offensive and tiresome.
It's my belief that everyone of conscience, no matter their ideology, asked themselves the same thing at some point after the shooting:
"Did I do anything to contribute to this?"
In the end, the answer isn't nearly as important as having the decency to ask the question in the first place. And in what may be the few positive things to come out of this, it became painfully easy to spot those who didn't look inward. Whose first thought was to protect themselves and their ideologies. They fear to look into their own hearts, because of what looks back at them from the darkness. It is, more than anything over the last two years, the greatest measure of their lack of integrity and character. And that's a good thing.
Because now we know who they truly are.
There was Sarah Palin's video (which I could only watch in 30 second intervals, punctuated by a lot of drinking.), in which she portrayed herself as the true victim in all of this. It was such an embarrassing, self-serving display of insensitivity, that any presidential aspirations she may have had probably ended right there. Then again, Arizona recently elected a governor who can barely form complete sentences, and those she can form are often lies. I never underestimate stupidity. Palin's latest quote is, "I will not shut up!" There's a surprise.
Then there was Trent Humphries, co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party, who had the distinction of being the first person of the extreme right to actually blame the victims for the crime against them (I would have bet money on Fox). Immediately after which, he began to express fear for the safety of himself, the Tea Party, and his family (in that order, I assume). Before this, many, including myself, hadn't even heard of him. I believe his initial inflammatory statements were designed, at least in part, to rectify that situation. The most recent incident happened at a town hall meeting, at which Eric Fuller, one of the victims of the shooting, was arrested after taking a picture of Humpries, and muttering "Your dead." It's my belief that Mr. Fuller should have stayed home. The trauma of being shot, and watching those around him brutally murdered was only a few days old, and I think he was still in shock. I also believe that Mr. Humpries knew this, and deliberately provoked a man he knew to be in a fragile state of mind. When Humphries was asked if he wanted to press charges, he declined (smartest move yet).
"I am more worried about our community," he said. "This doesn't need to be about Trent Humphries. This doesn't need to be about politics."
Right. What is it with sociopaths always referring to themselves in the third person?
I could call Humphries a subhuman slug, but it would be doing a disservice to slugs everywhere.
There are others. Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, all whose comments I found to be offensive and tiresome.
It's my belief that everyone of conscience, no matter their ideology, asked themselves the same thing at some point after the shooting:
"Did I do anything to contribute to this?"
In the end, the answer isn't nearly as important as having the decency to ask the question in the first place. And in what may be the few positive things to come out of this, it became painfully easy to spot those who didn't look inward. Whose first thought was to protect themselves and their ideologies. They fear to look into their own hearts, because of what looks back at them from the darkness. It is, more than anything over the last two years, the greatest measure of their lack of integrity and character. And that's a good thing.
Because now we know who they truly are.
Oh, Me of Little Faith
I believe in religious freedom, though I am, myself, an atheist. I can honestly say that I would protect, with my life if necessary, my neighbor's right to believe according to the dictates of their conscience. I do this partly because I think it is my duty as a citizen. If I don't love your freedom as I do my own, then none of us is free, and freedom itself becomes a lie. My other reason is enlightened self-interest. I know that the same laws that protect a person's right to believe, also protect my right not to. Such was the wisdom of those in the beginning.
But I am not completely devoid of belief. I believe that there is some good in everyone. Intellectually, of course, I know this not to be true. Evil exists, and it's sources are as varied as humanity itself. And at the end of the day, there is no Karma -- nothing to magically set things right with the universe.
This delusional belief in the goodness of humanity is something I cling to, because it protects me against what I've all too often witnessed as the dreariness, the hopelessness, and the futility of the human condition. The lack of compassion. The inability to imagine oneself in another's shoes. The willingness to, without hesitation or regret, give up the lives of your countrymen to protect your own. These are character traits that are, at best, dishonorable.
As of late, I've had some trouble with reality. Not its absence, but its intrusion. What little faith I hold is shaken, and I have no idea how to fix it. I've resolved to try and be more kind and patient with those around me. I'm not sure it will help, but I'm pretty certain that will do no harm.
So, you may find me somewhat less than "chipper" in the coming days. I've no doubt that will come as a relief to some of you. Enjoy it while it lasts. To the others, it is my hope that you also find me worthy of your patience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
I wrote the above on a piece of paper at work this morning. It was not a good day, and it got no better as it wore on.
When I moved here three years ago, something odd happened. For the first time in almost a half century of existence, I felt a sense of community. I can see now why people find the concept so appealing. I have friends, a job, and a great fondness for my employers, my co-workers, and my customers.
There is, of course, a down side. When one becomes emotionally invested in a place and it's people, and harm comes to them, their pain becomes your own. You feel grief...and rage. I've felt it to a certain extent all day.
One the way home from work, I passed by the office of Gabrielle Giffords. I saw the people, the signs, the candles, and the rage and grief came anew.
Jared Loughner is someone who malfunctioned beyond any hope of rehabilitation or redemption. The greatest kindness we could give him would be a quick death. But at the moment, kindness is the last thing I feel. I know that in this world, there are worse things than death. Some of these things, I've been unfortunate enough to witness. It is my hope that before he dies, Jared Loughner experiences every one of them.
The rage will pass, and the words I write now will shame me. Rightly so. But perhaps by the act of writing them, I can rid myself of this wretched feeling.
But...not yet.
But I am not completely devoid of belief. I believe that there is some good in everyone. Intellectually, of course, I know this not to be true. Evil exists, and it's sources are as varied as humanity itself. And at the end of the day, there is no Karma -- nothing to magically set things right with the universe.
This delusional belief in the goodness of humanity is something I cling to, because it protects me against what I've all too often witnessed as the dreariness, the hopelessness, and the futility of the human condition. The lack of compassion. The inability to imagine oneself in another's shoes. The willingness to, without hesitation or regret, give up the lives of your countrymen to protect your own. These are character traits that are, at best, dishonorable.
As of late, I've had some trouble with reality. Not its absence, but its intrusion. What little faith I hold is shaken, and I have no idea how to fix it. I've resolved to try and be more kind and patient with those around me. I'm not sure it will help, but I'm pretty certain that will do no harm.
So, you may find me somewhat less than "chipper" in the coming days. I've no doubt that will come as a relief to some of you. Enjoy it while it lasts. To the others, it is my hope that you also find me worthy of your patience.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
I wrote the above on a piece of paper at work this morning. It was not a good day, and it got no better as it wore on.
When I moved here three years ago, something odd happened. For the first time in almost a half century of existence, I felt a sense of community. I can see now why people find the concept so appealing. I have friends, a job, and a great fondness for my employers, my co-workers, and my customers.
There is, of course, a down side. When one becomes emotionally invested in a place and it's people, and harm comes to them, their pain becomes your own. You feel grief...and rage. I've felt it to a certain extent all day.
One the way home from work, I passed by the office of Gabrielle Giffords. I saw the people, the signs, the candles, and the rage and grief came anew.
Jared Loughner is someone who malfunctioned beyond any hope of rehabilitation or redemption. The greatest kindness we could give him would be a quick death. But at the moment, kindness is the last thing I feel. I know that in this world, there are worse things than death. Some of these things, I've been unfortunate enough to witness. It is my hope that before he dies, Jared Loughner experiences every one of them.
The rage will pass, and the words I write now will shame me. Rightly so. But perhaps by the act of writing them, I can rid myself of this wretched feeling.
But...not yet.
Saturation of stupidity
Yesterday, at a local Safeway, a disturbed young man shot a number of people, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, federal judge John Roll, and a nine-year-old child. I didn't comment. Partly because I wanted more information, but mostly I was too angry and heartsick to form coherent thoughts.
From what I've read, and the YouTube videos I've seen, Jared Loughner was a disturbed individual, and quite probably mentally ill. Because of this, I'm told that I should not consider this a politically motivated act.
Bullshit.
Rep. Giffords' office is just around the corner from where I live. During the health care debate, there were Tea Party picketers on that corner, as was their right. But their shouts at passing cars, and the signs they carried were troubling and offensive. After the vote on health care, her offices were vadalized. During the mid-terms, her political opponent's Tea Party followers placed signs across the street that came strategically short of promoting direct physical violence.
For the last two years, we've been inundated by the right with lies, omissions, and ad hominem attacks. And I'm not even counting the clinically insane things said, which served only to gain or divert attention. Fox news' unending string of propaganda does a huge disservice to those who naively look to them for actual news. They know this. How could they not?
To Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and all the corporate ghouls that control them, hate is just another commodity to be packaged and sold to the masses.
You can't saturate a nation with this sort of stupidity, and not expect someone, mentally ill or not, to react to it.
Now it has come to this. We live in a nation where a valid argument against one's opponent is that he is too smart. A nation where a significant percentage of people consider quantifiable, demonstrable proof of something to be merely opinion. A nation that rewrites it's own history when it makes them uncomfortable. A nation that changes it's constitution when they find it to be inconvenient. A nation that values expediency over what is right.
And, perhaps someday, a nation of people no longer worthy of their liberty.
From what I've read, and the YouTube videos I've seen, Jared Loughner was a disturbed individual, and quite probably mentally ill. Because of this, I'm told that I should not consider this a politically motivated act.
Bullshit.
Rep. Giffords' office is just around the corner from where I live. During the health care debate, there were Tea Party picketers on that corner, as was their right. But their shouts at passing cars, and the signs they carried were troubling and offensive. After the vote on health care, her offices were vadalized. During the mid-terms, her political opponent's Tea Party followers placed signs across the street that came strategically short of promoting direct physical violence.
For the last two years, we've been inundated by the right with lies, omissions, and ad hominem attacks. And I'm not even counting the clinically insane things said, which served only to gain or divert attention. Fox news' unending string of propaganda does a huge disservice to those who naively look to them for actual news. They know this. How could they not?
To Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin and all the corporate ghouls that control them, hate is just another commodity to be packaged and sold to the masses.
You can't saturate a nation with this sort of stupidity, and not expect someone, mentally ill or not, to react to it.
Now it has come to this. We live in a nation where a valid argument against one's opponent is that he is too smart. A nation where a significant percentage of people consider quantifiable, demonstrable proof of something to be merely opinion. A nation that rewrites it's own history when it makes them uncomfortable. A nation that changes it's constitution when they find it to be inconvenient. A nation that values expediency over what is right.
And, perhaps someday, a nation of people no longer worthy of their liberty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)