I've been watching with interest the incidents of unprovoked police brutality against the Occupy protesters. Most people can't figure out why the police would do harm to people who obviously pose no threat to them. But I've seen it before. It's a trick prison guards have been using for years.
If a person feels a sharp, unexpected pain - say, a jab in the ribs with a billy club - their first instinct is to lash out at whatever is causing that pain. Being a prison guard isn't exactly the greatest job in the world. They're overworked, underpaid, and generally treated like crap by their employers. There were times I actually felt sorry for them. My sympathy usually evaporated fairly quickly, as the guards' working conditions tended to make them surly, and mean-spirited. They would invariably take out those frustrations on us.
They were trying to provoke us into doing or saying something stupid, which would then give them an excuse to beat us down, and toss us in the hole. I caught on pretty quickly. Some guys never did get it.
They did this, essentially out of boredom. It was a little excitement to break up their day. I suspect the actions of the police are a little more politically motivated. I think the police are actually trying to incite a riot, thereby discrediting the movement. It is my hope the the protesters see this tactic for what it is.
There is an upside. A sort of conditioning takes effect. Consequently, I can now take a fair amount of pain, and still retain my reason and restraint.
We could always tell if an inmate was new, because whenever a guard did something senseless and mean, the new guy would always ask why.
The guard's answer was so consistent, that I actually think it's a part of their training.
When asked, "Why?" The response was always, "Because we can."
Early morning weirdness
I came across this, and while watching, something odd happened.
People often make fun of the way Carl Sagan spoke (billions and billions). For me, it's easy to overlook, because what I hear -- what comes through the loudest, is his genuine love of science and nature.
Like my father, I'm not exactly what one would call emotionally demonstrative. Unless one counts being perpetually glib as an emotion.
So, I was surprised when tears began to well up while watching this. For a number of reasons, I suppose. Pride in what we've accomplished. Grief for what we've lost. For an instant, I was 9 years old again, and all that hope and wonder came rushing back. But only for an instant.
Then the memories of all that has happened since intruded. All of the imagination and vision that put us on the moon has somehow turned into pettiness and cruelty. Once we had leaders who imagined the world a better place. Now we have those who can't imagine anything more that their own immediate self-interest. We have others who believe this world is destined to be destroyed by some mythical deity, and are scrambling to get what they can from it before the end. They're blind to the inherent conflict between their supposed beliefs, and their actions.
It took a relatively short time for humanity to somehow become less human. To become a people who cheer the death of one of our own who can't afford to stay alive. People who consider compassion and empathy to be character flaws.
There is a difference between being pragmatic, and giving up.
I admit, my ignorance on a wide variety of subjects could fill volumes...or, actually, not. But I do know one thing with a certainty I've never felt before.
The past should never hold more hope than the future.
Like my father, I'm not exactly what one would call emotionally demonstrative. Unless one counts being perpetually glib as an emotion.
So, I was surprised when tears began to well up while watching this. For a number of reasons, I suppose. Pride in what we've accomplished. Grief for what we've lost. For an instant, I was 9 years old again, and all that hope and wonder came rushing back. But only for an instant.
Then the memories of all that has happened since intruded. All of the imagination and vision that put us on the moon has somehow turned into pettiness and cruelty. Once we had leaders who imagined the world a better place. Now we have those who can't imagine anything more that their own immediate self-interest. We have others who believe this world is destined to be destroyed by some mythical deity, and are scrambling to get what they can from it before the end. They're blind to the inherent conflict between their supposed beliefs, and their actions.
It took a relatively short time for humanity to somehow become less human. To become a people who cheer the death of one of our own who can't afford to stay alive. People who consider compassion and empathy to be character flaws.
There is a difference between being pragmatic, and giving up.
I admit, my ignorance on a wide variety of subjects could fill volumes...or, actually, not. But I do know one thing with a certainty I've never felt before.
The past should never hold more hope than the future.
Calling It What It Is
This is one of many ignorant posts found on We Are the 53 Percent, the right-wing's response to Occupy Wall Street.
In the whole of my working life, I've asked for government assistance once. One unemployment check in 1981, for the amount of $88.00. The process that led up to it was so time-consuming, tedious, and demeaning, that I swore I'd never do it again.
Yet my every waking moment, and every resource at my disposal is spent treading water, trying to keep a roof over my head, and food on the table. If I miss a day's work, it takes me weeks to catch up. If I miss a week, I spend the next six months getting back to where I was. Any more than that, and I lose everything.
Everything.
I don't own a car. I could probably afford to buy one, but I couldn't afford the keep it. Insurance, gas, maintenance. No way. The same goes for home ownership.
The computer I'm using? Built from parts others have thrown away. I do pay for internet access, but I recently gave up cable TV in order to afford an increase in my wife's prescriptions.
My point is, I don't live beyond my means, and I don't ask for assistance. Unlike those who run Wall Street, I have neither the will, nor the resources to game the system to my advantage. I am not unique. There are millions like me.
And it is WE who are the 99 percent.
"My wife and I decided in 1996 that we were sick of poverty. We went back to school. We earned degrees. We got jobs. No one handed it to us. We earned it. We did it. I didn't go through all that struggle while raising 5 children so I could support lazy [expletive] people who want nothing but government handouts. You want to 'occupy' something? Occupy a job and start contributing."Really. You went back to school. Did you get the money from the tuition fairy? What about the time? What did your 5 kids do while you were in class? Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit on this one.
- We are the 53 Percent
In the whole of my working life, I've asked for government assistance once. One unemployment check in 1981, for the amount of $88.00. The process that led up to it was so time-consuming, tedious, and demeaning, that I swore I'd never do it again.
Yet my every waking moment, and every resource at my disposal is spent treading water, trying to keep a roof over my head, and food on the table. If I miss a day's work, it takes me weeks to catch up. If I miss a week, I spend the next six months getting back to where I was. Any more than that, and I lose everything.
Everything.
I don't own a car. I could probably afford to buy one, but I couldn't afford the keep it. Insurance, gas, maintenance. No way. The same goes for home ownership.
The computer I'm using? Built from parts others have thrown away. I do pay for internet access, but I recently gave up cable TV in order to afford an increase in my wife's prescriptions.
My point is, I don't live beyond my means, and I don't ask for assistance. Unlike those who run Wall Street, I have neither the will, nor the resources to game the system to my advantage. I am not unique. There are millions like me.
And it is WE who are the 99 percent.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)