With the approach of the Christmas Season, its time for my second annual Christmas post. Most readers would expect the Nativity story from Matthew, Mark or Luke, or the poetic opening of John's Gospel, but I'm a trend bucker. This time lets review my favorite Bible reading, Matthew, Chapter 20, verses 1 through 16. For me, this defines what it means to be a Christian.
1 "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard.
2 After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.'
5 So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise.
6 Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?'
7 They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.'
8 When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.'
9 When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage.
10 So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage.
11 And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner,
12 saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.'
13 He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage?
14 Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you?
15 (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?'
16 Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Its a very simple parable, a farmer goes into the market place to hire workers, and continues to do so throughout the day. At the end of the day, he pays everyone the same amount regardless of how long they worked that day. Naturally, the ones who put in more time expect to be paid more than those who worked only a couple of hours, but the farmer refuses saying it's his money, he can do what he wants with it, and he is only paying what the workers agreed to be paid, so stuff it.
For me the farmer symbolizes God, the workers are us hairless monkeys, the work is living a Christian life, and the payment is eternal salvation. All day long, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, God offers us an invitation to join his followers. The invitation is always there. As Christians we don't need to ask God to accept us, but rather we must accept God. The invitation is to all of us, no one is excluded.
If we chose to accept God's invitation, there is no free ride. Believe me, it is work living as a Christian. It's not always fun to attend Mass week after week. It's not easy to be forgiving, especially to your enemies. Yet we are called on to not only forgive them, but to love them. It takes years to study all the lessons the Bible has for us. And one must put expend great effort and time. We are expected to volunteer our time and our wealth to help others. And to do so with good cheer.
And why does the farmer agree to pay all workers the same regardless of the length of the work day? Because salvation is God's gift to us. We do not deserve it, no matter how hard or how long we work. It is not by the fruit of our labors that we earn salvation, not at all. Salvation is bestowed because God chooses to do so. And God gives it to whoever God chooses, whenever God chooses. Before God we are all equal. We are expected to live a worthy life of work and effort, but those of us who choose the accept God's invitation earlier in our lives should not expect to be above anyone else in salvation. We don't deserve it, it is a gift from God. All the good deeds we do are not vane attempts to add more pluses than minus' so when we stand before St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, we get our ticket stamped. No, that's completely backwards. Because we accept God' invitation, the outcome is that we do good work, not the other way around.
And lastly, the farmer admonishes the workers who demand more than they agreed to. Pure and simple libertarianism and property rights. God provides salvation at God's discretion, and no one can demand more. We've been invited, we've accepted, and we've complied with God as best we can. No one deserves salvation. A kindly old priest told us a story once during the homily years ago about St. Teresa of Avila, some times referred to as St. Teresa of the Roses. I'm sure most every one has seen an image of her at some point. A young nun in full habit, carrying a crucifix and a bouquet of roses. As the priest told it, she was laying on her deathbed, surrounded by her fellow nuns who were comforting her in her final moments. They told her not to worry, she'd lived a good and pious life, surely God would see she deserved heaven. St. Teresa replied she was a human and a sinner, and she deserved nothing from God. She didn't want what she deserved, she wanted mercy from God.
Merry Christmas!
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Neopaleoliberal©
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other word would smell as sweet."
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.
The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.
I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.
Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]
The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.
So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."
Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.
Stick with me, we're almost there.
Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, goodpublic education, clean air and water, etc.? Where I part ways with liberals is how to achieve these goals. The liberal viewpoint is simple; raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and take away as much freedom for people to be stupid as they can to prevent simple, uneducated, unwashed masses from hurting themselves and others. In other words, business as usual since FDR's New Deal. I can plainly see that none of that really works, and in reality usually makes things worse.
So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.
So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"
--From Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
I remember reading Romeo and Juliet in ninth grade English class. Not one of his best works, and not a particularly interesting read either. The only reason I remember it is because I have a mind like a steel trap. Whereas with most people, ideas come and go, in my head they rattle around for a while and then start setting up subdivisions. But I digress.
The cause of this little mental meandering is the term "neocon". I've been called a neocon, usually by mentally deficient liberals who think it shows how hip and suave they are. Secretly I've always thought they don't have the slightest idea what a neocon is, they just see it in Molly Ivins columns and in blogs and toss it around to show how well read they are. As I've shadow-boxed with them over the years, I've also come to believe no one really knows the definition of neocon, and I believe that is because I don't think there really is a definition. I think it's one of the words that just kind of appeared on its own, coined by someone, released into the wilds of the internet, where it has multiplied to the point that every one uses it and just assumes they know the definition.
I've asked people on both sides of the political divide and haven't heard anything that even required much thinking to come up with. I've heard "Jews" as one definition, but that's far too simplistic. I've received plenty of examples, but nothing that even begins to show the solid thinking necessary for a definition. Then I read a book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. that shows considerable forethought and effort.
Woods' definition is roughly this: The rise of the modern conservative movement in America - which probably began with the presidential aspirations of Barry Goldwater in the 1960's. Their platform was small, limited government, lower spending, lower taxes, strong national self defense, and keeping the government the hell out of people's lives. [Editor's note: Hmm, why does that remind me of something...]
The movement's greatest accomplishment has to be eight years of Ronald Reagan, and its zenith is the 1994 take over of the House of Representatives following forty plus years of liberal-democratic control. But as anyone with even a passing interest in watching politics (beats the hell out of looking at yellow-bellied sapsuckers) can tell, we may have gotten some taxes lowered, and Reagan did slow down the growth of that great leviathan called government, but overall we do not have a smaller, more limited government, and lower spending has become an oxymoron like Congressional Ethics.
So what happened? According to Woods, once the Republicans began seizing the reigns of government, they found they liked being the head honchos. Many of them abandoned their cherished principles in favor of big fat lobbyist checks, and the ability to do pretty much whatever they want. They believed larger government is acceptable, as long as they control it. They favored increased spending, as long as they could keep the taxes low enough to not piss off their party supporters. And in general, became big government liberals in conservative clothes. It is these people Woods refers to as "neocons."
Now, "neo" is Greek for "new", so neocon would be a new type of conservative, which, ironically, is pretty much the opposite of what a conservative is.
Stick with me, we're almost there.
Obviously - at least to me - I am not, nor have I ever been a neocon of any sort. I'm convinced of that. So what am I? I've been asking myself that question for some time, not because I'm into labels, but because the world is filled with labels, and I try to find my way through them. There are many liberal goals that I find worthy and I fully support. Who doesn't want world peace, good
So am I a "neoliberal"? I offered that proposition to my blog editor. (Yes, I have an editor, do you?) He replied that he believes I'm more of a paleoliberal, in that my beliefs fall more closely in line with old time liberalism, back when the root word was recognized as 'liberty." But that doesn't quite fit the bill either, since I do want to accomplish new things, but I want to use the lessons from the past to determine what works and what doesn't.
So, with out further ado, I offer up to you Ladies and Gentlemen, a new political movement, for which I rightly can claim the honor of naming. I present to you "neopaleoliberalism!"
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Dem Quixotic
There's been talking heads on the right who have used the analogy of religion to describe the values (or lack thereof) of the left. Ann Coulter even wrote a book about it. I can take only slight, smug satisfaction knowing that my editor and I had debated the theory years before she wrote her book. Only slight because while I can claim credit, she still gets the checks.
But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.
About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.
The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.
Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:
The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
As with the dragon etching, enough said.
But I've never been completely satisfied with the analogy, there's just something about it that doesn't seem quite right. Last night while I was walking through my dining room, I was struck with a bolt of inspiration. It's not religion that makes the best analogy. Religion is recognizing and accepting the existence of a higher being and/or plane of existence. For the analogy to work, this would be required of the top tier of liberals to accept something larger and more important than themselves. And I believe that's why it doesn't fit. It doesn't really describe the actions and emotions of the rank and file liberal democrats. The rank and file don't look up to the top tier liberal groups and politicians for salvation; they look up to them in awe, but hardly with the hope of eternal salvation. So no, it's not religion. It's Chivalry.
About 15 years ago my sister and I attended the Sterling Forest Renaissance Festival in upstate New York. It's quite a day trip vacation. For those who are interested in history period events, I highly recommend it. One of the first booths you encounter upon entering is the print shop. There are all kinds of drawings, etchings, prints - you name it you can probably find it there. I bought myself a nice little drawing of a dragon reclining on a burned out castle. Enough said. Later in the day my sister somehow managed to ditch me long enough to sneak back over to the printer and she bought me a print of a Code of Chivalry based upon a 13th century France document. I got it for Christmas that year, and it's hung proudly on my wall ever since.
The Code of Chivalry (France, circa 13th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Church teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Church.
Thou shalt respect all Weaknesses and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Country in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the infidel without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy feudal duties in accordance with the law of God.
Thou shalt be generous and give largess to every one.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Right and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
With some slight modifications, I believe we have a pretty accurate code of honor among liberals:
The Code of Liberalism (San Francisco, New York, circa 20th Century)
Thou shalt believe all the Democratic Party teaches and shalt observe all its directions.
Thou shalt defend the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt respect all Recognized Victim Classes and shalt constitute thyself the defender of them.
Thou shalt love the Democratic Party in which thou wast born.
Thou shalt make war against the conservative without cessation and without mercy.
Thou shalt perform scrupulously thy liberal duties in accordance with the law of the Democratic Party.
Thou shalt be generous with other's money and give largess to every recognized victim class.
Thou shalt be the champion of the Left and the Good against Injustice and Evil.
As with the dragon etching, enough said.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
It's getting hot in here
I was reading the local newspaper this past Sunday morning, and almost fell out of my chair laughing. My local paper employs a democratic hack for their senior editorial page writer. I can barely read his column anymore, even though I will give him credit for at least admitting his bias. Last summer he concluded a column by stating that there are some people who believe democrat equals good and republicans equal evil, and then proudly stated he was one of them. One point for honesty, one million points for political bias.
On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:
Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?
I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?
If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.
I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.
That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!
Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.
He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.
Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.
We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?
On Sunday said author began his column with the following rhetorical question:
Q: Do this country's news organizations have a greater obligation to their readers and viewers or to the federal government?
A: Are you kidding?
I reached the same rhetorical answer, but for what I'm sure are vastly different reasons. The reason I view the reply as ridiculous is the two options he offers are both wrong. The real joke lies in the obvious answer as to where a news organization's obligations lie. They lie neither with their readers and viewers nor government of any kind. Is it just me, or is the obvious answer that a reporter's obligations are to the truth - government and readers be damned?
If the truth hurts the government, or if it hurts readers, so what? After all a reporter's job is to report, isn't it? But I guess I'm asking too much from the modern mainstream media. Anyone with a brain should be completely disgusted with their unparalleled bias so blatantly displayed during the recent election season. Of course, if you're of the democratic persuasion, as many of my family and friends are, you probably view the pig-sty of campaign reporting as a fair and balanced overview of the natural order of all things. Or to put it another way, democrat good, republican evil. Not convinced? How about the doctored photos from the recent Israel/Lebanon war? Hundreds of examples. Blatant. Patent. Lies.
I could go on and on about the obvious political bias of the media at the expense of the truth, but even though I could fill volumes, I don't really have the time to type up about 30,000 pages. [Editor's note: Thank God!] So I'll just pick one off the top of my head. The great global warming hoax.
That's right, you heard me. The Great Global Warming HOAX!
Is the globe warming? Maybe yes, maybe no. No one really knows for sure, that's because science isn't even close to coming up with a definitive answer. By the way, that part isn't the hoax. That part's the truth. Take a moment to think back when was the last time you heard that reported. Personally I can't recall the last time I heard it reported that the majority of scientists either had no position or weren't yet convinced. What is printed however is Al Gore and his entourage endlessly repeating that science has concluded there is a problem, the time for science is over, and the time for politics is now.
He usually adds that all serious scientists agree; which implies only nut cases, lunatics and the such could possibly disagree with him and his proponents. He even likes to trot out the old "flat earth society" cliche to further ridicule his opponents. Not that there is anything wrong with a politician arguing politics. I would expect nothing less from Mr. Gore, just as I would expect nothing less from the right wing hacks spouting off all kinds of scientific mumbo-jumbo. My point is, no one in the media is asking Mr. Gore to back up his claim that everyone agrees with him. Not one single news source has the testicular fortitude to question what is so obviously a lie. Allow me: "Mr. Gore, why do you insist that less than 50% of the scientific community constitutes the vast majority of scientists?" I'm not holding my breath.
Reporters may or may not have an opinion on global warming. They may think that by spreading the message they are helping inform the public. They may even convince themselves they are doing their part to save the future of the world. Whatever their reasoning, one thing they are not doing is reporting the truth. In this example, reporters may believe they are obligated to their viewers at the expense of the government. But in reality, they are obliging their political affiliations and the environmental movement at the expense of their viewers. Which means, we all lose.
We all lose because shoddy science is given the benefit of the doubt at the expense of real science. The truth is not even up for consideration. Again, is global warming a reality or not is a matter of science, yet to be determined. The fact that Al Gore and the environmentalists are allowed a free pass to discredit the majority of the scientific community is awful. The real victim in this case is the truth. So I ask any and all reporters once again, where do your allegiances lie, with your views and readers or with the government, or with the truth?
Sunday, November 12, 2006
It's my party and I'll cry if I want to.......
So the dust begins to settle on the 2006 US Congressional elections. Democrats are in, the GOP is out, and whatever one draws from this, the obvious results are that the political ruling class wins and the everyday American loses. And loses big.
I'm hardly a fan of Republicans. But seeing as Democratic party principles can't survive even ten minutes of rational debate, I fail to see how this bodes well for We The People. Republicans - some at least - pay lip service to common sense, economics, physics and reality. Those on the left seem convinced that if we just say something long enough and loud enough, it will be so. Guess what sports fans, it don't work that way.
On the one hand, with the GOP we at least got some tax cuts - though notably absent were the spending cuts that should have gone hand in hand. And we did get what I perceive as two of the best Supreme Court Justices we've had in decades, if not centuries. With two years left of Bush, I held out hope beyond hope that Janice Rogers Brown could take a seat on that panel. Scratch that one now. All Americans are poorer and less free for this. During Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearings, some democratic dick stated he wanted to be sure the "little guy" would get a fair shake in Roberts court room. Roberts replied that if the law says the little guy should win, then the little guys would win. If the law says the big guy should win, the big guy will win. His point is, his court room would be ruled by law, not emotions. Emotions change on a whim. Laws don't. For me, the Roberts court is a solid mark in the win column for Bush, regardless of anything else. I feel safer with my fate protected and guarded by law, not on how well the media can spin it on CNN.
My analysis of the election is the Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost. I don't see how you can call it a mandate from the people when their entire strategy was "Bush sucks." Plays well on HardBall, accomplishes nothing in reality.
There were some bright spots in the election for people of all political stripes. For starters, the demands of tens of thousands of democrats screaming "the election was stolen!" is deafeningly silent. I thought the only way Republicans could win (or Democrats could lose) was because the elections are rigged? Guess not. Irrefutable proof that all the whining and wailing of 2000, 2002 and 2004 was nothing more than wimps and losers unable to face the fact that reality continues regardless of their insistence it does not.
Secondly, I don't want to hear one more whiny cry-baby say America is a fascist nation. If it were there would not have been election earlier this week. Fascists tend to not care too much about the will of the people. If Bush equals Hitler, and Hitler didn't let his opponents even organize, much less field a slate of candidates for elections, much less not send the SS out to dispatch them, then does Bush still equal Hitler? Probably in the small minds of people who can't generate the mental horsepower to see past party affiliations. But then again, when one refuses to accept reality, then the constraints reality places on one, do not exist either.
Here's one thing I can say with pretty much 100% certainty. Soon, if not already, but definitely by the time the next Congress convenes, the media will treat us to a slew of stories about how good the economy is getting, and how things are looking up in Iraq and around the world. This past election cycle has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mainstream media is the PR wing of the Democrats. I have never seen so much bias in reporting in my life. I did not think it were possible and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. But I did. The media invested a lot of its credibility in this race, and in my opinion, they lost it all.
So collect the balloons, sweep up the streamers and confetti, gather up all the empty champagne bottles. It's time to get ready for the next election. The cycle has already started!
I'm hardly a fan of Republicans. But seeing as Democratic party principles can't survive even ten minutes of rational debate, I fail to see how this bodes well for We The People. Republicans - some at least - pay lip service to common sense, economics, physics and reality. Those on the left seem convinced that if we just say something long enough and loud enough, it will be so. Guess what sports fans, it don't work that way.
On the one hand, with the GOP we at least got some tax cuts - though notably absent were the spending cuts that should have gone hand in hand. And we did get what I perceive as two of the best Supreme Court Justices we've had in decades, if not centuries. With two years left of Bush, I held out hope beyond hope that Janice Rogers Brown could take a seat on that panel. Scratch that one now. All Americans are poorer and less free for this. During Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearings, some democratic dick stated he wanted to be sure the "little guy" would get a fair shake in Roberts court room. Roberts replied that if the law says the little guy should win, then the little guys would win. If the law says the big guy should win, the big guy will win. His point is, his court room would be ruled by law, not emotions. Emotions change on a whim. Laws don't. For me, the Roberts court is a solid mark in the win column for Bush, regardless of anything else. I feel safer with my fate protected and guarded by law, not on how well the media can spin it on CNN.
My analysis of the election is the Democrats didn't win so much as the Republicans lost. I don't see how you can call it a mandate from the people when their entire strategy was "Bush sucks." Plays well on HardBall, accomplishes nothing in reality.
There were some bright spots in the election for people of all political stripes. For starters, the demands of tens of thousands of democrats screaming "the election was stolen!" is deafeningly silent. I thought the only way Republicans could win (or Democrats could lose) was because the elections are rigged? Guess not. Irrefutable proof that all the whining and wailing of 2000, 2002 and 2004 was nothing more than wimps and losers unable to face the fact that reality continues regardless of their insistence it does not.
Secondly, I don't want to hear one more whiny cry-baby say America is a fascist nation. If it were there would not have been election earlier this week. Fascists tend to not care too much about the will of the people. If Bush equals Hitler, and Hitler didn't let his opponents even organize, much less field a slate of candidates for elections, much less not send the SS out to dispatch them, then does Bush still equal Hitler? Probably in the small minds of people who can't generate the mental horsepower to see past party affiliations. But then again, when one refuses to accept reality, then the constraints reality places on one, do not exist either.
Here's one thing I can say with pretty much 100% certainty. Soon, if not already, but definitely by the time the next Congress convenes, the media will treat us to a slew of stories about how good the economy is getting, and how things are looking up in Iraq and around the world. This past election cycle has proven one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. The mainstream media is the PR wing of the Democrats. I have never seen so much bias in reporting in my life. I did not think it were possible and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it myself. But I did. The media invested a lot of its credibility in this race, and in my opinion, they lost it all.
So collect the balloons, sweep up the streamers and confetti, gather up all the empty champagne bottles. It's time to get ready for the next election. The cycle has already started!
Friday, October 27, 2006
Why Vote
The other day I received a request to bloviate about why anyone in America (other than politicians) should even give a damn about voting. Seeing as I owe him, and you, a post, it's as good as any. I am to receive extra credit if I can convince him to vote GOP. I won't get that credit, because I'm not even going to try that. He, and anyone, can vote for whomever they like. But the question remains, to vote or not to vote. So let's get started.
I live in a very, Very, VERY blue state, New York. I am not a liberal, I am not a democrat, I am not a republican; I consider myself a very rare bird these days, as someone who is politically neutral with respect to the two major parties in NY, I am truly independent. My political tastes tend toward conservatism, not because it's more attractive, but rather liberal ideas and viewpoints, to quote John Maynard Keynes about early twentieth century British monetary policy, "could not survive ten minutes of rational discussion."
Knowing the political make up of ultra blue New York City, and the election process we use, I know for a fact my vote counts for virtually nothing and is, statistically speaking, trivial. So why should I bother voting myself, much less convince someone else to vote? What's the point? Everything is the point.
I could start with the flag waving, describe bombs bursting in air, Bunker Hill, the Civil War, D-Day to rouse his patriotic stirrings, but I won't do that. Mostly because I know it won't work. Let's start with an analogy.
We live in a nation with one of the most fairest, legal systems in the world. I know its a massive, tangled web of processes, procedures and bureaucracies. But if you compare it to most other nations, people living under other nation's legal systems would trade their entire goat herd for a chance to have their day in an American style court room.
And the American legal system is strange too. Highly inefficient, overly dramatic if you think about it. There are lawyers, judges, more lawyers, bailiffs, more lawyers, stenographers, and more lawyers. Did I mention the lawyers? Got them too. Now given the fact that most criminal trials are judged by a "jury of their peers", and knowing the basic, average intelligence of the common, off-the-street American, why would any suspect want to leave their fate in the hands of twelve people plucked off the street under threat of contempt of court? The judge obviously knows more about the legal system than anyone in the jury. Why not just have the lawyers file reports with the court, have the judge read them and render verdict? Would save a lot of time and money. The reason we have trials open to the public, in an open court, where everyone can hear what's said, and can later read the transcripts is because we humans are emotional creatures.
The legal system does not need the drama of a court, but we humans do. The accused needs to be there to stand up and declare his or her innocence for all to see. The victims need to be there to satisfy themselves that they had their day in court. Friends and relatives of murder victims need that day in court to say their piece for the record, to see justice done (or not). It's how humans deal with the crisis, pain and suffering that accompanies such calamities. They can not begin to heal till they see closure, and a judge rapping his gavel on the bench is part of that process. Only after everyone has had their say, gone through the process, can they begin to move on, even though some can't or won't.
And for me, it's the same with voting in elections. It's part of the uniquely American culture that campaigns are long, hard, dirty, disgusting and prohibitively expensive. It's how we as Americans become part of the great national drama. It's our chance to have our say in court, on the record. By actively participating in a campaign and election, we have our say, we try to convince others to join us, and try to dissuade others from opposing us. And it's important that all Americans see themselves and each other participating by voting, because it gives us the knowledge that ultimately We The People hold politician's futures in our hands. It's proof the American election system and government work. (Well, kind of.) When we go to the polls, we see our fellow Americans having their day at the ballot box. We see for ourselves just how dumb accusations of voting fraud really are. Should we do away with elections, and instead just read who won in the morning paper, the results wouldn't carry nearly the weight they do when we participate ourselves. We vote because it displays our faith in our system, and our country, and that faith is what binds us all as Americans. We may not agree with the election results, we may be furious over how others voted, but because it was settled by a vote, we can move on looking to the next campaign season, and begin to get over whatever hurt feelings we may have endured. We can start on new plans, ideas, policies, what have you. And I believe one of the reasons this country works is because of this process. Its not just about who won and who lost, its about the dramatic, public process that we participated in first-hand.
And make no mistake, we do hold politicians feet to the fire during elections. They would like nothing better than to avoid that fateful day. They attempt to destroy their opponent's image and character. Anything goes in political campaigns because politicians are attempting any means they can think of to change the odds in their favor. It's been said that no lawyer likes to go to trial because that places the final decision in the hands of jury. And you can never tell how a jury will decide. It's completely out of the lawyers hands once those twelve people begin deliberations. And its the same with politicians. In an election, the power is removed from their hands, and placed in ours, We The People, the voters. And We The People have to see that happen, in order to satisfy our human emotional needs so we can continue to have faith in our nation, our governments, and ourselves. So get out there and pull that lever, your fellow Americans are depending upon you.
I live in a very, Very, VERY blue state, New York. I am not a liberal, I am not a democrat, I am not a republican; I consider myself a very rare bird these days, as someone who is politically neutral with respect to the two major parties in NY, I am truly independent. My political tastes tend toward conservatism, not because it's more attractive, but rather liberal ideas and viewpoints, to quote John Maynard Keynes about early twentieth century British monetary policy, "could not survive ten minutes of rational discussion."
Knowing the political make up of ultra blue New York City, and the election process we use, I know for a fact my vote counts for virtually nothing and is, statistically speaking, trivial. So why should I bother voting myself, much less convince someone else to vote? What's the point? Everything is the point.
I could start with the flag waving, describe bombs bursting in air, Bunker Hill, the Civil War, D-Day to rouse his patriotic stirrings, but I won't do that. Mostly because I know it won't work. Let's start with an analogy.
We live in a nation with one of the most fairest, legal systems in the world. I know its a massive, tangled web of processes, procedures and bureaucracies. But if you compare it to most other nations, people living under other nation's legal systems would trade their entire goat herd for a chance to have their day in an American style court room.
And the American legal system is strange too. Highly inefficient, overly dramatic if you think about it. There are lawyers, judges, more lawyers, bailiffs, more lawyers, stenographers, and more lawyers. Did I mention the lawyers? Got them too. Now given the fact that most criminal trials are judged by a "jury of their peers", and knowing the basic, average intelligence of the common, off-the-street American, why would any suspect want to leave their fate in the hands of twelve people plucked off the street under threat of contempt of court? The judge obviously knows more about the legal system than anyone in the jury. Why not just have the lawyers file reports with the court, have the judge read them and render verdict? Would save a lot of time and money. The reason we have trials open to the public, in an open court, where everyone can hear what's said, and can later read the transcripts is because we humans are emotional creatures.
The legal system does not need the drama of a court, but we humans do. The accused needs to be there to stand up and declare his or her innocence for all to see. The victims need to be there to satisfy themselves that they had their day in court. Friends and relatives of murder victims need that day in court to say their piece for the record, to see justice done (or not). It's how humans deal with the crisis, pain and suffering that accompanies such calamities. They can not begin to heal till they see closure, and a judge rapping his gavel on the bench is part of that process. Only after everyone has had their say, gone through the process, can they begin to move on, even though some can't or won't.
And for me, it's the same with voting in elections. It's part of the uniquely American culture that campaigns are long, hard, dirty, disgusting and prohibitively expensive. It's how we as Americans become part of the great national drama. It's our chance to have our say in court, on the record. By actively participating in a campaign and election, we have our say, we try to convince others to join us, and try to dissuade others from opposing us. And it's important that all Americans see themselves and each other participating by voting, because it gives us the knowledge that ultimately We The People hold politician's futures in our hands. It's proof the American election system and government work. (Well, kind of.) When we go to the polls, we see our fellow Americans having their day at the ballot box. We see for ourselves just how dumb accusations of voting fraud really are. Should we do away with elections, and instead just read who won in the morning paper, the results wouldn't carry nearly the weight they do when we participate ourselves. We vote because it displays our faith in our system, and our country, and that faith is what binds us all as Americans. We may not agree with the election results, we may be furious over how others voted, but because it was settled by a vote, we can move on looking to the next campaign season, and begin to get over whatever hurt feelings we may have endured. We can start on new plans, ideas, policies, what have you. And I believe one of the reasons this country works is because of this process. Its not just about who won and who lost, its about the dramatic, public process that we participated in first-hand.
And make no mistake, we do hold politicians feet to the fire during elections. They would like nothing better than to avoid that fateful day. They attempt to destroy their opponent's image and character. Anything goes in political campaigns because politicians are attempting any means they can think of to change the odds in their favor. It's been said that no lawyer likes to go to trial because that places the final decision in the hands of jury. And you can never tell how a jury will decide. It's completely out of the lawyers hands once those twelve people begin deliberations. And its the same with politicians. In an election, the power is removed from their hands, and placed in ours, We The People, the voters. And We The People have to see that happen, in order to satisfy our human emotional needs so we can continue to have faith in our nation, our governments, and ourselves. So get out there and pull that lever, your fellow Americans are depending upon you.
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Human Condition
"....[I]t should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer..."
Twenty some odd years ago I worked in Burlington, Vermont for a megalomaniacal corporation with an ego big enough to match its bottom line and market share. While I was there I took advantage of their educational opportunities to further my skills, and signed up to complete the regular Calculus I through IV sequence. Since my company was rolling in so much cash, they hired a professor from the University of Vermont ("Groovy UV") to come on site to teach, we got regular college credit at no personal expense, and everyone was happy. Well, that was until we started taking Calculus.
I had a very strange professor for Calc II & III. He had a quirky sense of humor. While he may have floored his colleagues at conventions of professors of higher mathematics, it was pretty much lost on us as our brains oozed out our ears trying to understand, what I have come to believe, is impossible to understand. He had one phrase that he used when he had just explained something none of us got: "[I]t should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer....". I understood the humor of the phrase, though I believe it was lost on most every one else.
I'll get back to that phrase is a little bit.
The most terrifying and gratifying day of my life was May 24, 1993. The day my child was born and I became a father. Having suffered health problems since the day I was born, I was scared shitless that I might pass on the same issues that plagued me my entire life to my child. We consulted doctors and they assured us there was almost no chance, but until the moment I saw for myself, there's no describing the agony I felt at what might befall my child for the sin of having me for a Dad. After the delivery, I went with the nurse to the clean up room where the baby is cleaned up, measured, weighed, and the like. At that moment I knew what my parents must have felt like when the doctors told them there were problems with their child. But everything came out fine, there were no health issues, and I was the proud father of a bouncing baby girl!
I bring this up because I've heard a phrase more than a few times over the last 13 years and I've come to believe it. When you become an adult, you are only half grown up. Its not until you raise a child that you fully grow up. Ain't that the truth! You have no idea the fun it can be raising a child. Christmas comes alive like you haven't experienced since you were a kid. To see their eyes light up at all the "stuff!" Easter egg hunts, Halloween, first day of school, first time swimming, words can't describe it, you need to experience it. A few years ago we bought her her first two wheel bike. I was in the kitchen and noticed her sitting on it for the first time in the back yard. She had the big, goofy, over-sized helmet we bought, and she was hunched over the handle bars. I watched wondering what she was doing when she suddenly lifted her head, made the sign of the cross and then tried riding it for the first time. It was then I realized she was praying to God to not let her die on this monstrosity. She was scared as heck, asking for God's help, but nothing was going to stop her from trying!
I would be remiss if I didn't mention all the pitfalls that come with being a new parent. Another heart stopping moment is when your brand new family checks out of the hospital. Did you know the only requirement to taking a new born baby home from the hospital is that you have an appropriate child seat? The orderly looks in the car, and if you have a place to put the baby, off you go. I don't know what happens if you don't, because we did. Then you drive home at about three miles an hour, go inside, and guess what? You have a baby! There are no tests to pass, no certifications to qualify, no nothing. It's your kid, go home. And if you have to go back to the hospital, and they see something questionable, the state steps in. Talk about a sobering moment!
Don't get me wrong, we did our homework as best we could. We took the Lamaze courses, we took the baby care classes, we read the books, I highly recommend "The First Twelve Months" to any expecting parents who may be reading this. And here is where I'm going with the baby stuff.
Babies don't know anything when they're born. It's almost safe to say they know absolutely nothing, but not completely true. Babies are born with several instincts, other than that, they are a compete blank slate. Doctors check for, if I remember correctly, seven different ones. Among them is the gag instinct, the falling backwards instinct (when you feel like your going to fall and your eyes bug out and you flop around like a moron). Another one is walking. If a new born is held up over a surface, their legs will mimic walking (though they can't actually do it, their bones are like wet noodles at this stage) but they will make the movement. They loose this instinct after a few weeks, but it comes back in a few years when they do start walking.
We were fortunate while in the new baby section of the hospital to have a day nurse who was my cousin's wife. Family! She was so kind, and so caring, and so helpful words can't explain how much she helped us. Did you know newborns don't even know how to eat? Their mouth will suck, but they haven't the slightest clue as to what to do. The baby and the mother both need to learn how to breast feed.
I'm getting closer to my point!
Humans are blessed with having the largest, most functional, most developed brains on the entire planet. I'm sure some greenie out there would scoff at me and point to dolphins or porpoises, to which I reply: Apollo moon landing baby! There is one major drawback though - birth. How does one get a brain that large through the birth canal of a female human? It doesn't fit. So what evolution has come up with is the brain is mush, the skull is elastic, and the baby's head changes shape during birth. Only up until the last hundred years or so, giving birth was a major cause of death among women and children worldwide. It still is in most of the world. Having a brain that's not much more than oatmeal solves evolution's problem of getting a big brain from the womb to the world, but it presents many other problems. Such as, you have a baby with a brain like oatmeal and a head shaped like a cone. They know absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. NOTA. (I remember at about four months, looking at my daughter with her cone head and thinking "damn, with that head, you are ugly! Oh well, you're mine and I love you anyway." Thanks goodness it does eventually round out.)
When a human is born, they know how to sleep, they know they are hungry (though not what to do about it), they know how to crap, and they know how to cry. And that's all folks. A puppy or a kitten can be weaned from their mother between six to twelve weeks, then off they go. At twelve weeks, humans can't even see. Some animals do spend a few years teaching their young how to hunt and survive before sending them out into the world, at a few years most humans can't even speak or walk. Everything a human knows, everything a human believes, everything they are absolutely, completely, 100% sure of is taught to them. Practically nothing is instinctual. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is "...intuitively obvious to the casual observer." Nothing. I told you I got the Calc professor's joke!
While I proudly stand on the nurture side of the 'nature vs. nurture' debate, allow me a caveat: I fully understand how genes play out in this debate. I have no doubt Michael Jordan's kids are tall, fast, and most likely excellent athletes. I also don't doubt that parents with super-sized IQ's probably have kids with high intelligence also. But in my opinion, by and large, how, when and where a human grows up has a lot more impact on their lives than who their parents are. If the smartest person in the world grows up on an remote, isolated farm, chances are all they'll probably know is the smartest way to run a farm. And as for intuition, to me, it's nothing more than having a brain that can make certain associations so quickly, even the person themselves don't realize it.
Now another twist.
For some time, I've been personally studying the origins of Christianity, the Bible - New Testament in particular. Every week during Sunday Mass, several times I repeat the words "The Word of the Lord." Being naturally curious (maybe there are some instincts we inherit?) I've been interested in learning just who decided what is the Word of the Lord and who decided what wasn't the Word of the Lord. Along the way, I've learned about a vast cast of characters. One in particular stands out, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. At first glance he comes off as a whacko. He's the guy who decided that Original Sin (Adam, Eve, the serpent, that stuff) was passed on from generation to generation via sperm, and all we need do is look back of 1,600 hundred years of Church sponsored sexual repression to see how that worked out. I believe it was also the basis for the theology backing the virgin birth and Immaculate Conception, where as since Jesus wasn't conceived by human sperm he was therefore born without original sin. Digging deeper, he did have some (emphasis on some) reasonable logic to make his claim. If a child is born free of sin, then why were so many children born with such horrible defects? Remember this was the early 400's so there was much suffering. Missing limbs, blind, scared, already infected with diseases. How could something so innocent be plagued by such misery? His rationale was that humans must be born with the punishment of Original Sin. He has a point. A very shaky one, easily dismissed with the help of today's science, but at the time? Think about it.
In a nutshell, St. Augustine believed that the world we live in was the punishment for Original Sin, we are doomed as humans to live in this misery, in pain, with the death we all know is coming, ruled over by an imperfect government and society, and our best hope is to pray the Church leads society as best as possible to deal with our collective punishment. Not a very inspiring vision, and from that I can see how Christianity had such a gloomy image for so many thousands of years. It is a startling thought to realize that we must live every day of our lives, surrounded by death, knowing, with out a doubt, that is our fate. Crucifix any one?
Personally I believe we should take this one more step. It's not just that we must live in this imperfect world, surrounded by pain, misery, starvation, agony, death and impending death, but also with the fact that we have no inborn instincts on how to survive other than violence. That's about all humans come packaged with. If something scares you, won't feed you, won't help you, you feel this over reaching urge to choke the living shit out of it. By the way, that's one definition I've heard for stress. Other than that, we are pretty much at society's mercy. It exists, we don't understand it, but we'd better pick it up pretty damn quick or else society will deal with us as it pleases.
So how does all this add up? Is there a point to all my rambling text? Of course there is. And you though I was just trying to sell you Amway!
There are many blessings to being a human. I can't tell you the joy when my young daughter told me I was a gift from God to her. Excuse me while I get misty here. There is also great draw backs to it. For one thing, we know nothing about anything. Everything we know, everything we believe in, everything we base our entire lives on, the morals we profess, the way we treat our neighbors, our family, ourselves, is learned. Bigotry? Learned. Hatred? Learned. Thievery? Learned. Murder? Learned. Love? Learned. Compassion? Learned. Love of learning? Learned.
Now here's where it gets tricky.
The Church my family attends (yes I drag them with me pretty much every Sunday) is a beautiful old building. It was built in 1900. Last year during Christmas Mass, the lector pointed out this was the 105th Christmas Mass celebrated in this very building. For 105 years, people have been coming to this very building to worship, to pray, to hope, to Baptize their children, to bury their dead. There's a hall underneath the Church where countless new couples held their wedding receptions. One hundred and five years worth of Lenten Soup Supers. Countless children's parties. Up in the main Worship area (that's where the alter and the pews are) are three massive stained glass windows. The one on the east side is the Resurrection and it catches the morning light perfectly. The bottom reads something like "Donated by the veterans of St. James Parish in memory of their comrades in the 'Great War' who made the ultimate sacrifice for liberty."
The Great War.
For those who aren't history fanatics like me, that's the older name for what modern society now calls World War I. At the time, 1918, it was the worst man-made catastrophe ever experienced by civilization. Five million dead in four years. At that time people thought it was such a horror that humanity would never attempt such an atrocity again, and so it's also called "The War To End All Wars". Boy did they ever get that wrong. How this ties into my theme is this: the generation that fought World War I, the lost generation, those who inhabited this society we have inherited today, thought they had reached a pinnacle, a peak, a summit in human history, never again would things be the way they were, because of their trials and tribulations, society, civilization, humanity itself would be irrevocably changed. Guess again.
But then again, doesn't every generation believe the same? They are the masters of their environment, their society, living at the peak of history. We live in today's world, standing on the shoulders of every generation that came before us. We have the cumulative knowledge, wisdom and experience of all those before us. Or do we? If one generation of humans can realize the futility of fighting the 'War to End All Wars' then how come the next generation went on to fight World War II? And then Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and now repeated forays into the Middle East? I thought the lost generation solved that problem? What happened? I'll tell you what happened. Life happened.
Louis S. B. Leakey is credited with the phrase those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Catchy, but I don't see it selling a lot of t-shirts. What is this history that we need to learn so we don't make the same mistakes? Its the documented achievements and failures of all those other generations before us, who, like us, thought they were the peak, the pinnacle, the summit of humanity and civilization. And as they were wrong in their assumption, we will be wrong in our assumption. We are not the pinnacle of humanity. We are hairless monkeys who came into this world not even knowing how to eat. And just as surely we will pass, leaving nothing more than a brief watermark in history that future generations will pretend to read about in history class, while in reality waiting for the bell to ring so they can sneak out of school, act real cool, stay out all night.
Society is a concept unto itself. We are born knowing nothing, we are raised by society in general, hopefully by our parents in particular, and we must absorb the lessons of life as we grow into adults. My generation didn't build the Church I attend, others did, we just inherited it. It's up to us to make sure it's safe, sound and secure when we pass it on to the next generation that will rise up to take our place, and in turn, they will do so for the next generation. The same happens with all institutions: schools, universities, governments, charities, what have you. And the key to this long missive is, we do not shape the institutions around us - regardless of how sure we are that we do - so much as they shape us. My daughter will grow up as a Catholic. There are good aspects about religion as well as bad. I hope she picks up the good ones, and ignores the bad. She will know little or next to nothing about Islam or Judaism, other than what she picks from society in general. She won't learn racism or bigotry from me, because I am not a racist or bigot, so I don't have those traits to pass on to her. My father grew up in a different generation when there was no talk of sparing the rod. He was regularly whooped to stay in line. Yet he made the conscience choice to not pass those traits on to me and my siblings. Therefore they will not be handed down to my daughter, so she won't hand it down to her children. Proof the chain can be broken.
One last curve ball.
I'm a big Beatles fan. I grew up in the 1970's and it was so not cool to like the old hippie groups like the Beatles from the 1960's. I didn't care, I liked the music. I bought a couple of books on them and came across an interview with John Lennon, given after the band broke up. He answered a question about all the anger the fans showered on Yoko for destroying the best group in the world. His response was very insightful. He said the fans have all the old records if they want to listen to them, and then pointed out how a generation that claimed it was in favor of such radical change, howled like babies when something changed, namely the Beatles broke up. He hit that one right on the nail. Humans always claim to love change, new adventures, see new places, meet new people, but in reality, over all, most humans really don't like change much. When things change, we can't be sure how they'll turn out. Sure people want to see new fads, new foods, new shows, new games. But change one ingredient in Coke and all hell breaks loose. Could be good, could be better, but could also be much, much worse. Not all humans are like that, but experience has taught me most are. Those that don't usually end up out of the gene pool if they don't come to their senses before it's too late.
Why don't we like change? Because we like stability. We like the usual, same old, day to day things. We might bitch and gripe about it, but we like our lives to be predictable. We know how to deal with the predictable, it's the unpredictable that scares us. What happens if we don't know how to react? If we don't know what to do? What if something bad happens? What will we do? You may not be in love with your job, but it sure beats the hell out of not having a regular pay check to keep a roof over your head, and food in your fridge. But the real dichotomy is, everything changes. Nothing stays the same for long. The lost generation from World War I is almost gone. The generation that fought World War II is steadily slipping away. And some day our generation will be lost to history too.
I believe it's this strange dichotomy which accounts for much of the stress and problems in our world. Regardless of what we say, what we think, what we believe, deep down, at some level we all know there is no stability in the world. Anything could happen at any time. Floods, hurricanes, fires, storms, asteroids, heart attacks, the heart break of cirrhosis, anything at any time. Kind of unsettling isn't it? At this very moment you could have a single cell in your body go bad and cancer breaks out. A single clot in an artery breaks free and wham, a stroke. We live our lives pretending to ourselves and others that there is some type of stability in world that in reality is governed by chaos.
And it's that veneer of stability that some of us hold so dear, that we refuse to part with it for any reason at all. How can some one you know, who appears to be sane in every other aspect, appear to be completely insane in others? My theory is that person came into this world as a blank slate, grew up under particular circumstances, shaped by various institutions, and the lessons learned from those experiences shaped and molded the thin veil they use to shield themselves from the impending chaos we all know exists, but prefers to ignore. Any attempts to penetrate that personal shield causes them to question the very stability they use to protect themselves from the inevitable instability of life. And that's asking an awful lot of a person.
How can a regular sane person also be a racist? Because they grew up that way, and for them, that's the way life works, and they would rather argue and fight than come to the realization that their view of the world might be wrong. Or even that there might be a different way to view the world. Way too big a chance they might have to face the reality that they have no real control of the world around them, and that in the end, they will just be dust. Maybe if they're real lucky, they might be worthy of a few lines in a dusty old history book. Or maybe a vague, general reference on a beautiful stained glass window, showering colored sunlight down on a group of youngsters making their first Holy Communion on a Sunday morning, taking their first steps at learning how to exist within the society and the institutions they will all too soon inherit.
Twenty some odd years ago I worked in Burlington, Vermont for a megalomaniacal corporation with an ego big enough to match its bottom line and market share. While I was there I took advantage of their educational opportunities to further my skills, and signed up to complete the regular Calculus I through IV sequence. Since my company was rolling in so much cash, they hired a professor from the University of Vermont ("Groovy UV") to come on site to teach, we got regular college credit at no personal expense, and everyone was happy. Well, that was until we started taking Calculus.
I had a very strange professor for Calc II & III. He had a quirky sense of humor. While he may have floored his colleagues at conventions of professors of higher mathematics, it was pretty much lost on us as our brains oozed out our ears trying to understand, what I have come to believe, is impossible to understand. He had one phrase that he used when he had just explained something none of us got: "[I]t should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer....". I understood the humor of the phrase, though I believe it was lost on most every one else.
I'll get back to that phrase is a little bit.
The most terrifying and gratifying day of my life was May 24, 1993. The day my child was born and I became a father. Having suffered health problems since the day I was born, I was scared shitless that I might pass on the same issues that plagued me my entire life to my child. We consulted doctors and they assured us there was almost no chance, but until the moment I saw for myself, there's no describing the agony I felt at what might befall my child for the sin of having me for a Dad. After the delivery, I went with the nurse to the clean up room where the baby is cleaned up, measured, weighed, and the like. At that moment I knew what my parents must have felt like when the doctors told them there were problems with their child. But everything came out fine, there were no health issues, and I was the proud father of a bouncing baby girl!
I bring this up because I've heard a phrase more than a few times over the last 13 years and I've come to believe it. When you become an adult, you are only half grown up. Its not until you raise a child that you fully grow up. Ain't that the truth! You have no idea the fun it can be raising a child. Christmas comes alive like you haven't experienced since you were a kid. To see their eyes light up at all the "stuff!" Easter egg hunts, Halloween, first day of school, first time swimming, words can't describe it, you need to experience it. A few years ago we bought her her first two wheel bike. I was in the kitchen and noticed her sitting on it for the first time in the back yard. She had the big, goofy, over-sized helmet we bought, and she was hunched over the handle bars. I watched wondering what she was doing when she suddenly lifted her head, made the sign of the cross and then tried riding it for the first time. It was then I realized she was praying to God to not let her die on this monstrosity. She was scared as heck, asking for God's help, but nothing was going to stop her from trying!
I would be remiss if I didn't mention all the pitfalls that come with being a new parent. Another heart stopping moment is when your brand new family checks out of the hospital. Did you know the only requirement to taking a new born baby home from the hospital is that you have an appropriate child seat? The orderly looks in the car, and if you have a place to put the baby, off you go. I don't know what happens if you don't, because we did. Then you drive home at about three miles an hour, go inside, and guess what? You have a baby! There are no tests to pass, no certifications to qualify, no nothing. It's your kid, go home. And if you have to go back to the hospital, and they see something questionable, the state steps in. Talk about a sobering moment!
Don't get me wrong, we did our homework as best we could. We took the Lamaze courses, we took the baby care classes, we read the books, I highly recommend "The First Twelve Months" to any expecting parents who may be reading this. And here is where I'm going with the baby stuff.
Babies don't know anything when they're born. It's almost safe to say they know absolutely nothing, but not completely true. Babies are born with several instincts, other than that, they are a compete blank slate. Doctors check for, if I remember correctly, seven different ones. Among them is the gag instinct, the falling backwards instinct (when you feel like your going to fall and your eyes bug out and you flop around like a moron). Another one is walking. If a new born is held up over a surface, their legs will mimic walking (though they can't actually do it, their bones are like wet noodles at this stage) but they will make the movement. They loose this instinct after a few weeks, but it comes back in a few years when they do start walking.
We were fortunate while in the new baby section of the hospital to have a day nurse who was my cousin's wife. Family! She was so kind, and so caring, and so helpful words can't explain how much she helped us. Did you know newborns don't even know how to eat? Their mouth will suck, but they haven't the slightest clue as to what to do. The baby and the mother both need to learn how to breast feed.
I'm getting closer to my point!
Humans are blessed with having the largest, most functional, most developed brains on the entire planet. I'm sure some greenie out there would scoff at me and point to dolphins or porpoises, to which I reply: Apollo moon landing baby! There is one major drawback though - birth. How does one get a brain that large through the birth canal of a female human? It doesn't fit. So what evolution has come up with is the brain is mush, the skull is elastic, and the baby's head changes shape during birth. Only up until the last hundred years or so, giving birth was a major cause of death among women and children worldwide. It still is in most of the world. Having a brain that's not much more than oatmeal solves evolution's problem of getting a big brain from the womb to the world, but it presents many other problems. Such as, you have a baby with a brain like oatmeal and a head shaped like a cone. They know absolutely nothing. Zero. Zip. NOTA. (I remember at about four months, looking at my daughter with her cone head and thinking "damn, with that head, you are ugly! Oh well, you're mine and I love you anyway." Thanks goodness it does eventually round out.)
When a human is born, they know how to sleep, they know they are hungry (though not what to do about it), they know how to crap, and they know how to cry. And that's all folks. A puppy or a kitten can be weaned from their mother between six to twelve weeks, then off they go. At twelve weeks, humans can't even see. Some animals do spend a few years teaching their young how to hunt and survive before sending them out into the world, at a few years most humans can't even speak or walk. Everything a human knows, everything a human believes, everything they are absolutely, completely, 100% sure of is taught to them. Practically nothing is instinctual. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing is "...intuitively obvious to the casual observer." Nothing. I told you I got the Calc professor's joke!
While I proudly stand on the nurture side of the 'nature vs. nurture' debate, allow me a caveat: I fully understand how genes play out in this debate. I have no doubt Michael Jordan's kids are tall, fast, and most likely excellent athletes. I also don't doubt that parents with super-sized IQ's probably have kids with high intelligence also. But in my opinion, by and large, how, when and where a human grows up has a lot more impact on their lives than who their parents are. If the smartest person in the world grows up on an remote, isolated farm, chances are all they'll probably know is the smartest way to run a farm. And as for intuition, to me, it's nothing more than having a brain that can make certain associations so quickly, even the person themselves don't realize it.
Now another twist.
For some time, I've been personally studying the origins of Christianity, the Bible - New Testament in particular. Every week during Sunday Mass, several times I repeat the words "The Word of the Lord." Being naturally curious (maybe there are some instincts we inherit?) I've been interested in learning just who decided what is the Word of the Lord and who decided what wasn't the Word of the Lord. Along the way, I've learned about a vast cast of characters. One in particular stands out, St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. At first glance he comes off as a whacko. He's the guy who decided that Original Sin (Adam, Eve, the serpent, that stuff) was passed on from generation to generation via sperm, and all we need do is look back of 1,600 hundred years of Church sponsored sexual repression to see how that worked out. I believe it was also the basis for the theology backing the virgin birth and Immaculate Conception, where as since Jesus wasn't conceived by human sperm he was therefore born without original sin. Digging deeper, he did have some (emphasis on some) reasonable logic to make his claim. If a child is born free of sin, then why were so many children born with such horrible defects? Remember this was the early 400's so there was much suffering. Missing limbs, blind, scared, already infected with diseases. How could something so innocent be plagued by such misery? His rationale was that humans must be born with the punishment of Original Sin. He has a point. A very shaky one, easily dismissed with the help of today's science, but at the time? Think about it.
In a nutshell, St. Augustine believed that the world we live in was the punishment for Original Sin, we are doomed as humans to live in this misery, in pain, with the death we all know is coming, ruled over by an imperfect government and society, and our best hope is to pray the Church leads society as best as possible to deal with our collective punishment. Not a very inspiring vision, and from that I can see how Christianity had such a gloomy image for so many thousands of years. It is a startling thought to realize that we must live every day of our lives, surrounded by death, knowing, with out a doubt, that is our fate. Crucifix any one?
Personally I believe we should take this one more step. It's not just that we must live in this imperfect world, surrounded by pain, misery, starvation, agony, death and impending death, but also with the fact that we have no inborn instincts on how to survive other than violence. That's about all humans come packaged with. If something scares you, won't feed you, won't help you, you feel this over reaching urge to choke the living shit out of it. By the way, that's one definition I've heard for stress. Other than that, we are pretty much at society's mercy. It exists, we don't understand it, but we'd better pick it up pretty damn quick or else society will deal with us as it pleases.
So how does all this add up? Is there a point to all my rambling text? Of course there is. And you though I was just trying to sell you Amway!
There are many blessings to being a human. I can't tell you the joy when my young daughter told me I was a gift from God to her. Excuse me while I get misty here. There is also great draw backs to it. For one thing, we know nothing about anything. Everything we know, everything we believe in, everything we base our entire lives on, the morals we profess, the way we treat our neighbors, our family, ourselves, is learned. Bigotry? Learned. Hatred? Learned. Thievery? Learned. Murder? Learned. Love? Learned. Compassion? Learned. Love of learning? Learned.
Now here's where it gets tricky.
The Church my family attends (yes I drag them with me pretty much every Sunday) is a beautiful old building. It was built in 1900. Last year during Christmas Mass, the lector pointed out this was the 105th Christmas Mass celebrated in this very building. For 105 years, people have been coming to this very building to worship, to pray, to hope, to Baptize their children, to bury their dead. There's a hall underneath the Church where countless new couples held their wedding receptions. One hundred and five years worth of Lenten Soup Supers. Countless children's parties. Up in the main Worship area (that's where the alter and the pews are) are three massive stained glass windows. The one on the east side is the Resurrection and it catches the morning light perfectly. The bottom reads something like "Donated by the veterans of St. James Parish in memory of their comrades in the 'Great War' who made the ultimate sacrifice for liberty."
The Great War.
For those who aren't history fanatics like me, that's the older name for what modern society now calls World War I. At the time, 1918, it was the worst man-made catastrophe ever experienced by civilization. Five million dead in four years. At that time people thought it was such a horror that humanity would never attempt such an atrocity again, and so it's also called "The War To End All Wars". Boy did they ever get that wrong. How this ties into my theme is this: the generation that fought World War I, the lost generation, those who inhabited this society we have inherited today, thought they had reached a pinnacle, a peak, a summit in human history, never again would things be the way they were, because of their trials and tribulations, society, civilization, humanity itself would be irrevocably changed. Guess again.
But then again, doesn't every generation believe the same? They are the masters of their environment, their society, living at the peak of history. We live in today's world, standing on the shoulders of every generation that came before us. We have the cumulative knowledge, wisdom and experience of all those before us. Or do we? If one generation of humans can realize the futility of fighting the 'War to End All Wars' then how come the next generation went on to fight World War II? And then Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, and now repeated forays into the Middle East? I thought the lost generation solved that problem? What happened? I'll tell you what happened. Life happened.
Louis S. B. Leakey is credited with the phrase those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. Catchy, but I don't see it selling a lot of t-shirts. What is this history that we need to learn so we don't make the same mistakes? Its the documented achievements and failures of all those other generations before us, who, like us, thought they were the peak, the pinnacle, the summit of humanity and civilization. And as they were wrong in their assumption, we will be wrong in our assumption. We are not the pinnacle of humanity. We are hairless monkeys who came into this world not even knowing how to eat. And just as surely we will pass, leaving nothing more than a brief watermark in history that future generations will pretend to read about in history class, while in reality waiting for the bell to ring so they can sneak out of school, act real cool, stay out all night.
Society is a concept unto itself. We are born knowing nothing, we are raised by society in general, hopefully by our parents in particular, and we must absorb the lessons of life as we grow into adults. My generation didn't build the Church I attend, others did, we just inherited it. It's up to us to make sure it's safe, sound and secure when we pass it on to the next generation that will rise up to take our place, and in turn, they will do so for the next generation. The same happens with all institutions: schools, universities, governments, charities, what have you. And the key to this long missive is, we do not shape the institutions around us - regardless of how sure we are that we do - so much as they shape us. My daughter will grow up as a Catholic. There are good aspects about religion as well as bad. I hope she picks up the good ones, and ignores the bad. She will know little or next to nothing about Islam or Judaism, other than what she picks from society in general. She won't learn racism or bigotry from me, because I am not a racist or bigot, so I don't have those traits to pass on to her. My father grew up in a different generation when there was no talk of sparing the rod. He was regularly whooped to stay in line. Yet he made the conscience choice to not pass those traits on to me and my siblings. Therefore they will not be handed down to my daughter, so she won't hand it down to her children. Proof the chain can be broken.
One last curve ball.
I'm a big Beatles fan. I grew up in the 1970's and it was so not cool to like the old hippie groups like the Beatles from the 1960's. I didn't care, I liked the music. I bought a couple of books on them and came across an interview with John Lennon, given after the band broke up. He answered a question about all the anger the fans showered on Yoko for destroying the best group in the world. His response was very insightful. He said the fans have all the old records if they want to listen to them, and then pointed out how a generation that claimed it was in favor of such radical change, howled like babies when something changed, namely the Beatles broke up. He hit that one right on the nail. Humans always claim to love change, new adventures, see new places, meet new people, but in reality, over all, most humans really don't like change much. When things change, we can't be sure how they'll turn out. Sure people want to see new fads, new foods, new shows, new games. But change one ingredient in Coke and all hell breaks loose. Could be good, could be better, but could also be much, much worse. Not all humans are like that, but experience has taught me most are. Those that don't usually end up out of the gene pool if they don't come to their senses before it's too late.
Why don't we like change? Because we like stability. We like the usual, same old, day to day things. We might bitch and gripe about it, but we like our lives to be predictable. We know how to deal with the predictable, it's the unpredictable that scares us. What happens if we don't know how to react? If we don't know what to do? What if something bad happens? What will we do? You may not be in love with your job, but it sure beats the hell out of not having a regular pay check to keep a roof over your head, and food in your fridge. But the real dichotomy is, everything changes. Nothing stays the same for long. The lost generation from World War I is almost gone. The generation that fought World War II is steadily slipping away. And some day our generation will be lost to history too.
I believe it's this strange dichotomy which accounts for much of the stress and problems in our world. Regardless of what we say, what we think, what we believe, deep down, at some level we all know there is no stability in the world. Anything could happen at any time. Floods, hurricanes, fires, storms, asteroids, heart attacks, the heart break of cirrhosis, anything at any time. Kind of unsettling isn't it? At this very moment you could have a single cell in your body go bad and cancer breaks out. A single clot in an artery breaks free and wham, a stroke. We live our lives pretending to ourselves and others that there is some type of stability in world that in reality is governed by chaos.
And it's that veneer of stability that some of us hold so dear, that we refuse to part with it for any reason at all. How can some one you know, who appears to be sane in every other aspect, appear to be completely insane in others? My theory is that person came into this world as a blank slate, grew up under particular circumstances, shaped by various institutions, and the lessons learned from those experiences shaped and molded the thin veil they use to shield themselves from the impending chaos we all know exists, but prefers to ignore. Any attempts to penetrate that personal shield causes them to question the very stability they use to protect themselves from the inevitable instability of life. And that's asking an awful lot of a person.
How can a regular sane person also be a racist? Because they grew up that way, and for them, that's the way life works, and they would rather argue and fight than come to the realization that their view of the world might be wrong. Or even that there might be a different way to view the world. Way too big a chance they might have to face the reality that they have no real control of the world around them, and that in the end, they will just be dust. Maybe if they're real lucky, they might be worthy of a few lines in a dusty old history book. Or maybe a vague, general reference on a beautiful stained glass window, showering colored sunlight down on a group of youngsters making their first Holy Communion on a Sunday morning, taking their first steps at learning how to exist within the society and the institutions they will all too soon inherit.
Friday, August 18, 2006
News Flash: Peace breaks out in the Middle East!
Reminds me of the old joke "I went to a boxing match last night and a hockey game broke out."
Well, the Holy Land is at it again, all these peaceful, respectful, God-fearing people (don't believe me? Just ask them), are in the process of taking a break long enough to replenish their spit, bullets, missiles and martyrs.
It wasn't all that long ago that I was fairly ambivalent about sides in that never-ending skirmish. Then I read a book written by Natan Sharansky and my opinion changed dramatically. It was an eye opening event. For those not familiar with Mr. Sharansky, he was what we used to refer to, back in the Cold War days, as a "Peacenik." That means he had the balls to back up his ideals to when dealing with Moscow. Cost him a dozen or so years in a Siberian Gulag. In my eyes, he has street cred.
I purchased a copy of the book for my blog editor (does your blog and have an editor? Didn't think so!) because it was such an eye popping epiphany. It's based on a series of essays he wrote with one or more people, so it covers a wide range of topics. One section deals specifically with the Israeli - Palestinian issue (how's that for white-washing the word "war"?). And again, he speaks from first hand experience, he was part of the Israeli negotiating team at Wye River. For those who don't remember that event, it was the last time Yassar Arafat pretended to negotiate. He was right there at the table with him. And what he reports is important.
To sum it up, the negotiations were (and therefore most likely are) ludicrous. One issue the Israelis brought up was the stealing of Israeli automobiles and their transportation to chop-shops in Gaza and the West Bank. Arafat's reply was Israelis are doing, not Palestinians. Yeah. Right. Israelis are stealing their own cars, driving them over into hostile territory (Palestinian controlled land gives a whole new mean to the term hostile to Jews) and selling them to upright, honest used car dealers, then reporting them as stolen for the insurance money. Mr. Sharansky said it was at that point he realized negotiations with the PA (or for those of us old enough to remember - the PLO) were hopeless. They wouldn't even admit to the crime problem. Everything was the Jews fault.
He goes one step deeper into the behind the scenes action. As he states, at one point, the US State Department (Clinton Administration) had the Israeli negotiators in an arm-lock. They got Israel to agree to meet 93% of all of Arafat's demands. We're not talking about 50-50%, 48-52%, we're talking about giving into pretty much everything the Arafat wanted. And what did Arafat do? He walked away. That was his chance to actually earn the Nobel prize those drunken Swiss mistakenly gave him. He could have had the two state solution. Like George Washington, he could have gone down in history as the father of his country. The fact he bolted shouldn't be surprising, after all, if they could get along, they wouldn't still be negotiating. But "why" is an interesting question.
The answer is so simple I couldn't believe some one with my superior intelligence couldn't figure it out on my own. The Palestinians can't have peace, because it would destroy them. Let me clarify, the Palestinian leadership couldn't afford peace, because it would destroy them.
The PLO, PA, Hammas, Hezbolloh, Islamic Jihad, take your pick, are all organizations based upon violence. They need blood, carnage, chaos and conflict in order to remain in power. Should a permanent peace ever really break out, then there really isn't much of a need for these armed thugs hanging around, now would there? Also, if there were no Israeli or American bogeyman to scare the population to death, maybe they would just start to notice how crappy their lives are, how poor they are, how destroyed their land is, and just how much these crooks are stealing from them. They just might start thinking that "hey, this life sucks, I want a say in my own destiny, I want a say in my own government, heck I could do a better job than these guys myself. And just why do I have to beg Arafat for a job, and why do I have to beg Hammas for food for my kids?" When that point is reached, there will be peace. It will also be the end of the line for these armed crooks. And that, they do not wish to see.
No, a true, real, lasting peace in the Middle East will not come until these various Mafia "families" have lost their death grip on power, money and their people's future.
So don't hold your breath hoping this cease fire turns into a lasting peace, because it won't. It can't. The thugs will force their people to dance for the cameras, makes great publicity. They will continue to steal government money to make US and Israeli flags, ready to distribute and burn on a moment's notice. They will continue to crank out propaganda signs for fiery protests. And they will continue to stockpile guns, ammo, missiles and bombs. And when the time is right, they will do what they always do; provoke an action, then sit back and smile as the blood of innocents is spilled for their evil purposes. They will cry they are victims, and the wheel will continue another bloody spin.
Mr. Sharansky has a term for societies such as this, he calls them "fear based" society. And he knows one when he sees it. When you live in a fear based society, you have no idea who's on your side and who's on the ruler's side. And it's even more dangerous to try and find out. He speaks about an event when he was a teenager. One of his buddies snatched some vodka from their Dad's liquor cabinet. While the boys guzzled it down, one of them made a crack about the communists. There was a little nervous laughter, and the party moved on. A few weeks later, that friend disappeared in the night and no one ever mentioned him again.
That's the battle we (Israel, the US, western society) are up against. And until the people are free, there will be no peace.
Well, the Holy Land is at it again, all these peaceful, respectful, God-fearing people (don't believe me? Just ask them), are in the process of taking a break long enough to replenish their spit, bullets, missiles and martyrs.
It wasn't all that long ago that I was fairly ambivalent about sides in that never-ending skirmish. Then I read a book written by Natan Sharansky and my opinion changed dramatically. It was an eye opening event. For those not familiar with Mr. Sharansky, he was what we used to refer to, back in the Cold War days, as a "Peacenik." That means he had the balls to back up his ideals to when dealing with Moscow. Cost him a dozen or so years in a Siberian Gulag. In my eyes, he has street cred.
I purchased a copy of the book for my blog editor (does your blog and have an editor? Didn't think so!) because it was such an eye popping epiphany. It's based on a series of essays he wrote with one or more people, so it covers a wide range of topics. One section deals specifically with the Israeli - Palestinian issue (how's that for white-washing the word "war"?). And again, he speaks from first hand experience, he was part of the Israeli negotiating team at Wye River. For those who don't remember that event, it was the last time Yassar Arafat pretended to negotiate. He was right there at the table with him. And what he reports is important.
To sum it up, the negotiations were (and therefore most likely are) ludicrous. One issue the Israelis brought up was the stealing of Israeli automobiles and their transportation to chop-shops in Gaza and the West Bank. Arafat's reply was Israelis are doing, not Palestinians. Yeah. Right. Israelis are stealing their own cars, driving them over into hostile territory (Palestinian controlled land gives a whole new mean to the term hostile to Jews) and selling them to upright, honest used car dealers, then reporting them as stolen for the insurance money. Mr. Sharansky said it was at that point he realized negotiations with the PA (or for those of us old enough to remember - the PLO) were hopeless. They wouldn't even admit to the crime problem. Everything was the Jews fault.
He goes one step deeper into the behind the scenes action. As he states, at one point, the US State Department (Clinton Administration) had the Israeli negotiators in an arm-lock. They got Israel to agree to meet 93% of all of Arafat's demands. We're not talking about 50-50%, 48-52%, we're talking about giving into pretty much everything the Arafat wanted. And what did Arafat do? He walked away. That was his chance to actually earn the Nobel prize those drunken Swiss mistakenly gave him. He could have had the two state solution. Like George Washington, he could have gone down in history as the father of his country. The fact he bolted shouldn't be surprising, after all, if they could get along, they wouldn't still be negotiating. But "why" is an interesting question.
The answer is so simple I couldn't believe some one with my superior intelligence couldn't figure it out on my own. The Palestinians can't have peace, because it would destroy them. Let me clarify, the Palestinian leadership couldn't afford peace, because it would destroy them.
The PLO, PA, Hammas, Hezbolloh, Islamic Jihad, take your pick, are all organizations based upon violence. They need blood, carnage, chaos and conflict in order to remain in power. Should a permanent peace ever really break out, then there really isn't much of a need for these armed thugs hanging around, now would there? Also, if there were no Israeli or American bogeyman to scare the population to death, maybe they would just start to notice how crappy their lives are, how poor they are, how destroyed their land is, and just how much these crooks are stealing from them. They just might start thinking that "hey, this life sucks, I want a say in my own destiny, I want a say in my own government, heck I could do a better job than these guys myself. And just why do I have to beg Arafat for a job, and why do I have to beg Hammas for food for my kids?" When that point is reached, there will be peace. It will also be the end of the line for these armed crooks. And that, they do not wish to see.
No, a true, real, lasting peace in the Middle East will not come until these various Mafia "families" have lost their death grip on power, money and their people's future.
So don't hold your breath hoping this cease fire turns into a lasting peace, because it won't. It can't. The thugs will force their people to dance for the cameras, makes great publicity. They will continue to steal government money to make US and Israeli flags, ready to distribute and burn on a moment's notice. They will continue to crank out propaganda signs for fiery protests. And they will continue to stockpile guns, ammo, missiles and bombs. And when the time is right, they will do what they always do; provoke an action, then sit back and smile as the blood of innocents is spilled for their evil purposes. They will cry they are victims, and the wheel will continue another bloody spin.
Mr. Sharansky has a term for societies such as this, he calls them "fear based" society. And he knows one when he sees it. When you live in a fear based society, you have no idea who's on your side and who's on the ruler's side. And it's even more dangerous to try and find out. He speaks about an event when he was a teenager. One of his buddies snatched some vodka from their Dad's liquor cabinet. While the boys guzzled it down, one of them made a crack about the communists. There was a little nervous laughter, and the party moved on. A few weeks later, that friend disappeared in the night and no one ever mentioned him again.
That's the battle we (Israel, the US, western society) are up against. And until the people are free, there will be no peace.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
A War the Democrats Can Win
Editor's note: The author insisted I post this Scotch-soaked rant. Perhaps this is a good time to refer to this disclaimer.
News Flash: Jubilant Democrats Announce New Strategy For Winning Campaigns - Defeat Democrats!
The bells were ringing, Code Pink banners abound as democrats enjoyed their first election victory in years by defeating fellow Democrat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary last week. Howard Dean, leader of the Democratic Party, could barely contain his enthusiasm at his party's success. Said Dean "I told you we could do it! I was sure we could take him down, after all, he's a democrat! This is huge for us, and I predict we will implement this strategy on a national basis bringing us many, many more victories in the elections to come!"
Perennial political gadfly Michael Moore managed to stop eating long enough to release a press notice informing his fan or two "This is a watershed event! We have finally found the formula for election success, and we're putting every Democrat on notice, they are vulnerable, and we're taking you down." The press conference was then called early due to an incident with Moore attempting to eat fourteen Krispy Kreme treats at once. Tragedy was narrowly averted when a team of seven of his aides were able to form a human chain to reach around Mr. Moore and perform the Heimlich Maneuver
Peace activist, and really scary-looking person Cindy Sheehan answered questions from a sidewalk cafe over lunch. "I knew my on-going fast would produce results! We've known all along that democrats are easy targets during elections, and now we're going to use this information to target democrats all over the country!" Between bites of a pastrami on rye, and an occasional picked keilbasa she declared "I've been thinking about running for the Senate against Barbara Boxer, and this could just be the time to jump in to the race, before a republican pick's her off."
Not all democrats were happy about the primary outcome, most notably Joe Liberman who quickly bolted from the party. His office released an announcement stating "While we're deeply disappointed at our loss, we intend to continue this campaign from an independent point of view. And I must tell you, being an independent sure takes a load off my shoulders. Being a democrat is like walking around with a target on your back." John F. Kerry, one time presidential nominee also was shaken by the news. "This is scary stuff. I'm happy to support any and all democratic candidates, just so long as they're not running against me. This reminds me of my tour of Vietnam......*"
*Note: The reporter covering Mr. Kerry's comments fell asleep at this point, and did not awaken for several hours, long after the press conference concluded.
Though obviously elated by the news, President Bush's comments were more subdued. "It's just like that movie about the mobsters I watched with Mr. Cheney. One kiss and they're dead. Who knew the President had such powers?" Presidential aid Karl Rove was cornered by the Washington Press Corp. while in the White House, and said between giggles "We all knew it was only a matter of time before the democrats finaly figured it out."
News Flash: Jubilant Democrats Announce New Strategy For Winning Campaigns - Defeat Democrats!
The bells were ringing, Code Pink banners abound as democrats enjoyed their first election victory in years by defeating fellow Democrat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Senatorial primary last week. Howard Dean, leader of the Democratic Party, could barely contain his enthusiasm at his party's success. Said Dean "I told you we could do it! I was sure we could take him down, after all, he's a democrat! This is huge for us, and I predict we will implement this strategy on a national basis bringing us many, many more victories in the elections to come!"
Perennial political gadfly Michael Moore managed to stop eating long enough to release a press notice informing his fan or two "This is a watershed event! We have finally found the formula for election success, and we're putting every Democrat on notice, they are vulnerable, and we're taking you down." The press conference was then called early due to an incident with Moore attempting to eat fourteen Krispy Kreme treats at once. Tragedy was narrowly averted when a team of seven of his aides were able to form a human chain to reach around Mr. Moore and perform the Heimlich Maneuver
Peace activist, and really scary-looking person Cindy Sheehan answered questions from a sidewalk cafe over lunch. "I knew my on-going fast would produce results! We've known all along that democrats are easy targets during elections, and now we're going to use this information to target democrats all over the country!" Between bites of a pastrami on rye, and an occasional picked keilbasa she declared "I've been thinking about running for the Senate against Barbara Boxer, and this could just be the time to jump in to the race, before a republican pick's her off."
Not all democrats were happy about the primary outcome, most notably Joe Liberman who quickly bolted from the party. His office released an announcement stating "While we're deeply disappointed at our loss, we intend to continue this campaign from an independent point of view. And I must tell you, being an independent sure takes a load off my shoulders. Being a democrat is like walking around with a target on your back." John F. Kerry, one time presidential nominee also was shaken by the news. "This is scary stuff. I'm happy to support any and all democratic candidates, just so long as they're not running against me. This reminds me of my tour of Vietnam......*"
*Note: The reporter covering Mr. Kerry's comments fell asleep at this point, and did not awaken for several hours, long after the press conference concluded.
Though obviously elated by the news, President Bush's comments were more subdued. "It's just like that movie about the mobsters I watched with Mr. Cheney. One kiss and they're dead. Who knew the President had such powers?" Presidential aid Karl Rove was cornered by the Washington Press Corp. while in the White House, and said between giggles "We all knew it was only a matter of time before the democrats finaly figured it out."
Friday, July 28, 2006
A flood of compassion
Let it rain, let it rain, let your love rain down on me.
My editor is not going to like this [Editor's note: Not true] , in which case, you may never be granted the opportunity to read these words, but I think I can pull it off well enough to satisfy his libertarian urges.
Last month it rained in my county. And it rained some more. Then it rained some more. Then some more. And then finally Mother Nature got up on her hind legs and really whapped us with the super-soaker. One of the benefits to living in an area blessed with so many rivers and streams is the natural beauty of the area. Fishing, boating, just plain watching the rivers roll. On the downside, we have a lot of water to begin with. When nature decides to triple that amount, well, you get the idea. Flooding on a scale never before seen in this region. While it's nowhere near the devastation heaped on the south by Katrina, it was more than we could handle here.
Watching the neighborhood you grew up in underwater is a surreal feeling. So much needs to be done and as soon as possible. Yet there isn't really anything to do, other than to start collecting two of every species (I choose me and Jennifer Love Hewit!). There were mass evacuations, national guard was called out to ferry people over the water in helicopters. Governor of the state had his live press conference canceled while in progress because the rivers he was using for a dramatic background decided it didn't like being used for cheap political blather, and chased him out.
On a side note, but well related to this topic, I live in a small village in upstate New York. Maybe 15,000 - 20,000 residents. So we have village government, a town government, and a county government as well as state and federal. There's been a lot of talk over the years about dissolving some of the levels, merging with others, the common stuff. Just a week earlier a large group stormed the village meeting and demanded to have their concerns put on the record, as well as the Trustee's position on it. One of the main points they had was we have a full time, paid fire department which only made about 51 calls last year. Let me tell you, they made up for it that week. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if we didn't have them. They used the trucks to block off flooded roads, and they pumped out basements for weeks following as the water slowly receded.
The sanitation workers alone deserve congressional medals of honor. They trucked out thousands of tons of garbage and debris. It must have nearly broken their backs. The police department was everywhere they were needed, and even though I know several of them were flooded out themselves, they stayed on the job anyway.
The flooding closed a hospital on low-lying ground forcing the evacuation of 90 patients to other hospitals. I live near one of the other hospitals and heard the sirens and the medivac copters as they accomplished the feat at a clip of one patient every two minutes. The sirens and helicopters continued all day and all night for three days. These emergency service people performed an unbelievable job, they have all our gratitude.
The reason I mention all this is because I learned a lot of things that week and the following days. Government isn't just a nameless, faceless bureaucracy we all claim they are. At the local level, they are just regular citizens, like you and me. One town closer to the river (I wasn't affected, I live on high ground) was 90% underwater. The Town Supervisor lost her home, yet she worked nonstop for days on end, organizing emergency services, working with the county and the state to help her neighbors. Notice I didn't say constituents? Because when you complain about garbage not being picked up you are a constituent. When everything you own is gone, and you are desperate for help - or in a position to offer help - you are a neighbor.
The local paper began a new section in the paper called "Heroes of the flood" where the community could share stories about the good things that happened. And there was no shortage. I read one letter about a pastor at a church. A house on the other side of the river blew up, and rattled the church and it's school so badly they evacuated the school. Minutes after the explosion, he received a call from the gentleman who had just lost everything he ever owned. The gentleman called to say he was okay, and wanted to know if the children at the church needed help getting out. Now that's what I call hero.
Now here's the money line that either makes or breaks my editor's ban on pro-government blog entries: all the help, the aid, the evacuations, all the clean up, the donations, the evacuation centers, it really wasn't about government. It was about we the people helping each other in time of great need. Even if there was no government, even if Ray Nagin were my mayor instead of the mayor of New Orleans, we the people didn't need them. I have no doubt that if Eric wasn't on the police force (traffic division), I know he'd still have been out there helping those in need. If we had no fire department, I have no doubt the fireman would still have been out there doing their best. Instead of large pump trucks, they'd have gone door to door offering help with portable sump pumps. How do I know this? My brother called me as the water began to rise in his basement to see if I had a pump he could borrow, Home Depot was out. I didn't. By the time I got over to his house a few hours later, he had three that people had loaned him. And he managed to keep the water level to a few inches in his basement.
Politics is a great divider, pitting person against person, party against party, and state against state. But in the end, that divisiveness is not strong enough to pit neighbor against neighbor. Need and compassion is stronger, I know, I've seen it first hand. I'm going to remember that the next time a political debate heats up to the point where I think there is no common ground left. Because I know for a fact, there is!
My editor is not going to like this [Editor's note: Not true] , in which case, you may never be granted the opportunity to read these words, but I think I can pull it off well enough to satisfy his libertarian urges.
Last month it rained in my county. And it rained some more. Then it rained some more. Then some more. And then finally Mother Nature got up on her hind legs and really whapped us with the super-soaker. One of the benefits to living in an area blessed with so many rivers and streams is the natural beauty of the area. Fishing, boating, just plain watching the rivers roll. On the downside, we have a lot of water to begin with. When nature decides to triple that amount, well, you get the idea. Flooding on a scale never before seen in this region. While it's nowhere near the devastation heaped on the south by Katrina, it was more than we could handle here.
Watching the neighborhood you grew up in underwater is a surreal feeling. So much needs to be done and as soon as possible. Yet there isn't really anything to do, other than to start collecting two of every species (I choose me and Jennifer Love Hewit!). There were mass evacuations, national guard was called out to ferry people over the water in helicopters. Governor of the state had his live press conference canceled while in progress because the rivers he was using for a dramatic background decided it didn't like being used for cheap political blather, and chased him out.
On a side note, but well related to this topic, I live in a small village in upstate New York. Maybe 15,000 - 20,000 residents. So we have village government, a town government, and a county government as well as state and federal. There's been a lot of talk over the years about dissolving some of the levels, merging with others, the common stuff. Just a week earlier a large group stormed the village meeting and demanded to have their concerns put on the record, as well as the Trustee's position on it. One of the main points they had was we have a full time, paid fire department which only made about 51 calls last year. Let me tell you, they made up for it that week. I can't imagine how much worse it would be if we didn't have them. They used the trucks to block off flooded roads, and they pumped out basements for weeks following as the water slowly receded.
The sanitation workers alone deserve congressional medals of honor. They trucked out thousands of tons of garbage and debris. It must have nearly broken their backs. The police department was everywhere they were needed, and even though I know several of them were flooded out themselves, they stayed on the job anyway.
The flooding closed a hospital on low-lying ground forcing the evacuation of 90 patients to other hospitals. I live near one of the other hospitals and heard the sirens and the medivac copters as they accomplished the feat at a clip of one patient every two minutes. The sirens and helicopters continued all day and all night for three days. These emergency service people performed an unbelievable job, they have all our gratitude.
The reason I mention all this is because I learned a lot of things that week and the following days. Government isn't just a nameless, faceless bureaucracy we all claim they are. At the local level, they are just regular citizens, like you and me. One town closer to the river (I wasn't affected, I live on high ground) was 90% underwater. The Town Supervisor lost her home, yet she worked nonstop for days on end, organizing emergency services, working with the county and the state to help her neighbors. Notice I didn't say constituents? Because when you complain about garbage not being picked up you are a constituent. When everything you own is gone, and you are desperate for help - or in a position to offer help - you are a neighbor.
The local paper began a new section in the paper called "Heroes of the flood" where the community could share stories about the good things that happened. And there was no shortage. I read one letter about a pastor at a church. A house on the other side of the river blew up, and rattled the church and it's school so badly they evacuated the school. Minutes after the explosion, he received a call from the gentleman who had just lost everything he ever owned. The gentleman called to say he was okay, and wanted to know if the children at the church needed help getting out. Now that's what I call hero.
Now here's the money line that either makes or breaks my editor's ban on pro-government blog entries: all the help, the aid, the evacuations, all the clean up, the donations, the evacuation centers, it really wasn't about government. It was about we the people helping each other in time of great need. Even if there was no government, even if Ray Nagin were my mayor instead of the mayor of New Orleans, we the people didn't need them. I have no doubt that if Eric wasn't on the police force (traffic division), I know he'd still have been out there helping those in need. If we had no fire department, I have no doubt the fireman would still have been out there doing their best. Instead of large pump trucks, they'd have gone door to door offering help with portable sump pumps. How do I know this? My brother called me as the water began to rise in his basement to see if I had a pump he could borrow, Home Depot was out. I didn't. By the time I got over to his house a few hours later, he had three that people had loaned him. And he managed to keep the water level to a few inches in his basement.
Politics is a great divider, pitting person against person, party against party, and state against state. But in the end, that divisiveness is not strong enough to pit neighbor against neighbor. Need and compassion is stronger, I know, I've seen it first hand. I'm going to remember that the next time a political debate heats up to the point where I think there is no common ground left. Because I know for a fact, there is!
Sunday, July 23, 2006
And so it began
Joshua 1:1-11
1 And it came about after the death of Moses the servant of Jehovah that Jehovah proceeded to say to Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses:
2 “Moses my servant is dead; and now get up, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel.
3 Every place upon which the sole of YOUR foot will tread, to YOU people I shall certainly give it, just as I promised to Moses.
4 From the wilderness and this Leb´a·non to the great river, the river Eu·phra´tes, that is, all the land of the Hit´tites, and to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun YOUR territory will prove to be.
5 Nobody will take a firm stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I proved to be with Moses I shall prove to be with you. I shall neither desert you nor leave you entirely.
6 Be courageous and strong, for you are the one who will cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their forefathers to give to them.
7 “Only be courageous and very strong to take care to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may act wisely everywhere you go.
8 This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an undertone read in it day and night, in order that you may take care to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful and then you will act wisely.
9 Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not suffer shock or be terrified, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go.”
10 And Joshua proceeded to command the officers of the people, saying:
11 “Pass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying, ‘Get provisions ready for yourselves, because three days from now YOU are crossing this Jordan to go in and take possession of the land that Jehovah YOUR God is giving YOU to take possession of it.’”
And so it began.
Violence has again broken out in the Middle East. Which we hear about with the same regularity as "do you want paper or plastic?" The important thing to remember is this is not a new issue. This has been going on, off and on, since Joshua led the Tribes of Israel into the Land of Milk and Honey thousands of years ago. Well, not when he lead his people into the Jordan River valley, but rather when they proceeded to clear the land of idol worshippers, namely, the ancestors of the Palestinian people, as well as many others I'm sure any one attending Church regularly could rattle off.
There's more than enough blame to go around for all parties involved. Suicide bombers, war planes, Kaatusha rockets, tanks, more suicide bombers, bulldozers, dead children, more dead children. It never seems to end. I find it kind of ironic that three of the world's five or six major religions refer to the region as the "Holy Land". In a part of the world better known for floating on a sea of oil, this one floats on a sea of blood. I wonder just how far you'd have to drill to get a scarlet stream gushing out of the ground? My guess is not too deep.
World wars, the Crusades, the rise of the Islamic empires, people have fought over this area for ages untold. I'm sure whoever was there before the people Joshua and company removed, did the same thing to whoever was there when they first showed up. It's human nature "that pretty" BONK! "pretty, mine!"
To me, what is probably the biggest issue is competing religions. Now, remember, what religion means to you and I, sitting in our technically advanced, modern-marvel-filled-world, was a much different issue for people thousands and thousands of years ago. It should be painfully obvious that it's quite different for people just part-way around the globe from us. I love attending Mass at my local Parish, and I would be royally pissed if someone blew it up. But some how I'd like to think it's not part of the American psyche to unleash a hatred that would endure for thousands upon thousands of years, causing nothing but pain, death and heartache for our descendents without end.
Americans are different breed. We're more the type to take care of the issue sooner, rather than later, no matter what it costs us. We're also the type to have enough military toys laying around so that others would take notice and think twice. And we're also not above using our military to grab some two bit thug dictator by the scruff of the neck and shaking him (have we toppled any female run dictatorships?) as an example to others in the region to say "You assholes sure you want a piece of this!?!?"
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the times America has used its military might for self gain. Cuba may have deserved liberation from Spain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they deserved to be sold to the Mafia. But in my opinion, so far, we still come out on the plus side of St. Peter's log book. You have to admit, the concept of modern democracy, a reasonably free Europe, Russia, Japan and South Korea, the Industrial Revolution, the Information revolution, and figuring out exactly how to remove a disease from the list of things that plague most humanity is pretty impressive.
There are also other types of people in the world. People who have no care for anything other than raw brute power and strength (and Americans are well represented on that list too, I'm differentiating myself). There are people who think and plan and work in ways I couldn't even imagine. For example, some one who would engage a US Marine patrol in an ambush, and then hide behind their children to allow survivors to reap the publicity windfall they know will come from the mainstream media. How does a mind like that work? I can't even imagine. But, in a way, that's the modern day version of what Joshua met when he entered the Land of Milk and Honey. And by that I mean, two alien cultures, worlds apart on the basic building blocks of society, living next to each other. First it's throwing leaves over the fence when one rakes, because it's funny. Then it's water on the roof when it's freezing. The next thing you know, there's a museum in the Palestinian-controlled areas that glorify the idiot who strapped on a bomb belt and blew up some twenty kids at a pizza parlor.
The "Holy Land" has been a tinderbox for violence and destruction since the United Nations created it by committee (see what happens when you draw national boarders by committee?). On the one hand, the Muslims do have a dog in this fight "If you felt guilty because of the Holocaust then why don't you give them your country?" On the other hand Israel is here, and it's not going anywhere. And I don't think it should. Its a model of what civilization and humanity can create, even under the most adverse circumstances. It's also a stunning contrast to what humanity will refuse to do, under any circumstances. The Gaza Strip greenhouses being a stellar example.
How to reconcile the differences? One side says the land is theirs because God promised it to them (and I believe, technically, the current manifestation of Israel isn't even in the Jordan River valley). The other says they want to wipe their opponents off the human genome.
As anyone who's read my past writings knows (I think that list is limited to my editor and myself) this is a fight I've come to believe has long been coming. The West and Islam have never come to grips with each other. It wasn't much of an issue with America in the past, because the vast distances of the oceans. On September 11, we learned that doesn't matter any more. We're in a new, uncharted world. Might this be the time to finally settle this once and for all? Cease-fires, negotiations, and UN Sanctions don't have much of a track record. After all, how exactly does one hold cease-fire negotiants in good faith with people who throw parties to celebrate the death of their child who blew himself up in order to kill other children? Yes, a new, uncharted world.
1 And it came about after the death of Moses the servant of Jehovah that Jehovah proceeded to say to Joshua the son of Nun, the minister of Moses:
2 “Moses my servant is dead; and now get up, cross this Jordan, you and all this people, into the land that I am giving to them, to the sons of Israel.
3 Every place upon which the sole of YOUR foot will tread, to YOU people I shall certainly give it, just as I promised to Moses.
4 From the wilderness and this Leb´a·non to the great river, the river Eu·phra´tes, that is, all the land of the Hit´tites, and to the Great Sea toward the setting of the sun YOUR territory will prove to be.
5 Nobody will take a firm stand before you all the days of your life. Just as I proved to be with Moses I shall prove to be with you. I shall neither desert you nor leave you entirely.
6 Be courageous and strong, for you are the one who will cause this people to inherit the land that I swore to their forefathers to give to them.
7 “Only be courageous and very strong to take care to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn aside from it to the right or to the left, in order that you may act wisely everywhere you go.
8 This book of the law should not depart from your mouth, and you must in an undertone read in it day and night, in order that you may take care to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way successful and then you will act wisely.
9 Have I not commanded you? Be courageous and strong. Do not suffer shock or be terrified, for Jehovah your God is with you wherever you go.”
10 And Joshua proceeded to command the officers of the people, saying:
11 “Pass through the midst of the camp and command the people, saying, ‘Get provisions ready for yourselves, because three days from now YOU are crossing this Jordan to go in and take possession of the land that Jehovah YOUR God is giving YOU to take possession of it.’”
And so it began.
Violence has again broken out in the Middle East. Which we hear about with the same regularity as "do you want paper or plastic?" The important thing to remember is this is not a new issue. This has been going on, off and on, since Joshua led the Tribes of Israel into the Land of Milk and Honey thousands of years ago. Well, not when he lead his people into the Jordan River valley, but rather when they proceeded to clear the land of idol worshippers, namely, the ancestors of the Palestinian people, as well as many others I'm sure any one attending Church regularly could rattle off.
There's more than enough blame to go around for all parties involved. Suicide bombers, war planes, Kaatusha rockets, tanks, more suicide bombers, bulldozers, dead children, more dead children. It never seems to end. I find it kind of ironic that three of the world's five or six major religions refer to the region as the "Holy Land". In a part of the world better known for floating on a sea of oil, this one floats on a sea of blood. I wonder just how far you'd have to drill to get a scarlet stream gushing out of the ground? My guess is not too deep.
World wars, the Crusades, the rise of the Islamic empires, people have fought over this area for ages untold. I'm sure whoever was there before the people Joshua and company removed, did the same thing to whoever was there when they first showed up. It's human nature "that pretty" BONK! "pretty, mine!"
To me, what is probably the biggest issue is competing religions. Now, remember, what religion means to you and I, sitting in our technically advanced, modern-marvel-filled-world, was a much different issue for people thousands and thousands of years ago. It should be painfully obvious that it's quite different for people just part-way around the globe from us. I love attending Mass at my local Parish, and I would be royally pissed if someone blew it up. But some how I'd like to think it's not part of the American psyche to unleash a hatred that would endure for thousands upon thousands of years, causing nothing but pain, death and heartache for our descendents without end.
Americans are different breed. We're more the type to take care of the issue sooner, rather than later, no matter what it costs us. We're also the type to have enough military toys laying around so that others would take notice and think twice. And we're also not above using our military to grab some two bit thug dictator by the scruff of the neck and shaking him (have we toppled any female run dictatorships?) as an example to others in the region to say "You assholes sure you want a piece of this!?!?"
I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the times America has used its military might for self gain. Cuba may have deserved liberation from Spain, but that doesn't necessarily mean they deserved to be sold to the Mafia. But in my opinion, so far, we still come out on the plus side of St. Peter's log book. You have to admit, the concept of modern democracy, a reasonably free Europe, Russia, Japan and South Korea, the Industrial Revolution, the Information revolution, and figuring out exactly how to remove a disease from the list of things that plague most humanity is pretty impressive.
There are also other types of people in the world. People who have no care for anything other than raw brute power and strength (and Americans are well represented on that list too, I'm differentiating myself). There are people who think and plan and work in ways I couldn't even imagine. For example, some one who would engage a US Marine patrol in an ambush, and then hide behind their children to allow survivors to reap the publicity windfall they know will come from the mainstream media. How does a mind like that work? I can't even imagine. But, in a way, that's the modern day version of what Joshua met when he entered the Land of Milk and Honey. And by that I mean, two alien cultures, worlds apart on the basic building blocks of society, living next to each other. First it's throwing leaves over the fence when one rakes, because it's funny. Then it's water on the roof when it's freezing. The next thing you know, there's a museum in the Palestinian-controlled areas that glorify the idiot who strapped on a bomb belt and blew up some twenty kids at a pizza parlor.
The "Holy Land" has been a tinderbox for violence and destruction since the United Nations created it by committee (see what happens when you draw national boarders by committee?). On the one hand, the Muslims do have a dog in this fight "If you felt guilty because of the Holocaust then why don't you give them your country?" On the other hand Israel is here, and it's not going anywhere. And I don't think it should. Its a model of what civilization and humanity can create, even under the most adverse circumstances. It's also a stunning contrast to what humanity will refuse to do, under any circumstances. The Gaza Strip greenhouses being a stellar example.
How to reconcile the differences? One side says the land is theirs because God promised it to them (and I believe, technically, the current manifestation of Israel isn't even in the Jordan River valley). The other says they want to wipe their opponents off the human genome.
As anyone who's read my past writings knows (I think that list is limited to my editor and myself) this is a fight I've come to believe has long been coming. The West and Islam have never come to grips with each other. It wasn't much of an issue with America in the past, because the vast distances of the oceans. On September 11, we learned that doesn't matter any more. We're in a new, uncharted world. Might this be the time to finally settle this once and for all? Cease-fires, negotiations, and UN Sanctions don't have much of a track record. After all, how exactly does one hold cease-fire negotiants in good faith with people who throw parties to celebrate the death of their child who blew himself up in order to kill other children? Yes, a new, uncharted world.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
First in War, First in Peace, First with his Foot Up Your Ass!
If you couldn't already tell by the flotsam floating out of Washington DC, we're in an election season. And what self-respecting, America-loving, hot dog-eating, baby-kissing, bribe-collecting, politician wouldn't take the opportunity of the slowing news cycle - brought on by the Fourth of July holiday - to jump on the bandwagon by voting for meaningless, yet easily converted into political ad, issues? You know what that means, don't you? It's time to bring up a flag burning amendment to the US Constitution!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Beautiful, isn't it? So simple, so plain, so obvious. Its amazing what some authors can accomplish in mere sentences that others can not accomplish with volumes.
I've heard once, but never verified, that Thomas Jefferson opposed the Bill of Rights. Not because he was against freedom, but as he understood the constitution, all freedoms were permitted, and creating a list of guaranteed rights might cause harm because future generations might come to believe only those listed in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed. That is the best and only argument I've ever heard against them.
I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers ever conceived the concept that an American would actually consider burning the symbol for which they fought so hard and valiantly to establish. My money is the thought never entered their minds. If someone burned a flag in front of George Washington, I would assume they would have a lot more to worry about than a court date. They'd have to worry about Washington's foot up their ass. Literally.
But those were the old days, and today we have to deal with a never-ending assortment of kooks who see no boundaries between them and the self importance they feel society and life owes them. "I can do it, and you can't stop me, and I'm on TV because of it, see how special I am?" Special? About as special as French Special Forces, capable of deploying anywhere in the world and in position to surrender within 16 hours of notice.
On the one hand, no one* in Washington really pays attention to the Constitution any more. On the other hand, there are veterans who have really earned the right to not only proudly display their national symbol, but to cherish it's sanctity. If you doubt me, spend some time studying World War II. Trust me, they have a dog in this fight.
But on the third hand, freedom of speech (all kinds, not just spoken, but written, bought, or performance art) is a really great idea. I may not like what they say, and I have the right not to listen, but they do have a right to say it. So it seems to me, there are plenty of dogs in this fight.
Over all, I'd leave the Constitution alone, at least on this issue. I think to myself "what would the most moderate of moderates in American politics, Ben Franklin, say about this issue"? And I have to conclude that old Ben would have come up with a few pithy retorts, humiliating said flag burners. And then a little later, after the fuss was over, send a letter to some of his friends, the ones that really fought in the Revolutionary War, the ones that left blood, limbs, and friends on the killing fields, and say "Hey, do some of you guys want to come up here to my house for a few days? We'll tell some old stories, quaff a few (Sam Adams is in charge of brews!), and then I have this putrid little puke I'd like us all to meet."
Of course, by the time they got there, said putrid little puke would already be trying to figure out how to get George Washington's foot out of his ass.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Beautiful, isn't it? So simple, so plain, so obvious. Its amazing what some authors can accomplish in mere sentences that others can not accomplish with volumes.
I've heard once, but never verified, that Thomas Jefferson opposed the Bill of Rights. Not because he was against freedom, but as he understood the constitution, all freedoms were permitted, and creating a list of guaranteed rights might cause harm because future generations might come to believe only those listed in the Bill of Rights are guaranteed. That is the best and only argument I've ever heard against them.
I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers ever conceived the concept that an American would actually consider burning the symbol for which they fought so hard and valiantly to establish. My money is the thought never entered their minds. If someone burned a flag in front of George Washington, I would assume they would have a lot more to worry about than a court date. They'd have to worry about Washington's foot up their ass. Literally.
But those were the old days, and today we have to deal with a never-ending assortment of kooks who see no boundaries between them and the self importance they feel society and life owes them. "I can do it, and you can't stop me, and I'm on TV because of it, see how special I am?" Special? About as special as French Special Forces, capable of deploying anywhere in the world and in position to surrender within 16 hours of notice.
On the one hand, no one* in Washington really pays attention to the Constitution any more. On the other hand, there are veterans who have really earned the right to not only proudly display their national symbol, but to cherish it's sanctity. If you doubt me, spend some time studying World War II. Trust me, they have a dog in this fight.
But on the third hand, freedom of speech (all kinds, not just spoken, but written, bought, or performance art) is a really great idea. I may not like what they say, and I have the right not to listen, but they do have a right to say it. So it seems to me, there are plenty of dogs in this fight.
Over all, I'd leave the Constitution alone, at least on this issue. I think to myself "what would the most moderate of moderates in American politics, Ben Franklin, say about this issue"? And I have to conclude that old Ben would have come up with a few pithy retorts, humiliating said flag burners. And then a little later, after the fuss was over, send a letter to some of his friends, the ones that really fought in the Revolutionary War, the ones that left blood, limbs, and friends on the killing fields, and say "Hey, do some of you guys want to come up here to my house for a few days? We'll tell some old stories, quaff a few (Sam Adams is in charge of brews!), and then I have this putrid little puke I'd like us all to meet."
Of course, by the time they got there, said putrid little puke would already be trying to figure out how to get George Washington's foot out of his ass.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Government as a bug
A couple of weeks ago, I spent a few days at the shore with my small family, just my wife, our teenage daughter (13, I know, it's coming) and myself. We stayed at a beachfront hotel in Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. Wildwood is known as the party town, but if you go a few miles south to the Crest, its peaceful, quiet, and beautiful. We did go to the boardwalk for a while, more just to say we did it, than any particular urge. But something about the beach just hits my spot. The rumble of the never-ending waves, the white, glittering sands. I even love the seagulls, constantly begging for scraps.
In between walks on the beach, lazy summer reading (John Stossel's new book - which I recommend), way too much good food, and plenty of alcohol, there's plenty of time to just let your mind roam, and think.
While just staring at the ocean (we saw plenty of porpoises and or dolphins, I don't know which) it leaves me with the impression that there is a God. After all, believing all this natural beauty is just a cosmic coincidence, doesn't quite hold up when it's displayed before you in such magnitude. Everything seems so perfect, someone must have been in charge, so grand a plan, such execution. And that's when my drifting mind suddenly realized the problem with government.
Stick with me, I'll get to the point, but first, a short detour.
I went to college in 1981 because I graduated high school and didn't really know how to do anything other than go to school. Don't worry, the professors very quickly pointed out how incapable I was of doing even that. I majored in electrical engineering technology because I did like messing around with gadgets like radios and TVs and stereos. What I discovered was that Western society was on the verge of the computer revolution and I was right in the middle of it.
Over the years as I've watched the computer revolution mature I've noticed something else, as being a lab tech on the inside of it, and a consumer on the outside of it. If you've never been part of a large organization trying to do something very large and expensive, involving teams from (at the time) all over the plant, to teams all over the world (can you say globalization?) it's quite a sight to behold. Hundreds, if not thousands of tiny ants, formed into departments, teams, divisions, disciplines. And for the most part this organization structure works pretty well. But it's not perfect.
Do you have a computer? Of course you do, or you wouldn't be reading my blog. Ever have problems with your computer? No matter how simple an action you are trying to do, something, sooner or later, will go wrong. Hard drive crashes, you lose your data, power supply fires. You think you're saving data when in fact you just deleted it, even though the menu clearly says "save". Frustrating as hell, ain't it? How could some one get that wrong, you think. But the cold fact is no one single person did get it wrong. Every one on every team associated with that particular feature got it wrong. And then the teams that integrate all those features together got it wrong. And all the people that grouped those features into an application got it wrong. And the same kinds of mistakes were made by other teams doing other features, applications and what not.
In the trade we refer to these as "bugs". That's a great story all by itself. Years ago, the very first digital computer ever built, was constructed in Philadelphia. It was a huge project that used vacuum tubes instead of transistors, and as a result, those free calculators you get when you open a new checking account has infinitely more computing power. (The computer you are using now has infinitely more processing power than all the computers that managed the first moon landing.) Well any way it was busted and a couple of service techs were trying to figure out why. Eventually they discovered a moth was attracted to the heat of the tubes, shorted out a circuit and shut down the whole thing. So they pulled it out, taped the moth into the service log book and wrote next to it "system has been debugged." That log book page is now at the Smithsonian.
Now back to computers. Essentially a computer is made up of tiny switches. Trillions and trillions of them really. And every one of these switches has an input and an output. It's either turned on or it's turned off. Group those transistors and you get what's called a logic gate. And these gates behave in a manner that depending upon a group of inputs will trigger a known output. Group these together and so on and so forth and so on and you have a classic "Rube Goldberg" nightmare. Computer programs are nothing more than a collection of instructions that change the inputs on these logic gates, which change the outputs and so on and so forth. Trust me, if you think all that happens when you click the "send to printer" button is a paper comes out, you're nuts. As a matter of fact it's pretty impressive that all these parts, all these decisions, the millions upon millions of different little things that are required to get that printed paper out even work.
And that's because computers and programs are made by humans. Humans are imperfect, no matter what we'd rather believe. And the things we humans do are also imperfect, no matter how hard we try. I can guarantee the people that made a mistake that frustrates you poured over the decisions they made a hundred times, and tested it over and over and over, but still missed it. It just happens. We are not perfect, no matter how we try. Here's some free advice. In life don't try for perfect, try for better. The lack of stress will add years to your life.
Now I promised you the problems with democratic government. Well, actually, I just did. Government is a concept thought up and instituted by imperfect humans. Yet we humans demand perfection, especially from someone who takes half our paycheck in the form of taxes. We get frustrated by politicians who don't seem to be able to accomplish anything. And that's because government, is in fact, closer to a computer than what our politicians would have us believe. "Vote for me, I'll fix it" "Don't vote for my opponent, they'll only screw it up more." But politicians don't run the show, hell, it's so big and bloated that they probably don't even realize how little they really know about government. Government is like a computer. Only instead of trillions and trillions of tiny logic gates, its populated with humans. Engineers can lay out logic gates into circuits that work to accomplish specific tasks. (Some times they don't work at all, other times they have unintended consequences. I must have heard "never thought about that" a million time). Yet government is populated by humans, not logic gates, and rather imperfect humans at that. Making imperfect decisions. The only problem is, when they screw up you lose more than your email to Aunt Maud. People get hurt, people have their lives taken away from them, people die.
Our laws are nothing more than instructions from our government trying to fix an endless stream of "bugs" associated with society, but in far too many instances are nothing more than imperfect solutions that will require more fixes and so on and so forth. A perpetual motion machine of mistakes fueling itself over and over and over.
Government is not the be all to end all. It's millions of little workers, doing what they think is best, or quite possibly, not even caring what comes out of their efforts. And even some, I'm sure, who are gaming the system for their own benefit.
Government is imperfect. Always has been, always will be. No one is going to fix it or destroy it because it's too damn big to even understand. We're stuck with it. But don't waste too much time or energy worrying about that. Save your time for something better, like a trip to the beach!
In between walks on the beach, lazy summer reading (John Stossel's new book - which I recommend), way too much good food, and plenty of alcohol, there's plenty of time to just let your mind roam, and think.
While just staring at the ocean (we saw plenty of porpoises and or dolphins, I don't know which) it leaves me with the impression that there is a God. After all, believing all this natural beauty is just a cosmic coincidence, doesn't quite hold up when it's displayed before you in such magnitude. Everything seems so perfect, someone must have been in charge, so grand a plan, such execution. And that's when my drifting mind suddenly realized the problem with government.
Stick with me, I'll get to the point, but first, a short detour.
I went to college in 1981 because I graduated high school and didn't really know how to do anything other than go to school. Don't worry, the professors very quickly pointed out how incapable I was of doing even that. I majored in electrical engineering technology because I did like messing around with gadgets like radios and TVs and stereos. What I discovered was that Western society was on the verge of the computer revolution and I was right in the middle of it.
Over the years as I've watched the computer revolution mature I've noticed something else, as being a lab tech on the inside of it, and a consumer on the outside of it. If you've never been part of a large organization trying to do something very large and expensive, involving teams from (at the time) all over the plant, to teams all over the world (can you say globalization?) it's quite a sight to behold. Hundreds, if not thousands of tiny ants, formed into departments, teams, divisions, disciplines. And for the most part this organization structure works pretty well. But it's not perfect.
Do you have a computer? Of course you do, or you wouldn't be reading my blog. Ever have problems with your computer? No matter how simple an action you are trying to do, something, sooner or later, will go wrong. Hard drive crashes, you lose your data, power supply fires. You think you're saving data when in fact you just deleted it, even though the menu clearly says "save". Frustrating as hell, ain't it? How could some one get that wrong, you think. But the cold fact is no one single person did get it wrong. Every one on every team associated with that particular feature got it wrong. And then the teams that integrate all those features together got it wrong. And all the people that grouped those features into an application got it wrong. And the same kinds of mistakes were made by other teams doing other features, applications and what not.
In the trade we refer to these as "bugs". That's a great story all by itself. Years ago, the very first digital computer ever built, was constructed in Philadelphia. It was a huge project that used vacuum tubes instead of transistors, and as a result, those free calculators you get when you open a new checking account has infinitely more computing power. (The computer you are using now has infinitely more processing power than all the computers that managed the first moon landing.) Well any way it was busted and a couple of service techs were trying to figure out why. Eventually they discovered a moth was attracted to the heat of the tubes, shorted out a circuit and shut down the whole thing. So they pulled it out, taped the moth into the service log book and wrote next to it "system has been debugged." That log book page is now at the Smithsonian.
Now back to computers. Essentially a computer is made up of tiny switches. Trillions and trillions of them really. And every one of these switches has an input and an output. It's either turned on or it's turned off. Group those transistors and you get what's called a logic gate. And these gates behave in a manner that depending upon a group of inputs will trigger a known output. Group these together and so on and so forth and so on and you have a classic "Rube Goldberg" nightmare. Computer programs are nothing more than a collection of instructions that change the inputs on these logic gates, which change the outputs and so on and so forth. Trust me, if you think all that happens when you click the "send to printer" button is a paper comes out, you're nuts. As a matter of fact it's pretty impressive that all these parts, all these decisions, the millions upon millions of different little things that are required to get that printed paper out even work.
And that's because computers and programs are made by humans. Humans are imperfect, no matter what we'd rather believe. And the things we humans do are also imperfect, no matter how hard we try. I can guarantee the people that made a mistake that frustrates you poured over the decisions they made a hundred times, and tested it over and over and over, but still missed it. It just happens. We are not perfect, no matter how we try. Here's some free advice. In life don't try for perfect, try for better. The lack of stress will add years to your life.
Now I promised you the problems with democratic government. Well, actually, I just did. Government is a concept thought up and instituted by imperfect humans. Yet we humans demand perfection, especially from someone who takes half our paycheck in the form of taxes. We get frustrated by politicians who don't seem to be able to accomplish anything. And that's because government, is in fact, closer to a computer than what our politicians would have us believe. "Vote for me, I'll fix it" "Don't vote for my opponent, they'll only screw it up more." But politicians don't run the show, hell, it's so big and bloated that they probably don't even realize how little they really know about government. Government is like a computer. Only instead of trillions and trillions of tiny logic gates, its populated with humans. Engineers can lay out logic gates into circuits that work to accomplish specific tasks. (Some times they don't work at all, other times they have unintended consequences. I must have heard "never thought about that" a million time). Yet government is populated by humans, not logic gates, and rather imperfect humans at that. Making imperfect decisions. The only problem is, when they screw up you lose more than your email to Aunt Maud. People get hurt, people have their lives taken away from them, people die.
Our laws are nothing more than instructions from our government trying to fix an endless stream of "bugs" associated with society, but in far too many instances are nothing more than imperfect solutions that will require more fixes and so on and so forth. A perpetual motion machine of mistakes fueling itself over and over and over.
Government is not the be all to end all. It's millions of little workers, doing what they think is best, or quite possibly, not even caring what comes out of their efforts. And even some, I'm sure, who are gaming the system for their own benefit.
Government is imperfect. Always has been, always will be. No one is going to fix it or destroy it because it's too damn big to even understand. We're stuck with it. But don't waste too much time or energy worrying about that. Save your time for something better, like a trip to the beach!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)