A few weeks, or maybe it was a few months ago, I can't keep track, Maureen Dowd released a column in advance of a new book that laid out the problem faced by all modern, progressive, liberal, democratic, happening, hip, cool, and whatever, women. Having forsaken the concept of traditional marriage and family life in search of the greater glory of fame, fortune and the brass ring, upon reaching their ultimate goal, they are unable to find suitable mates. How and why could this happen? After all, aren't they successful? Aren't they on the party "A" list? Don't they get invited to all the coolest parties? What could possibly prevent them from being "hunk magnets" and securing the ultimate prize they so richly deserve? According to Dowd, it's because their male counterparts (hip, cool, rich, well-read, etc.) prefer dumb blondes, secretaries, and service workers. I'm not sure if she actually used the term "intimidated" as I can rarely get past Dowd's first few paragraphs, but that's what I suspect she's driving at. In other words, while the progressive, feminist has gone out and conquered the modern metro world, the hunks they were expecting to be waiting at the finish line have decided "bimbos" are easier to get along with.
Let's skim past the obvious, that perhaps men prefer women who have more varied desires than the board room. Lets ignore the possibility that perhaps the hunks she feels she deserves might have met other women on the journey through life and weren't actually standing around waiting at the finish line, and in fact, they have lives. Let's get beyond what is plain to every one who's ever had a successful relationship and realizes that when it comes to significant others, life is not a buffet where one picks and chooses the traits they demand from a spouse: "he must enjoy poetry, sailing, fine cuisine and 'Sex in the City'", but rather an off-the-rack world where you don't force someone to meet your demands, but rather accept each other, warts and all, because you actually love them.
No, we'll leave that in the bit bucket for now. Instead, lets move on towards an answer to solve these problems. And the problems are many. Turn on any liberal news radio network or liberal news TV program, and you will see just how dire this situation is. Immaculately dressed women, hair perfect, visions of grace, intelligence, poise and confidence, and you will immediately see a common thread. They hate conservatives. They rip them to shreds every chance they get. They slowly roast their chestnuts over the open fire of their commentary. They belittle them, humiliate them, make fun of them, insult them, and laugh in the face of any one who doesn't immediately see the absolute correctness of their position. And, having plied the troubled waters of relationships, I know that look. I've seen it before. It's when a women on a date literally spits fire describing who they'd really rather be dating. They need "it."
The only way I can see to bring some kind of civility to the airwaves between liberal-democratic women and conservatives, is for "it" to take place. And I think I type for both sexes, when I coyly refer to "it". We know, because we all know what "it" is. We've all been there before. Be honest. Admit it. We all want "it."
I don't know about females of my age bracket (tail end of baby boomers) but I know every male geek of my day remembers the classic "Revenge of the Nerds". When the head cheer leader falls for the geek, justice was served. If only she would have shut her mouth and opened her eyes sooner, she would have entered the promised land so much earlier in her life. But no, she was restrained by peer pressure. But peer pressure does not allow for one's true desire, it only allows for the desire of the pack one runs with. And that was "no nerds." How silly labels truly are.
Not I'm not suggesting in the least that Rush Limbaugh is a nerd, no - not at all. Rather I'm just using the analogy of "Revenge of the Nerds" to make a point. And guys, I need you to back me up on this, I'm pretty darned sure I'm right. Most women want what they can't have. If you treat them nice, give them respect, they walk all over you and want something else. Be a little uppity, let them know you're still deciding, and they love the challenge. My opinion is, regardless of what Maureen Dowd and her crowd says, we know what they want, and that's what they claim to despise. That's why we need Rush.
Some man on the conservative side needs to seize the initiative, needs to stake a claim in this virgin territory. Friends, that person is Rush Limbaugh.
[Editor's note: The paragraph below makes it way too easy to come up with highly inappropriate links, so I shall be the better person and resist]
I know it won't be easy. It very well may turn out to be down right ugly. But the attempt must be made. Rush needs to be the stand up guy he is. He needs to ride forth into this heard of liberal women. He needs to lead the thrust into enemy territory. He needs to drive home the message of fiscal conservatism. Certainly they will fight back, but he needs to keep pounding these principles home. He needs to do it over, and over, and over, till the message really hits pay dirt. He will be openly mocked for his views on "small government" but he mustn't let that deter him. Rather he must stand tall by his convictions. He must over come their defenses, he must succeed in implanting his conservative ideals in unplowed fields, so the seed of liberty and freedom might grow in this new, fertile ground. And in doing so, Rush will become a symbol to all of us with similar desires and ideals, of the promise of what America should truly be. And he must continue to perform till the ranks of conservative men have the courage to follow him, over the top of the liberal trench, through no-man's land, literally bursting with optimism and ideology, to join him on this crusade. And together we can satisfy the emotional needs that prevent liberal, feminist women from seeing the truth.
Rush, we need you. Maureen Dowd needs you. You're nation needs you. Rise to the occasion!
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Thursday, March 09, 2006
How the West Won
Why did the West rise?
I mean, if you compare Western civilization to the Far East, Muslim world, Africa, Asia, Native American Indians (both North and South America) and India, the West has really kicked ass in the development of civilization and society. The West has gone so far as to make ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome look like barbarians with Lincoln Logs or Legos. Egyptians built the great pyramids, the West walked on the Moon. The Greeks invented Euclidian geometry. The West invented calculus. Romans brought water to its empire via aqueducts. The west built the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam. Want to talk progress? How about human flight?
Why did this happen?
For the past few years I've been studying early Christianity and the early Catholic Church. One of the books which I'm currently reading, "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr., has some interesting ideas. Now, granted, Woods is a right-wing bomb thrower, whose greatest joy in life appears to be infuriating liberals in general, and political correctness (and the forced assumptions behind it, all evil was at the hands of white, European males) in particular, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, or doesn't offer some interesting ideas, which he does.
This particular rant is not based solely on Woods' work, but also of several other books and authors I've read. Woods just happens to be on the top of my head at the moment.
Woods' theory, to sum it up in a word, is "science." His answer is that science developed in the West, but no where else, to any real extent. He places a lot of credit for that in the early debates during the formation of the Catholic Church, but more on that later. For starters, what is science? Woods' definition makes sense to me, so I'll use that. Science is the marriage of theory with empirical observations. That means, that not only does one think, but one experiments, then thinks about the results, then experiments more, then thinks some more, and so on and so forth. In other words, it's a neverending process to learn everything about any and every possible field of study.
This my analogy, I like it better than Woods'. Early humans learned that wood burns by empirical observation. Through tinkering over thousands of years, they may have discovered that certain wood burns brighter, or hotter, or others may give a better taste to food, while others just destroy roasted mastodon drum sticks. But how much more did they learn about it? Arabs and Jews in the desert learned that camel and cattle dung burns, and if you add a pinch of salt, it makes the combustion process more efficient, but not much more than that. While in the west, scientists studied it up, down, inside and out, everything about it. They studied the combustion process down to its molecular level, and have used what they learned to move the entire science to an entirely new process. Sure the Chinese discovered gunpowder. But the west moved the scientific process along to the point we now have nuclear reactors and solid rocket fuel capable of blasting a team of astronaut's asses to the moon and back. Now that's science!
Aristotle may have been the greatest mind of his time, but in retrospect, he leaves a lot to be desired. Aristotle believed that theory was sufficient. So sufficient, in fact, that empirical observations were unnecessary. One need only look at a large rock and a small rock to deduce the larger rock will fall faster. So therefore, no empirical observation was necessary, and even more so, a complete waste of his superior intellect. Yeah, right.
So the question then becomes, why did the West develop this anally retentive need to know absolutely everything about everything, and then some? And there is a reason this rant is found on a blog dedicated to promoting knowledge of the United States Constitution. It's because the answers to these very questions led to the formation of civilization that produced enough wealth to allow the rise of reason and enlightenment that helped bring forth the generation of the founding fathers who answered some of the greatest moral questions known to all humanity. Such as "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
So what set off this tidal wave of tinkerers and thinkers, makers and bakers, cynics and comics? According to Woods and other authors, it was the rantings of a crazed carpenter in Judea who just refused to stick with the status quo. Jesus, and the ancient Hebrews before him, laid out an interesting theory on the creation of the universe.
Pagans (and I've spent more time studying them as a D&D Dungeon Master than any grown adult would care to admit to) have a unique perspective on creation and the Gods. To them, the greatest creation is the universe. The gods and their minions exist within the universe, they are subordinate to it, rather than rule over it. And the gods are basically petty a**holes who portray the best and worst aspects of humanity. Why should one worry about learning and understanding the natural laws of the world, when the gods can change them at will? Monsters, dragons, demons, gods and goddess. They rule over man, so what ever they say goes.
[Editor's note: This point I don't understand. If the pagan's believe that the gods are subordinate to the universe, then how can they arbitrarily change the rules of the universe? On the other hand, if you believe that there is a God who created the universe, then that God could of course change the universe to His whim. Which view would reasonably lead to an attempt to understand the underlying rules of the universe?]
[Author's reply: The defining difference between the Pagan's view and the monotheistic view is the position of God(s) with respect to the power of the universe. Pagan gods are born, they die, they get recycled, they love, they hate, they fight, they win, they loose. And the cycle is never ending, though most pantheons have some sort of an "end of time" story. But they are subordinate to the universe in which they live, even though they are attributed with the powers to alter their universe, which they do at will, and frequently, hence: why bother studying the effects of gravity when Loki can just come along and reverse it for laughs. In the Christina/Hebrew version, there is only one God, who always was, and always will be. God created the universe, and made the natural laws that govern His creation. True, Christianity/Hebrew religion have references to miracles. But these miracles are extraordinary, as they are exceptions to the natural order of God's universe.]
How about India? Life is a never ending cycle of reincarnation. The goal isn't to improve one's life in the material, present world, but rather to prepare one's self for the next incarnation. China? The rules and order of this world are far too nuanced and sublime to be understood by the average Joe, so life needs to be spent in meditation to bring one's self closer to the real powers that control the world. Islam? Allah is all powerful. What ever he says goes. If tomorrow Allah decided the sky should be red and the oceans green, so be it. So why waste time learning what only appear to be repetitive phenomena, when Allah can change it all tomorrow?
So what set Jesus, the Hebrews and the Church up differently? Woods' theory - and I must admit, it is intriguing, is the Bible itself. In Genesis, there was nothing, until God created it. Therefore, God is above the universe, not subservient to it. God took chaos, nothing, a lack of anything and created something from it. He created order. And in a very specific manner and schedule. He knew football was coming, hence, rest on the seventh day.
As the stories of the Old Testament unfold, there are more references. God has a very specific plan, a very specific goal, and that is to bring human kind closer to God and salvation. God is unhappy with Sodom and Gomorrah because they will not heed to his rules, so God lets them and every one else know it, big time! Lesson learned. God cleansed the world of evil with the great flood, and then God shows his promise to never do it again embodied in the rainbow. God tells Moses to tell the Pharaohs "Let my people go." Then God makes it perfectly clear to Egyptians that it's in their best interest to do so while there is still an Egypt.
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, believe in God or not, there is a pattern here. And that is God has created a universe that is orderly, behaves, and who's rules can be studied, thought about, experimented with, and explained. It makes no difference that early scientists believed all powers and orderliness of the world emanated from God, they believed God had supplied them with a world that could be understood, studied, explained by mathematical and scientific principles, and then harnessed for their benefit. And that's just what they set about doing.
If some one has a better theory, or proof to the contrary, I'm more than willing to listen. After all, that's the way of my people.
I mean, if you compare Western civilization to the Far East, Muslim world, Africa, Asia, Native American Indians (both North and South America) and India, the West has really kicked ass in the development of civilization and society. The West has gone so far as to make ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome look like barbarians with Lincoln Logs or Legos. Egyptians built the great pyramids, the West walked on the Moon. The Greeks invented Euclidian geometry. The West invented calculus. Romans brought water to its empire via aqueducts. The west built the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam. Want to talk progress? How about human flight?
Why did this happen?
For the past few years I've been studying early Christianity and the early Catholic Church. One of the books which I'm currently reading, "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E. Woods Jr., has some interesting ideas. Now, granted, Woods is a right-wing bomb thrower, whose greatest joy in life appears to be infuriating liberals in general, and political correctness (and the forced assumptions behind it, all evil was at the hands of white, European males) in particular, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's wrong, or doesn't offer some interesting ideas, which he does.
This particular rant is not based solely on Woods' work, but also of several other books and authors I've read. Woods just happens to be on the top of my head at the moment.
Woods' theory, to sum it up in a word, is "science." His answer is that science developed in the West, but no where else, to any real extent. He places a lot of credit for that in the early debates during the formation of the Catholic Church, but more on that later. For starters, what is science? Woods' definition makes sense to me, so I'll use that. Science is the marriage of theory with empirical observations. That means, that not only does one think, but one experiments, then thinks about the results, then experiments more, then thinks some more, and so on and so forth. In other words, it's a neverending process to learn everything about any and every possible field of study.
This my analogy, I like it better than Woods'. Early humans learned that wood burns by empirical observation. Through tinkering over thousands of years, they may have discovered that certain wood burns brighter, or hotter, or others may give a better taste to food, while others just destroy roasted mastodon drum sticks. But how much more did they learn about it? Arabs and Jews in the desert learned that camel and cattle dung burns, and if you add a pinch of salt, it makes the combustion process more efficient, but not much more than that. While in the west, scientists studied it up, down, inside and out, everything about it. They studied the combustion process down to its molecular level, and have used what they learned to move the entire science to an entirely new process. Sure the Chinese discovered gunpowder. But the west moved the scientific process along to the point we now have nuclear reactors and solid rocket fuel capable of blasting a team of astronaut's asses to the moon and back. Now that's science!
Aristotle may have been the greatest mind of his time, but in retrospect, he leaves a lot to be desired. Aristotle believed that theory was sufficient. So sufficient, in fact, that empirical observations were unnecessary. One need only look at a large rock and a small rock to deduce the larger rock will fall faster. So therefore, no empirical observation was necessary, and even more so, a complete waste of his superior intellect. Yeah, right.
So the question then becomes, why did the West develop this anally retentive need to know absolutely everything about everything, and then some? And there is a reason this rant is found on a blog dedicated to promoting knowledge of the United States Constitution. It's because the answers to these very questions led to the formation of civilization that produced enough wealth to allow the rise of reason and enlightenment that helped bring forth the generation of the founding fathers who answered some of the greatest moral questions known to all humanity. Such as "We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
So what set off this tidal wave of tinkerers and thinkers, makers and bakers, cynics and comics? According to Woods and other authors, it was the rantings of a crazed carpenter in Judea who just refused to stick with the status quo. Jesus, and the ancient Hebrews before him, laid out an interesting theory on the creation of the universe.
Pagans (and I've spent more time studying them as a D&D Dungeon Master than any grown adult would care to admit to) have a unique perspective on creation and the Gods. To them, the greatest creation is the universe. The gods and their minions exist within the universe, they are subordinate to it, rather than rule over it. And the gods are basically petty a**holes who portray the best and worst aspects of humanity. Why should one worry about learning and understanding the natural laws of the world, when the gods can change them at will? Monsters, dragons, demons, gods and goddess. They rule over man, so what ever they say goes.
[Editor's note: This point I don't understand. If the pagan's believe that the gods are subordinate to the universe, then how can they arbitrarily change the rules of the universe? On the other hand, if you believe that there is a God who created the universe, then that God could of course change the universe to His whim. Which view would reasonably lead to an attempt to understand the underlying rules of the universe?]
[Author's reply: The defining difference between the Pagan's view and the monotheistic view is the position of God(s) with respect to the power of the universe. Pagan gods are born, they die, they get recycled, they love, they hate, they fight, they win, they loose. And the cycle is never ending, though most pantheons have some sort of an "end of time" story. But they are subordinate to the universe in which they live, even though they are attributed with the powers to alter their universe, which they do at will, and frequently, hence: why bother studying the effects of gravity when Loki can just come along and reverse it for laughs. In the Christina/Hebrew version, there is only one God, who always was, and always will be. God created the universe, and made the natural laws that govern His creation. True, Christianity/Hebrew religion have references to miracles. But these miracles are extraordinary, as they are exceptions to the natural order of God's universe.]
How about India? Life is a never ending cycle of reincarnation. The goal isn't to improve one's life in the material, present world, but rather to prepare one's self for the next incarnation. China? The rules and order of this world are far too nuanced and sublime to be understood by the average Joe, so life needs to be spent in meditation to bring one's self closer to the real powers that control the world. Islam? Allah is all powerful. What ever he says goes. If tomorrow Allah decided the sky should be red and the oceans green, so be it. So why waste time learning what only appear to be repetitive phenomena, when Allah can change it all tomorrow?
So what set Jesus, the Hebrews and the Church up differently? Woods' theory - and I must admit, it is intriguing, is the Bible itself. In Genesis, there was nothing, until God created it. Therefore, God is above the universe, not subservient to it. God took chaos, nothing, a lack of anything and created something from it. He created order. And in a very specific manner and schedule. He knew football was coming, hence, rest on the seventh day.
As the stories of the Old Testament unfold, there are more references. God has a very specific plan, a very specific goal, and that is to bring human kind closer to God and salvation. God is unhappy with Sodom and Gomorrah because they will not heed to his rules, so God lets them and every one else know it, big time! Lesson learned. God cleansed the world of evil with the great flood, and then God shows his promise to never do it again embodied in the rainbow. God tells Moses to tell the Pharaohs "Let my people go." Then God makes it perfectly clear to Egyptians that it's in their best interest to do so while there is still an Egypt.
Whether you believe in the Bible or not, believe in God or not, there is a pattern here. And that is God has created a universe that is orderly, behaves, and who's rules can be studied, thought about, experimented with, and explained. It makes no difference that early scientists believed all powers and orderliness of the world emanated from God, they believed God had supplied them with a world that could be understood, studied, explained by mathematical and scientific principles, and then harnessed for their benefit. And that's just what they set about doing.
If some one has a better theory, or proof to the contrary, I'm more than willing to listen. After all, that's the way of my people.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Feeding the parasites
I found this story in my local newspaper this past weekend. I found it quite amusing at first. The more I read though, the more outrageous I found it. Its not the substance of the article that sent my blood pressure through the roof. The idea of a government - at any level - screwing up is hardly surprising. Actually I found it rather surprising that government was able to catch the mistake as early as they did. Of course they only fixed part of the issue, but still, I envisioned this poor guy, steam coming out of his ears, hopelessly trying to convince some mid-level bureaucrat that his modest family home did not jump almost $3.9 million dollars in value over the past year. Maybe I'm dating myself here, but I'm old enough to remember the phrase "computers don't make mistakes."
I own my home. I bought it about twelve years ago. It's mine. All mine. I paid it off a couple of years ago. Even had a mortgage burning party, even though - at our lawyer's suggestion - we didn't actually burn it. She thought it might come in handy in case of lawsuits or other issues in the future. My wife and I took her advice. It really bummed out some of our guests though, they wanted to see flames. Too bad. As I said, it's my house.
But I digress. Since I own my home I know a little something about property taxes, appraised value, tax rates, and dealing with local and county governments over these issues. When I bought my modest little starter house, I probably paid a bit more than I should have, but since I was buying it from friends, we saved huge amounts of money in lawyers and processing the deal, so I believe it came out even. When I received my first property tax bill, it was clearly labeled in on the bill how much the government thought my house was worth. And it was only slightly more than half what I paid for it. Now, far be it from me to say my local government doesn't know what its doing, so I ran (okay, I drove over the speed limit, and walked very quickly through the village offices) and paid it as fast as I could. I was quite pleased with the official stamp on the bottom "PAID IN FULL."
Since then, the appraised value of my house has continued to climb while the value of my house has dropped thanks to the village government's inability to handle the most basic of services, including keeping the peace and making neighborhood business paint over graffiti on their properties. So, since I explained my problem here, I won't bother posting any pictures or directions, since I'm sure no one in their right mind would want to buy it.
But back to the story. Here's the part that really burned my ass.
"Most local officials did not learn about the mistake until Tuesday, when 18 government taxing units were asked to return a total of $3.1 million of tax money. The city of Valparaiso and the Valparaiso Community School Corp. were asked to return $2.7 million. As a result, the school system has a $200,000 budget shortfall, and the city loses $900,000."
Particularly the last sentence. So the government screwed up, thought it was getting more money than it was, and now the various branches are in agony over their "losses"? When the government over-appraised the value, it thought nothing about handing out additional cash to its various branches, but when the money isn't there, its a loss?
How exactly does one "lose" something they never had in the first place? When exactly did this homeowner's private money become the government's money? I mean, if you own something and it's taken away, then you've lost something. But this additional money does not belong to the government, it's appropriated from property owners under threat of kicking them out of their homes if it is not paid. Now that's a loss.
What gets me the most is the way government views tax money. We The People pay them, in return (hopefully) for services. The government does not view this relationship this way. To the government, it's "revenue". As if they were selling a product or service, and in return we willingly agreed to pay. No. That's the way the free market works. The relationship between the government and the taxpayers is completely backwards. That is, you pay or you lose. Be it your property, your freedom, or both. That's what the government considers its "revenue stream".
To quote the eminent economist Walter E. Williams: "Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution... Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, 'Thou shalt not steal,' I'm sure he didn't mean 'thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress'."
I own my home. I bought it about twelve years ago. It's mine. All mine. I paid it off a couple of years ago. Even had a mortgage burning party, even though - at our lawyer's suggestion - we didn't actually burn it. She thought it might come in handy in case of lawsuits or other issues in the future. My wife and I took her advice. It really bummed out some of our guests though, they wanted to see flames. Too bad. As I said, it's my house.
But I digress. Since I own my home I know a little something about property taxes, appraised value, tax rates, and dealing with local and county governments over these issues. When I bought my modest little starter house, I probably paid a bit more than I should have, but since I was buying it from friends, we saved huge amounts of money in lawyers and processing the deal, so I believe it came out even. When I received my first property tax bill, it was clearly labeled in on the bill how much the government thought my house was worth. And it was only slightly more than half what I paid for it. Now, far be it from me to say my local government doesn't know what its doing, so I ran (okay, I drove over the speed limit, and walked very quickly through the village offices) and paid it as fast as I could. I was quite pleased with the official stamp on the bottom "PAID IN FULL."
Since then, the appraised value of my house has continued to climb while the value of my house has dropped thanks to the village government's inability to handle the most basic of services, including keeping the peace and making neighborhood business paint over graffiti on their properties. So, since I explained my problem here, I won't bother posting any pictures or directions, since I'm sure no one in their right mind would want to buy it.
But back to the story. Here's the part that really burned my ass.
"Most local officials did not learn about the mistake until Tuesday, when 18 government taxing units were asked to return a total of $3.1 million of tax money. The city of Valparaiso and the Valparaiso Community School Corp. were asked to return $2.7 million. As a result, the school system has a $200,000 budget shortfall, and the city loses $900,000."
Particularly the last sentence. So the government screwed up, thought it was getting more money than it was, and now the various branches are in agony over their "losses"? When the government over-appraised the value, it thought nothing about handing out additional cash to its various branches, but when the money isn't there, its a loss?
How exactly does one "lose" something they never had in the first place? When exactly did this homeowner's private money become the government's money? I mean, if you own something and it's taken away, then you've lost something. But this additional money does not belong to the government, it's appropriated from property owners under threat of kicking them out of their homes if it is not paid. Now that's a loss.
What gets me the most is the way government views tax money. We The People pay them, in return (hopefully) for services. The government does not view this relationship this way. To the government, it's "revenue". As if they were selling a product or service, and in return we willingly agreed to pay. No. That's the way the free market works. The relationship between the government and the taxpayers is completely backwards. That is, you pay or you lose. Be it your property, your freedom, or both. That's what the government considers its "revenue stream".
To quote the eminent economist Walter E. Williams: "Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we'd call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution... Income redistribution not only betrays the founders' vision, it's a sin in the eyes of God. I'm guessing that when God gave Moses the Eighth Commandment, 'Thou shalt not steal,' I'm sure he didn't mean 'thou shalt not steal unless there was a majority vote in Congress'."
Cartoon violence in the real world
A funny thing happened on the way to the Mosque.......
And so it begins. A low circulation magazine in Denmark prints some cartoons depicting Mohammed in less than, well....for that matter, simply depicting Mohammed at all, and all hell breaks loose over the Muslim world. So here we are, once again, back to the war on Islam, back to the culture war, back to "us vs. them." And all over a couple of cartoons.
What exactly seems to be the problem, according to what I've been able to learn about Islam over the years, is the depicting of Mohammed does not seem to violate any particularly, clearly spelled out rule in the Koran, but rather doctrine added to Islam over the ensuing centuries. It would appear any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden, out of fear that it will lead to idolatry. That's right, looking at a cartoon of Mohammed might lead some Muslim to suddenly drop to their knees, who would then begin worshipping said cartoon, thereby corrupting the "true religion" damning them and all of humanity to hell for all eternity. Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!
Being a practicing Roman Catholic, I know a little bit about idolatry, with respect to representations of Jesus and the saints. I've heard the jokes about Catholics worshipping idols. All one need do is look in any Catholic Church to notice all the "idols" located around the worship space. Why, if that isn't idolatry, then what is? I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is between looking at a statue, or a stained-glass window, that was created to represent (say that word again, "represent") something, and worshipping the art work itself. The fresco of the Crucifixion that stands over the alter at my Church is not worshipped. Its a symbol that reminds us of the sacrifice Jesus made. It is not Jesus. It is a work of art, it is not an idol.
Idolatry is when one believes a representation does more than just depict a deity, it IS the deity. That a particular God has placed part of himself/herself/itself into the statue, and thereby, worshipping said idol IS worshipping said deity. There is a difference, and it seems pretty clear to me.
But then again, I don't believe these riots have much to do with depictions of Mohammed, or alleged or believed grievances at all. For my part, if Muslims feel it is wrong to depict Mohammed for fear of lapsing into idolatry, far be it for me to call them silly. (Okay, it does seem a tad silly.) But as some one who repeats the mantra every week in Church that every word in the Bible is the word of God (which includes an arc with two of each animals in the world - "hey Noah; couldn't you have skipped on the flies?" - except those pesky unicorns) I have a bit of time and effort invested in religion.
No. What we are seeing here is a lot more than your every day, garden-variety, off the shelf outrage over religious differences. In my opinion, what we're seeing is a desperate attempt by hard-line Islamic radicals to halt the long, dirty, disgusting drive to pull Islam and the Muslim world out of the seventh century and into, hopefully, at least, the fifteenth century. The world is changing, and those in charge of the Muslim world don't like it. Because they see that march of progress as having one inexorable conclusion; they won't be calling the shots - the people will.
As I watched news reports of the riots erupt across the Muslim world, I noticed a few other things, which not every one might have caught. For example, spontaneous riots broke out in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They also broke out in south eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also in Gaza and the West Bank, but not in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran are totalitarian regimes. There are no spontaneous riots without prior government approval. They were staged by the government. Lebanon may have expelled Syrian troops from their country, but they haven't cleansed themselves of Syrian influence at every level of government from the street sweepers to the parliament. South eastern Afghanistan? As I recall, that's Taliban territory. Gaza and the West Bank? Can you say Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezzbolah?
Why Pakistan? Well, that's a basket case of a country anyway. Its hard to tell who's running that place, either the half that likes America or the other half that's hiding Osama bin Looser. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are walking on egg shells with the west as it is. I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish - or prevent.
I believe there a few possible reasons for state directed, state sponsored, spontaneous demonstrations. Among them could be Saudi Arabia's inability to run the Islamic required Hajj without an attending body count. "Did you see those dead pilgrims? Who cares about that did you see those cartoons?" It could also be Iran and Syria are scared dungless by finding themselves practically surrounded by American troops. It could be Iraq's inevitable march towards democracy, and the dangers that presents to it's dictatorial neighbors. It could be many things.
First, I think Syria and Iran are scared. They know they can not defeat America's military, and so they need to do something else to secure their dictatorships. One prospect is to prove to the entire west (thank you CNN) that Muslims are crazy, and it's better that we leave the task of keeping a lid on them to their fellow Muslims, regardless of the death toll involved. I also sense another thread here. Since the information given to the state-sponsored, state-approved rioters is closely regulated by the state, the only information they receive on western society, democracy, and a free press is what has been carefully filtered by their state censors. In other words, I seriously doubt they're getting the full picture of just what liberty and democracy has to offer them. Here's a perfect present from the west; if the peasants want democracy, lets show them what that means. Crank up the mullahs and the imans and show the peasants democracy is not compatible with the camel dung they've been fed since birth. If they want democracy, then they get their religion trashed in the process. That's right Punjab, we may rape your daughters, drag your sons off into mass graves, but we won't let papers publish cartoons that your state sponsored cleric tells you insults you and your religion.
Whatever the compilation of reasons for the riots, one thing is clear, dictators in Muslim countries are attempting to use it to their advantage. Living life over the last forty plus years has taught me one thing. And that is, no matter what you try to accomplish in life, chances are whatever you do to achieve those goals, you will inevitably drive yourself farther away from them. In other words, the harder you try to reach that brass ring, the more difficult you will make it to reach. You may find yourself landing close enough to find a reasonable happiness, but very few people actually obtain their desired goal. While the dictators may think this episode will help them short term in trying to save their miserable, flea bitten hides, in the end, it's one more step towards their downfall. Long live liberty! Long live democracy!
And so it begins. A low circulation magazine in Denmark prints some cartoons depicting Mohammed in less than, well....for that matter, simply depicting Mohammed at all, and all hell breaks loose over the Muslim world. So here we are, once again, back to the war on Islam, back to the culture war, back to "us vs. them." And all over a couple of cartoons.
What exactly seems to be the problem, according to what I've been able to learn about Islam over the years, is the depicting of Mohammed does not seem to violate any particularly, clearly spelled out rule in the Koran, but rather doctrine added to Islam over the ensuing centuries. It would appear any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden, out of fear that it will lead to idolatry. That's right, looking at a cartoon of Mohammed might lead some Muslim to suddenly drop to their knees, who would then begin worshipping said cartoon, thereby corrupting the "true religion" damning them and all of humanity to hell for all eternity. Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me!
Being a practicing Roman Catholic, I know a little bit about idolatry, with respect to representations of Jesus and the saints. I've heard the jokes about Catholics worshipping idols. All one need do is look in any Catholic Church to notice all the "idols" located around the worship space. Why, if that isn't idolatry, then what is? I'll tell you what the difference is. The difference is between looking at a statue, or a stained-glass window, that was created to represent (say that word again, "represent") something, and worshipping the art work itself. The fresco of the Crucifixion that stands over the alter at my Church is not worshipped. Its a symbol that reminds us of the sacrifice Jesus made. It is not Jesus. It is a work of art, it is not an idol.
Idolatry is when one believes a representation does more than just depict a deity, it IS the deity. That a particular God has placed part of himself/herself/itself into the statue, and thereby, worshipping said idol IS worshipping said deity. There is a difference, and it seems pretty clear to me.
But then again, I don't believe these riots have much to do with depictions of Mohammed, or alleged or believed grievances at all. For my part, if Muslims feel it is wrong to depict Mohammed for fear of lapsing into idolatry, far be it for me to call them silly. (Okay, it does seem a tad silly.) But as some one who repeats the mantra every week in Church that every word in the Bible is the word of God (which includes an arc with two of each animals in the world - "hey Noah; couldn't you have skipped on the flies?" - except those pesky unicorns) I have a bit of time and effort invested in religion.
No. What we are seeing here is a lot more than your every day, garden-variety, off the shelf outrage over religious differences. In my opinion, what we're seeing is a desperate attempt by hard-line Islamic radicals to halt the long, dirty, disgusting drive to pull Islam and the Muslim world out of the seventh century and into, hopefully, at least, the fifteenth century. The world is changing, and those in charge of the Muslim world don't like it. Because they see that march of progress as having one inexorable conclusion; they won't be calling the shots - the people will.
As I watched news reports of the riots erupt across the Muslim world, I noticed a few other things, which not every one might have caught. For example, spontaneous riots broke out in Iran, Syria and Lebanon. They also broke out in south eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. Also in Gaza and the West Bank, but not in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Syria and Iran are totalitarian regimes. There are no spontaneous riots without prior government approval. They were staged by the government. Lebanon may have expelled Syrian troops from their country, but they haven't cleansed themselves of Syrian influence at every level of government from the street sweepers to the parliament. South eastern Afghanistan? As I recall, that's Taliban territory. Gaza and the West Bank? Can you say Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezzbolah?
Why Pakistan? Well, that's a basket case of a country anyway. Its hard to tell who's running that place, either the half that likes America or the other half that's hiding Osama bin Looser. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are walking on egg shells with the west as it is. I'm not sure what they're trying to accomplish - or prevent.
I believe there a few possible reasons for state directed, state sponsored, spontaneous demonstrations. Among them could be Saudi Arabia's inability to run the Islamic required Hajj without an attending body count. "Did you see those dead pilgrims? Who cares about that did you see those cartoons?" It could also be Iran and Syria are scared dungless by finding themselves practically surrounded by American troops. It could be Iraq's inevitable march towards democracy, and the dangers that presents to it's dictatorial neighbors. It could be many things.
First, I think Syria and Iran are scared. They know they can not defeat America's military, and so they need to do something else to secure their dictatorships. One prospect is to prove to the entire west (thank you CNN) that Muslims are crazy, and it's better that we leave the task of keeping a lid on them to their fellow Muslims, regardless of the death toll involved. I also sense another thread here. Since the information given to the state-sponsored, state-approved rioters is closely regulated by the state, the only information they receive on western society, democracy, and a free press is what has been carefully filtered by their state censors. In other words, I seriously doubt they're getting the full picture of just what liberty and democracy has to offer them. Here's a perfect present from the west; if the peasants want democracy, lets show them what that means. Crank up the mullahs and the imans and show the peasants democracy is not compatible with the camel dung they've been fed since birth. If they want democracy, then they get their religion trashed in the process. That's right Punjab, we may rape your daughters, drag your sons off into mass graves, but we won't let papers publish cartoons that your state sponsored cleric tells you insults you and your religion.
Whatever the compilation of reasons for the riots, one thing is clear, dictators in Muslim countries are attempting to use it to their advantage. Living life over the last forty plus years has taught me one thing. And that is, no matter what you try to accomplish in life, chances are whatever you do to achieve those goals, you will inevitably drive yourself farther away from them. In other words, the harder you try to reach that brass ring, the more difficult you will make it to reach. You may find yourself landing close enough to find a reasonable happiness, but very few people actually obtain their desired goal. While the dictators may think this episode will help them short term in trying to save their miserable, flea bitten hides, in the end, it's one more step towards their downfall. Long live liberty! Long live democracy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)