The execution of Saddam Hussein was spoiled by the rudeness of the executioners and witnesses. To keep future hangings civil and decorous, I thought I would remind everyone of the etiquette of hangings.
Executioners should be silent and professional. Witnesses should be quiet and respectful, like at a golf match when the players are putting. Imagine that it is your mother that is being hanged. How would you like it if witnesses were noisy and heckling your mom's execution? You wouldn't, unless you really hated your mom, in which case you have other problems beyond the scope of this post.
Wear a tie, if you are a man, and a nice suit if you are a woman. A hood is de rigeur for the hangman.
Small children are out of place at hangings and are apt to disturb the other witnesses and the condemned with their mewling. Leave your pets at home as well.
Take off your hat if you are a man when the deed is being done. You are at a judicially sanctioned murder, for crying out loud, and you had best show some respect.
Do not chew gum, smoke, eat or drink at the hanging. There will be plenty of opportunities at the reception afterwards. No whistling or humming, please.
It is not customary to applaud the executioner's handiwork, although a discreetly offered gratuity would not be out of place.
If the condemned is being burned alive, it is absolutely improper to toast marshmallows or roast wieners or otherwise use the fire for any purpose other than burning the condemned. At drawings and quarterings, do not gamble on which piece will be the biggest (place any such bets before the event, and never collect winnings at the site of the execution). At stonings, let the family members of the victims of the condemned have the first tosses. Don't go for a quick kill by showing off your rock throwing skills; rather, cooperate with others to extend the agony of the condemned so that more stone throwers will get a chance to be part of the execution. At decapitations, stand back far enough that you won't get blood on you. This is not a Gallagher performance, so you can't bring a tarp.
If these rules seem too complex, just think about how you would want to be murdered by the state and act accordingly.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Which is Scarier?
Identify the bigger threat to world peace:
(a) a country that is enriching uranium for nuclear energy and is years away from enriching enough for weapons.
(b) a country that has nuclear weapons and is making noises about using them preemptively on the country described in (a) above.
(a) a country that is enriching uranium for nuclear energy and is years away from enriching enough for weapons.
(b) a country that has nuclear weapons and is making noises about using them preemptively on the country described in (a) above.
Friday, January 05, 2007
If Sex is so Great, Why Don't We Have More Sexes?
I’m reading Matt Ridley’s “The Red Queen” about the evolution of sex and its utility in reshuffling genes so as to thwart parasites. The “Red Queen” is an allusion to a character in a Lewis Carroll story. The Red Queen was always moving just to stay in the same place. Sexual species are always reshuffling just to stay abreast of corresponding evolutionary changes in parasites.
I was astonished to learn that some fungi have hundreds of sexes, and I am looking forward to finding out why we humans have only the two and are not all hermaphrodites. I can see why asexual reproduction would not be advantageous in an environment of predation and parasitism, but I don’t yet know why sexes don’t proliferate so that we can reproduce with more people. As it stands now, I can only reproduce with the just over half the population that is female. If there were three sexes, that would mean that two thirds of the population could reproduce with me, and I would be fitter, or so I think now not having read far enough in the book to find out why I’m wrong.
A three sex society could be interesting. Suppose that you had sexes A, B and C where A could impregnate B, B could impregnate C, and C could impregnate A. What would religious fundamentalists reckon would be the divinely sanctioned household organization? If everyone is potentially both a pitcher and a catcher, what would that do to notions of power in sexuality?
Everyone would have a slot and a tab, of course. If a B inserted his/her slot in an A’s tab, which would not contribute to reproduction, would that be wrong or deviant? Would folks go about complaining that it was “unnatural”? Presumably, the three sex species would be driven both to pitch and catch, so it is likely that threesomes would be common and that reverse slot to tab sex would be a substitute for a proper third party. There would still be same sex partners and threesomes, I reckon. Auto-erotica would doubtless still be practiced.
Porn would be way different. I imagine that orgies with chains of slots in tabs would be a common theme, and folks would fantasize about “making the beast with twelve backs”, “doing the horizontal conga”, or “making a benzene ring”. Strap-ons would not be in much demand.
Families would be different. An adult in a family might be mother to one and father to another child and genetically unrelated to a third child. Children could be full siblings or half siblings. Come to think of it, that’s not so different from the families that emerge from serial monogamy. I have a full sibling, a half sibling and several unrelated step-siblings, and I am a member of a two sex species. Extended kin would get weird and complicated.
In developed societies, ideal family size would be one child of each sex.
.
I was astonished to learn that some fungi have hundreds of sexes, and I am looking forward to finding out why we humans have only the two and are not all hermaphrodites. I can see why asexual reproduction would not be advantageous in an environment of predation and parasitism, but I don’t yet know why sexes don’t proliferate so that we can reproduce with more people. As it stands now, I can only reproduce with the just over half the population that is female. If there were three sexes, that would mean that two thirds of the population could reproduce with me, and I would be fitter, or so I think now not having read far enough in the book to find out why I’m wrong.
A three sex society could be interesting. Suppose that you had sexes A, B and C where A could impregnate B, B could impregnate C, and C could impregnate A. What would religious fundamentalists reckon would be the divinely sanctioned household organization? If everyone is potentially both a pitcher and a catcher, what would that do to notions of power in sexuality?
Everyone would have a slot and a tab, of course. If a B inserted his/her slot in an A’s tab, which would not contribute to reproduction, would that be wrong or deviant? Would folks go about complaining that it was “unnatural”? Presumably, the three sex species would be driven both to pitch and catch, so it is likely that threesomes would be common and that reverse slot to tab sex would be a substitute for a proper third party. There would still be same sex partners and threesomes, I reckon. Auto-erotica would doubtless still be practiced.
Porn would be way different. I imagine that orgies with chains of slots in tabs would be a common theme, and folks would fantasize about “making the beast with twelve backs”, “doing the horizontal conga”, or “making a benzene ring”. Strap-ons would not be in much demand.
Families would be different. An adult in a family might be mother to one and father to another child and genetically unrelated to a third child. Children could be full siblings or half siblings. Come to think of it, that’s not so different from the families that emerge from serial monogamy. I have a full sibling, a half sibling and several unrelated step-siblings, and I am a member of a two sex species. Extended kin would get weird and complicated.
In developed societies, ideal family size would be one child of each sex.
.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
More Mooching Parents
One of my conspecifics at work lives in Maplewood, NJ where middle schoolers have been so troublesome that the local library is closing for part of the day to keep them out: http://1010wins.com/pages/166312.php?contentType=4&contentId=277057
It turns out that the parents of these kids see the library as a free babysitting service, and they tell the kids to go to the library and hang out there until they can be picked up when the parents get off work. These are middle schoolers, so I reckon that they are beyond the age where they want constant surveillance. Are there no sandlots or parks for these kids to play in? Why can’t they just go home and hang out there?
These parents already foisted their kids on the public for most of the day since they attend a public middle school, and now they expect others to provide after school programs for them. Having kids is a great hobby, so I’m told, and it’s great if you can get other people to subsidize your entertainment (if you can live with yourself, that is).
My conspecific, who is understandably pissed at the prospect of more taxes, suggested that the situation was comparable to my saving money on a dog walker by taking my dogs to the town library every day and releasing them there.
It turns out that the parents of these kids see the library as a free babysitting service, and they tell the kids to go to the library and hang out there until they can be picked up when the parents get off work. These are middle schoolers, so I reckon that they are beyond the age where they want constant surveillance. Are there no sandlots or parks for these kids to play in? Why can’t they just go home and hang out there?
These parents already foisted their kids on the public for most of the day since they attend a public middle school, and now they expect others to provide after school programs for them. Having kids is a great hobby, so I’m told, and it’s great if you can get other people to subsidize your entertainment (if you can live with yourself, that is).
My conspecific, who is understandably pissed at the prospect of more taxes, suggested that the situation was comparable to my saving money on a dog walker by taking my dogs to the town library every day and releasing them there.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Free Advice for Parents: Maximize the Elves
Parents have a pretty good weapon in the notion that Santa Claus has children under constant surveillance and that the quantity and quality of Christmas presents are functions of how good the children have been. I know some parents who claim to have Santa on speed dial and threaten to call him and rat out their kids when they’re bad. The best part is that this tool is available when kids cannot be reasoned with when they are small and stupid.
The down side is that parents can’t keep the charade up forever. Moreover, it only works at most in the three months leading up to Christmas. I reckon parents could keep the elf surveillance system on their kids’ minds and working for them for the better part of the year if they worked at it a little. I would tie it in with birthdays and other events. Let your kids know that Santa and the Easter Bunny share intelligence, that you are in regular contact with Santa and that you receive reports on their goodness level, especially when a birthday is coming up.
Parents also make the mistake of assuming that kids won’t figure out that they get presents even when they are bad and that even their worst behaved siblings and friends get pretty good presents every Christmas notwithstanding their evildoing. They begin to have doubts about the elf surveillance system’s efficacy, and the whole thing begins to unravel. Every now and then, let one or more of your kids wake up on Christmas morning to no presents or, at most, socks or a sweater. Their siblings will revel in their fantastic gifts while the target child is reinforced with the idea that Santa knows what he or she has been up to. The lesson won’t be lost on the others, either.
How do you choose which of your children to target in any given year? One way is to pick the one that you are pretty sure has been the worst behaved in the previous year. If you aren’t sure, just pick randomly. Your kids have done a lot of stuff that you don’t know about, and they’ll just figure that they are getting their comeuppance.
This program will strengthen the elf surveillance program child control strategy and may actually help to extend the time that it works on your kids.
The down side is that parents can’t keep the charade up forever. Moreover, it only works at most in the three months leading up to Christmas. I reckon parents could keep the elf surveillance system on their kids’ minds and working for them for the better part of the year if they worked at it a little. I would tie it in with birthdays and other events. Let your kids know that Santa and the Easter Bunny share intelligence, that you are in regular contact with Santa and that you receive reports on their goodness level, especially when a birthday is coming up.
Parents also make the mistake of assuming that kids won’t figure out that they get presents even when they are bad and that even their worst behaved siblings and friends get pretty good presents every Christmas notwithstanding their evildoing. They begin to have doubts about the elf surveillance system’s efficacy, and the whole thing begins to unravel. Every now and then, let one or more of your kids wake up on Christmas morning to no presents or, at most, socks or a sweater. Their siblings will revel in their fantastic gifts while the target child is reinforced with the idea that Santa knows what he or she has been up to. The lesson won’t be lost on the others, either.
How do you choose which of your children to target in any given year? One way is to pick the one that you are pretty sure has been the worst behaved in the previous year. If you aren’t sure, just pick randomly. Your kids have done a lot of stuff that you don’t know about, and they’ll just figure that they are getting their comeuppance.
This program will strengthen the elf surveillance program child control strategy and may actually help to extend the time that it works on your kids.
The Universe Could Be Only Six Days Old
If Kirk Cameron wants to believe that the universe is a tad over 6,000 years old and that evolution and cosmology and most of science are elaborate demonic hoaxes, then who am I to stand in his way? Belief is involuntary, so he doesn’t really have a choice in the matter, and I reckon that the marketplace of ideas can handle this one just fine. Besides, it’s not as if the world has lost a great scientific mind to creationism. Kirk Cameron was never going to be a scientist, and folks who believe as Kirk believes wouldn’t make good scientists, either. In a way, Kirk and his ilk are doing the world a favor by helping us identify folks who should be discouraged from scientific endeavors.
I suppose that an agnostic creationist could be a passable scientist. By this I mean a person who believes in the whole 6,000 year old universe thing but who acknowledges that it is not susceptible to scientific proof. That person could apply the canons of science and do scientific work without necessarily believing in the metaphysical truth of falsity of the results, and he wouldn’t be looking to make his observations fit into his young earth paradigm. This could conceivably happen, provided that the agnostic creationist could get past the gatekeepers of the profession, which he couldn’t. He would likely be relegated to some fringe institution where any effort to do science independent of the preferred creation myth would not be well received.
Let’s suppose that I believe that the entire universe, with its appearance of great antiquity and everything in it pointing to a history, spontaneously came into being last Thursday. This is highly improbable, but it is not entirely impossible that this is so and that all my personal memories from before the creation of the universe are just so many false patterns in my newly minted brain. Kirk Cameron never really acted in “Growing Pains” even though I think that I remember his artistic oeuvre as actually happening. No. He came into being last Thursday just like everyone else complete with a fabricated past that will fool him into thinking that the universe is at least several millennia old. Poor deluded sap.
What harm does my Last Thursday Creation idea do? I’m not a professional scientist. I’m pretty sure that I can’t prove that the universe came into being last Thursday, so I’m not going to advocate any kind of Last Thursday Creation Science or demand that it receive full attention in government schools. Others may insist on the teaching of LTCS (it already has an acronym!) and be publicly and vocally skeptical of the 6,000 year old universe theory and those other theories that rely on the appearance that the universe is billions of year old. Even then, what harm could come of the adoption of the belief in LTC by a substantial number of people? None, as long as they don’t become so numerous that they endeavor to impose this belief on others by force.
I reckon that LTC will never become such a potent force as to overwhelm the marketplace of ideas. It has to compete with Last Wednesday Creationism, 3/15/1992 Creationism, Biblical Creationism, and science. Even the adherents of LTC will break into schisms, based on which hour of the day creation took place. The Last Thursday Morning Creationists won’t even be on speaking terms with the Last Thursday Late Afternoon About Sixish Creationists.
I suppose that an agnostic creationist could be a passable scientist. By this I mean a person who believes in the whole 6,000 year old universe thing but who acknowledges that it is not susceptible to scientific proof. That person could apply the canons of science and do scientific work without necessarily believing in the metaphysical truth of falsity of the results, and he wouldn’t be looking to make his observations fit into his young earth paradigm. This could conceivably happen, provided that the agnostic creationist could get past the gatekeepers of the profession, which he couldn’t. He would likely be relegated to some fringe institution where any effort to do science independent of the preferred creation myth would not be well received.
Let’s suppose that I believe that the entire universe, with its appearance of great antiquity and everything in it pointing to a history, spontaneously came into being last Thursday. This is highly improbable, but it is not entirely impossible that this is so and that all my personal memories from before the creation of the universe are just so many false patterns in my newly minted brain. Kirk Cameron never really acted in “Growing Pains” even though I think that I remember his artistic oeuvre as actually happening. No. He came into being last Thursday just like everyone else complete with a fabricated past that will fool him into thinking that the universe is at least several millennia old. Poor deluded sap.
What harm does my Last Thursday Creation idea do? I’m not a professional scientist. I’m pretty sure that I can’t prove that the universe came into being last Thursday, so I’m not going to advocate any kind of Last Thursday Creation Science or demand that it receive full attention in government schools. Others may insist on the teaching of LTCS (it already has an acronym!) and be publicly and vocally skeptical of the 6,000 year old universe theory and those other theories that rely on the appearance that the universe is billions of year old. Even then, what harm could come of the adoption of the belief in LTC by a substantial number of people? None, as long as they don’t become so numerous that they endeavor to impose this belief on others by force.
I reckon that LTC will never become such a potent force as to overwhelm the marketplace of ideas. It has to compete with Last Wednesday Creationism, 3/15/1992 Creationism, Biblical Creationism, and science. Even the adherents of LTC will break into schisms, based on which hour of the day creation took place. The Last Thursday Morning Creationists won’t even be on speaking terms with the Last Thursday Late Afternoon About Sixish Creationists.
Wherein I Reluctantly Accede to the Necessity to Hang Politicians
I’m not an advocate for capital punishment, but James Bovard makes a pretty good case for applying it to presidents: http://jimbovard.com/blog/2007/01/02/what-if-nixon-had-been-hanged/
If Nixon had been tried and punished for his many crimes, would that not have deterred later politicians and high ranking officials from engaging in similar wrongdoing? What if aiding and abetting death squads in El Salvador had been punished as accessory to murder? If everyone responsible for the mass murder at Waco, right up to Janet Reno, had swung for their crimes, wouldn’t that have had a chilling effect on the excesses of abusive cops thereafter? If Clinton thought that he might be held accountable for bombing folks in the Balkans, would he have undertaken that campaign?
If Presidents and their minions had been held to account over the last few decades, GW Bush would never have even run for office, what with its being so much less fun for sadistic bastards like him and his henchmen. The hangman would be busy indeed if the logic applied to the condemnation of Saddam Hussein were applied to the Bush administration.
I hate granting the state the authority to kill people, but I might just twist myself into an intellectual pretzel to rationalize making exceptions for politicians. No, I'm going to stand my moral ground and oppose hanging even folks in the current regime. It's not that I would go on a hunger strike or launch a protest or anything. I'd just refrain from going to the hanging and cheering the executioners on.
And for lesser offenders, such as those in the senior executive service who have not been complicit in murder, let’s consider bringing back tar and feathers and the riding out of town on rails. There is really no need to hang every official.
If Nixon had been tried and punished for his many crimes, would that not have deterred later politicians and high ranking officials from engaging in similar wrongdoing? What if aiding and abetting death squads in El Salvador had been punished as accessory to murder? If everyone responsible for the mass murder at Waco, right up to Janet Reno, had swung for their crimes, wouldn’t that have had a chilling effect on the excesses of abusive cops thereafter? If Clinton thought that he might be held accountable for bombing folks in the Balkans, would he have undertaken that campaign?
If Presidents and their minions had been held to account over the last few decades, GW Bush would never have even run for office, what with its being so much less fun for sadistic bastards like him and his henchmen. The hangman would be busy indeed if the logic applied to the condemnation of Saddam Hussein were applied to the Bush administration.
I hate granting the state the authority to kill people, but I might just twist myself into an intellectual pretzel to rationalize making exceptions for politicians. No, I'm going to stand my moral ground and oppose hanging even folks in the current regime. It's not that I would go on a hunger strike or launch a protest or anything. I'd just refrain from going to the hanging and cheering the executioners on.
And for lesser offenders, such as those in the senior executive service who have not been complicit in murder, let’s consider bringing back tar and feathers and the riding out of town on rails. There is really no need to hang every official.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Progress Report
Despite working out religiously and eating sensibly, I did not lose any weight in December. Not an ounce. This is pretty frustrating, and I reckon that I need to eat even more sensibly and work out even harder if I am to leave the ranks of the morbidly obese other than in a box. Here’s my plan for victory: cut out most carbs and add some more cardio workouts to my routine. I aim to lose 10 pounds by the end of January even if I have to go on Scarsdale to do it (shudder).
On the positive side of things, I am getting progressively stronger and fitter, albeit slowly. The gym has become a good habit, and there is little risk now that I will skip workouts because I enjoy them so much. I have made a huge change in eating habits by having balanced meals that include vegetables. I have cut out snacking and most sweets (other than fresh fruit). I no longer overeat at meals and stop when I have finished my allotted portions.
On the positive side of things, I am getting progressively stronger and fitter, albeit slowly. The gym has become a good habit, and there is little risk now that I will skip workouts because I enjoy them so much. I have made a huge change in eating habits by having balanced meals that include vegetables. I have cut out snacking and most sweets (other than fresh fruit). I no longer overeat at meals and stop when I have finished my allotted portions.
Friday, December 29, 2006
Maintaining Public Confidence is not a Good Thing
John Markley reckons Gerald Ford’s biggest contribution was also his biggest failing: http://thesuperfluousman.blogspot.com/2006/12/maintaining-public-trust.html. What he said.
Ford “maintained public confidence” in government by pardoning Nixon. This was a good thing if you were among the power elite and their parasitic toadies. It was a bad thing for everybody else. The spectacle of Nixon on trial for his wrongdoing, Reagan on trial for Iran-Contra, or Bush on trial for any number of things would help the people lose their irrational and counterproductive confidence in government.
It is the duty of every right thinking individual to do all that he peacably can to undermine public confidence in the government.
Ford “maintained public confidence” in government by pardoning Nixon. This was a good thing if you were among the power elite and their parasitic toadies. It was a bad thing for everybody else. The spectacle of Nixon on trial for his wrongdoing, Reagan on trial for Iran-Contra, or Bush on trial for any number of things would help the people lose their irrational and counterproductive confidence in government.
It is the duty of every right thinking individual to do all that he peacably can to undermine public confidence in the government.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
I Don't Care If You Want to Practice Polygamy. Good Luck with That.
Polls consistently show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose the practice of polygamy. I read somewhere that as many as 92% of Americans hold this opinion. Since that is the case, it hardly seems necessary to have laws outlawing polygamy since so few folks would practice it that it wouldn’t have any of the supposed deleterious societal impacts such as a surfeit of unmarried young men.
What’s that you say? You not only oppose polygamy for yourself but you don’t think anyone else should practice it, either? You are willing to use violence to stop someone else from taking on more than one spouse at a time? Even a total stranger whose practices don’t affect you in any way?
Seriously, why should I care about the composition of someone else’s household? In what way am I harmed by polygamy or gay marriage or any other voluntary arrangement that folks try out for themselves?
Now that I have abused the device of the rhetorical question shamelessly, let me make my point plainly: except for its constituents, it’s nobody’s business how you organize your household.
I recall a church leader who explained his condemnation of homosexuals by saying that they were not living the “perfect plan of God” for their lives and that he could not tolerate that. Who is, Churchy? I am afraid of folks who will not rest until they have seen to it that God’s perfect plan, as they see it, is fulfilled in everyone. I don’t know what God’s plan is for everyone. I don’t even know what it is for myself most of the time, so I don’t reckon it makes sense for me to go around interfering in other folks’ lives, particularly through threats of violence.
A conspecific at the office defended outlawing polygamy on the basis that it would be “confusing” for inheritance and employee benefits and such. It need be no more confusing than serial monogamy. Moreover, such a legitimization of interference in household structure would apply as well to monogamous families and other arrangements.
How do so many of my conspecifics move with such facility from the proposition “I like/dislike A” to “the state must promote/outlaw A”? The second proposition rarely follows from the first, if ever. It is usually an absurd leap.
What’s that you say? You not only oppose polygamy for yourself but you don’t think anyone else should practice it, either? You are willing to use violence to stop someone else from taking on more than one spouse at a time? Even a total stranger whose practices don’t affect you in any way?
Seriously, why should I care about the composition of someone else’s household? In what way am I harmed by polygamy or gay marriage or any other voluntary arrangement that folks try out for themselves?
Now that I have abused the device of the rhetorical question shamelessly, let me make my point plainly: except for its constituents, it’s nobody’s business how you organize your household.
I recall a church leader who explained his condemnation of homosexuals by saying that they were not living the “perfect plan of God” for their lives and that he could not tolerate that. Who is, Churchy? I am afraid of folks who will not rest until they have seen to it that God’s perfect plan, as they see it, is fulfilled in everyone. I don’t know what God’s plan is for everyone. I don’t even know what it is for myself most of the time, so I don’t reckon it makes sense for me to go around interfering in other folks’ lives, particularly through threats of violence.
A conspecific at the office defended outlawing polygamy on the basis that it would be “confusing” for inheritance and employee benefits and such. It need be no more confusing than serial monogamy. Moreover, such a legitimization of interference in household structure would apply as well to monogamous families and other arrangements.
How do so many of my conspecifics move with such facility from the proposition “I like/dislike A” to “the state must promote/outlaw A”? The second proposition rarely follows from the first, if ever. It is usually an absurd leap.
I Hate Guilt
I think I need to increase the amount of Zoloft I take. I am fairly happy right now and much blessed, but I am also engaging in a little compulsive behavior (incessant doodling and list making) as well as experiencing unwelcome pangs of guilt over my many wrongdoings over the years, including minor schoolyard offenses. The doodling occupies the mind to keep out the unpleasant memories. Along with the pangs of guilt about the past, I am also feeling a lot of guilt about not doing more for the poor and downtrodden and imprisoned among us. I suppose that I am feeling that I don’t deserve to be happy and that some catastrophe is bound to befall me to set things right and bring on me the misery that I truly merit. Thanks a lot, Southern Baptists, for inculcating in me such a powerful sense of guilt and a keen awareness of my own worthlessness.
Of course, the guilt would be more efficacious if it actually deterred me from stupid or malicious actions. As it is, it just makes me feel bad about the stupid and malicious things that I am going to do anyway. It really makes no sense with respect to events in the distant past that I cannot now remedy. I take solace that God does not hold my sins against me even though I seem to do so mercilessly. And it is some comfort to realize that I have always done what it was foreordained from the beginning of time that I would do, so none of it is really my fault in a cosmic sense.
I reckon that this is a foretaste of hell as I conceive of it. Those of us with lots of sins will spend eternity making it up to those against whom we have sinned, either by omission or commission. We won’t enjoy paradise nearly as much as folks like Mother Theresa or St Francis. For some, say Hitler or Stalin, paradise will be agony.
Life is going well, and my blessings are manifold, but I have to work around my guilt mechanism to take pleasure in them.
Of course, the guilt would be more efficacious if it actually deterred me from stupid or malicious actions. As it is, it just makes me feel bad about the stupid and malicious things that I am going to do anyway. It really makes no sense with respect to events in the distant past that I cannot now remedy. I take solace that God does not hold my sins against me even though I seem to do so mercilessly. And it is some comfort to realize that I have always done what it was foreordained from the beginning of time that I would do, so none of it is really my fault in a cosmic sense.
I reckon that this is a foretaste of hell as I conceive of it. Those of us with lots of sins will spend eternity making it up to those against whom we have sinned, either by omission or commission. We won’t enjoy paradise nearly as much as folks like Mother Theresa or St Francis. For some, say Hitler or Stalin, paradise will be agony.
Life is going well, and my blessings are manifold, but I have to work around my guilt mechanism to take pleasure in them.
Global Dimming: Another Reason to Take Zoloft
I watched a nature documentary last night. It turns out that, in addition to global warming, the earth has experienced significant “global dimming”. Visible particles of pollutants in the atmosphere block the sun and cause clouds to be more reflective such that some areas of the planet have seen a 30% decrease in solar energy within the last 30 years. The “good news” is that global dimming has countered about half of the global warming the earth would have experienced without it. The “bad news” is that visible pollutants have been reduced while greenhouses gases have not, so we are looking at a possible acceleration of global warming such that I may actually be inconvenienced by it in my lifetime.
Global dimming and the pollutants that cause it are bad for respiratory health. Moreover, it plays havoc with the monsoon system and may be responsible for monsoon failure in the Sahel in the 1980s and the ensuing famine in Ethiopia. Sorry about that, Africans. We didn’t know that our energy consumption and pollution would kill so many of you. Our bad.
China and India are developing rapidly and just starting to pump visible pollutants into the atmosphere on a massive scale. On the one hand, this may mitigate global warming. On the other hand, they may just screw up their monsoon system on which billions of folks in Asia rely. We’re talking famine and misery on a huge scale as well as lots of respiratory disease.
The good news is that global dimming is reversible with reductions in the output of pollutants. The bad news is that humans are not up to the task of doing this until it is too late. The additional bad news is that global warming is worse than we thought.
Global dimming and the pollutants that cause it are bad for respiratory health. Moreover, it plays havoc with the monsoon system and may be responsible for monsoon failure in the Sahel in the 1980s and the ensuing famine in Ethiopia. Sorry about that, Africans. We didn’t know that our energy consumption and pollution would kill so many of you. Our bad.
China and India are developing rapidly and just starting to pump visible pollutants into the atmosphere on a massive scale. On the one hand, this may mitigate global warming. On the other hand, they may just screw up their monsoon system on which billions of folks in Asia rely. We’re talking famine and misery on a huge scale as well as lots of respiratory disease.
The good news is that global dimming is reversible with reductions in the output of pollutants. The bad news is that humans are not up to the task of doing this until it is too late. The additional bad news is that global warming is worse than we thought.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
US and Sudan Allies
I am not at all surprised that the USG and the murderous gang that runs Sudan are “allies”: http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/37/11283
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Poughkeepsie Journal Owes Me 50 cents Plus Punitives
I nominate for most worthless newspaper in the country the “Poughkeepsie Journal”. The problems with the paper are legion, not the least of which is publication of Michelle Malkin’s “column”. The presence of Malkin’s hateful, toxic spew should be accompanied by a prominent warning so that unsuspecting folks don’t accidentally buy the paper. I would never knowingly patronize a paper that printed Malkin, so I felt defrauded.
Bush Needs to Do It Himself
Those damn generals just don’t get it. GW Bush aims to “win” in Iraq and salvage for himself a glorious legacy instead of going down in history as an incompetent cipher of the neocon death cult. There’s nothing for it but for GW, as commander in chief, to follow the precedent set by Geo Washington and lead the “surge” he is set on himself. He is going to have to delegate domestic stuff to Dick Cheney or some other underlings and go to Baghdad and handle this thing himself. Nobody else seems to have the vision or the will to win, and apparently nobody else has the required deciding capabilities to get the job done.
When he goes, he needs to take with him a cadre of volunteers itching for action and slavishly devoted to the cause. Forget the military; it’s broken. He’s going to have to put out a call for volunteer regiments of irregulars, like the Rough Riders in 1898. Based on the number of pro-war bloggers and pundits and war apologists at Fox “News” alone, he ought to be able to put together a goodly force of raving warmongers to lead the surge out of the Green Zone and secure Iraq and bestow democracy upon it even if they have to kill every man, woman and child in that country.
Seriously, the neocons must have a plan for the war they manufactured. Now’s their chance to put it into action without having to rely on the insufficiently indoctrinated military. With their glorious leader right out front with his troubadour Tony Snow by his side composing epic poetry for the occasion, they will be so inspired as to be unbeatable. In any event, they will be willing to fight to the death of the last man and woman among them.
When he goes, he needs to take with him a cadre of volunteers itching for action and slavishly devoted to the cause. Forget the military; it’s broken. He’s going to have to put out a call for volunteer regiments of irregulars, like the Rough Riders in 1898. Based on the number of pro-war bloggers and pundits and war apologists at Fox “News” alone, he ought to be able to put together a goodly force of raving warmongers to lead the surge out of the Green Zone and secure Iraq and bestow democracy upon it even if they have to kill every man, woman and child in that country.
Seriously, the neocons must have a plan for the war they manufactured. Now’s their chance to put it into action without having to rely on the insufficiently indoctrinated military. With their glorious leader right out front with his troubadour Tony Snow by his side composing epic poetry for the occasion, they will be so inspired as to be unbeatable. In any event, they will be willing to fight to the death of the last man and woman among them.
Happy Boxing Day
My favorite Christmas movie is “A Christmas Carol” or “Scrooge”, particularly the 1951 version with Alistair Sim: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044008/. Unfortunately, the Dickens inspired classic seems to have fallen out of favor. Even “It’s a Wonderful Life” doesn’t get the play it used to. “A Christmas Story” about young Ralphie’s desire for a BB-gun seems to be the new classic.
This year, I caught most of a version of “A Christmas Carol” with Scrooge played by Patrick Stewart. It was pretty good, not as good as the 1951 version, but it satisfied the Scrooge craving.
One of my favorite SNL skits involved imagining the consequences of Scrooge’s change of heart a year later. Everybody took advantage of and abused his generosity. Cratchit was chronically tardy and unproductive. Charities hounded Scrooge relentlessly. His business was going to hell. It was pretty funny, but I don’t imagine that is how Scrooge’s life turned out
Scrooge gained by his opening himself to others and to community. His firm, which he had devoted his life to building, would have continuity even after his death as Scrooge involved his nephew Fred and Bob’s son in the business. What would have become of Scrooge & Marley, Ltd had Scrooge died a lonely miser?
Scrooge began to take pleasure in his wealth by sharing it and allowing himself to live more completely. He became part of his church, his neighborhood, his family, and the business community. He did so freely and without resentment borne of obligation. As he aged and grew feeble, he could rely on the support of loved ones, and he could go to his rest knowing that he would be remembered fondly and that he had made a difference in the world.
This doesn’t mean that he became a socialist or rejected his capitalist ways. On the contrary, he kept the firm going and expanded it. He would have known from the spirits’ lessons that the state was not the answer to the evils that came in the wake of the Industrial Revolution (and there were evils, mind you, as well as good from this transition); rather, it would be voluntary person to person love and engagement that would ameliorate the bad conditions identified by Dickens. And he would have spent his money on himself and others instead of hoarding it with a positive impact on the local economy.
I suspect that I like “A Christmas Story” so much because it holds out the hope of redemption and conversion. Although I am not a miser, being more a spendthrift, I am, like Scrooge, cut off emotionally and socially from my fellow human beings more than I would like to be and more than I ought to be. I am terribly challenged by this and sometimes don’t know where to begin to remedy it. On the one hand, I crave community; yet, on the other hand, I shun it and its demands.
This year, I caught most of a version of “A Christmas Carol” with Scrooge played by Patrick Stewart. It was pretty good, not as good as the 1951 version, but it satisfied the Scrooge craving.
One of my favorite SNL skits involved imagining the consequences of Scrooge’s change of heart a year later. Everybody took advantage of and abused his generosity. Cratchit was chronically tardy and unproductive. Charities hounded Scrooge relentlessly. His business was going to hell. It was pretty funny, but I don’t imagine that is how Scrooge’s life turned out
Scrooge gained by his opening himself to others and to community. His firm, which he had devoted his life to building, would have continuity even after his death as Scrooge involved his nephew Fred and Bob’s son in the business. What would have become of Scrooge & Marley, Ltd had Scrooge died a lonely miser?
Scrooge began to take pleasure in his wealth by sharing it and allowing himself to live more completely. He became part of his church, his neighborhood, his family, and the business community. He did so freely and without resentment borne of obligation. As he aged and grew feeble, he could rely on the support of loved ones, and he could go to his rest knowing that he would be remembered fondly and that he had made a difference in the world.
This doesn’t mean that he became a socialist or rejected his capitalist ways. On the contrary, he kept the firm going and expanded it. He would have known from the spirits’ lessons that the state was not the answer to the evils that came in the wake of the Industrial Revolution (and there were evils, mind you, as well as good from this transition); rather, it would be voluntary person to person love and engagement that would ameliorate the bad conditions identified by Dickens. And he would have spent his money on himself and others instead of hoarding it with a positive impact on the local economy.
I suspect that I like “A Christmas Story” so much because it holds out the hope of redemption and conversion. Although I am not a miser, being more a spendthrift, I am, like Scrooge, cut off emotionally and socially from my fellow human beings more than I would like to be and more than I ought to be. I am terribly challenged by this and sometimes don’t know where to begin to remedy it. On the one hand, I crave community; yet, on the other hand, I shun it and its demands.
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Halls Are Decked
Last week, Mrs Vache Folle broke out the soap dish shaped like a Christmas tree. That really set a holiday tone at Chez Folle, provided you use the downstairs bathroom. I know it’s there, so the good cheer that it brings lingers even when I am not in the room with it. I reckon Mrs VF is a Christmas nut after all just like her mother.
Some Good Things About the Donald
He was cute when he was little.
He donated land for the “Donald J. Trump State Park” which I drive through every day: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/06/0419061.html
He worked it so Miss USA could at least keep her crown, albeit at the cost of her dignity. (As far as I’m concerned, if Miss USA wants to drink and smooch with other women, more power to her. )
He donated land for the “Donald J. Trump State Park” which I drive through every day: http://www.ny.gov/governor/press/06/0419061.html
He worked it so Miss USA could at least keep her crown, albeit at the cost of her dignity. (As far as I’m concerned, if Miss USA wants to drink and smooch with other women, more power to her. )
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Islamofascism, Schmislamofascism
I can’t bring myself to read right wing blogs. I find them too toxic and brain destroying. Besides, tbogg http://tbogg.blogspot.com/ and the folks on his blogroll do a fine job of encapsulating what the wingnuts are talking about and in an entertaining manner.
It turns out that wingnuts live in a bizarre fantasy world where, among other things, Western Civilization is under siege by Islamofascists hell bent on establishing a Muslim caliphate from Indonesia to Spain and beyond. I can almost hear that movie trailer announcer: “In a world embroiled in a titanic clash of civilizations, a handful of brave right wing bloggers was all that stood between the West and the Islamofascist horde.”
Great googly moogly! This is bats**t insane, tin foil hat kind of stuff. I’m not sure what to make of this. Some of these wingnuts have degrees from good schools and appear to be basically literate, so it is hard to imagine that they are just plain stupid, although I won’t rule this out for some of them.
Let’s imagine for the sake of discussion that the wingnuts really believe this stuff. That means that they are (a) crazy; (b) crazy; or (c) crazy. It’s a paranoid delusion, plain and simple, and I reckon that some wingnut bloggers fall into the crazy category.
Another category would be those wingnut bloggers who know that the whole clash of civilizations thing is a crock of type 7 pooh but who promote it because it advances the authoritarian agenda that they serve. They reckon that if they can scare enough of the sheeple with this nonsense, they can influence them to acquiesce in all kinds of bad policy and power grabs. I call this category, the “evil” wingnuts. They could still be crazy, of course, but they don’t happen to be deluded about the Islamofascist threat.
Why do I even bother distinguishing between those who are crazy and those who are evil? Don’t they have the same impact? True, but the crazy ones, with medication, might be cured of their delusion; whereas, the evil ones would require years of reeducation in the camps after the revolution.
It turns out that wingnuts live in a bizarre fantasy world where, among other things, Western Civilization is under siege by Islamofascists hell bent on establishing a Muslim caliphate from Indonesia to Spain and beyond. I can almost hear that movie trailer announcer: “In a world embroiled in a titanic clash of civilizations, a handful of brave right wing bloggers was all that stood between the West and the Islamofascist horde.”
Great googly moogly! This is bats**t insane, tin foil hat kind of stuff. I’m not sure what to make of this. Some of these wingnuts have degrees from good schools and appear to be basically literate, so it is hard to imagine that they are just plain stupid, although I won’t rule this out for some of them.
Let’s imagine for the sake of discussion that the wingnuts really believe this stuff. That means that they are (a) crazy; (b) crazy; or (c) crazy. It’s a paranoid delusion, plain and simple, and I reckon that some wingnut bloggers fall into the crazy category.
Another category would be those wingnut bloggers who know that the whole clash of civilizations thing is a crock of type 7 pooh but who promote it because it advances the authoritarian agenda that they serve. They reckon that if they can scare enough of the sheeple with this nonsense, they can influence them to acquiesce in all kinds of bad policy and power grabs. I call this category, the “evil” wingnuts. They could still be crazy, of course, but they don’t happen to be deluded about the Islamofascist threat.
Why do I even bother distinguishing between those who are crazy and those who are evil? Don’t they have the same impact? True, but the crazy ones, with medication, might be cured of their delusion; whereas, the evil ones would require years of reeducation in the camps after the revolution.
Statism as Slomming
“The Soup” aired this insane anti-drug/smoking/what the hell public service ad: http://www.abovetheinfluence.com/the-ads/slom.htm
The premise is that kids have started “slomming” derived from the acronym for Sticking Leeches On Myself. The leeches stand in for drugs or smoking, get it? Neither did I.
BW Richardson’s recent post uses leeches as the perfect metaphor for government: http://bwrmontag.blogspot.com/2006/12/government-as-big-fat-leech.html
If you reimagine the ad about slomming as antigovernment, it starts to make sense.
The premise is that kids have started “slomming” derived from the acronym for Sticking Leeches On Myself. The leeches stand in for drugs or smoking, get it? Neither did I.
BW Richardson’s recent post uses leeches as the perfect metaphor for government: http://bwrmontag.blogspot.com/2006/12/government-as-big-fat-leech.html
If you reimagine the ad about slomming as antigovernment, it starts to make sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)