I did not think about the news at all on my vacation last week, and I did not have a single political conversation with anyone. This was all part of the pursuit of bliss. This morning, listening to Air America reminded me that my country has been hijacked by criminals and that there is little hope that they will ever be brought to justice.
Not one Republican on the Intelligence Committee would vote to investigate the illegal, unwarranted surveillance of Americans by the Bush Crime Family. Not one.
The victims at Guantanamo have a legal right to be free of torture but no ability to enforce that right in any court. They just have to trust the Bush Crime Family to obey the law. Any regard I had for Lindsey Graham (and it was not much) is lost for all time.
One long time victim at Guantanamo was picked up solely because he was wearing what US operatives regarded as an “Al Qaeda watch”, a cheap Casio model worn by lots of folks with no Al Qaeda connection. The USG still won’t let the poor sod go, just as they won’t release any of the estimated 80% of their victims for whom there is not even a remotely plausible reason at all for continued detention and torture. I am at a loss to explain this. The most elegant explanation is that the Bush regime is simply evil, that they are entertained by keeping and tormenting their victims for no apparent reason. Perhaps, they just don’t want any of their victims to tell their stories if they are released. I wonder if there is anything I might do as a private citizen to alleviate the suffering of detainees. I pray for them, but I wish that I could help them somehow. I am sickened that they are being held and mistreated as they are in the name of my country.
I am heartsick that my conspecifics, some of them otherwise seemingly decent people, don’t seem to care about the unjust detentions and mistreatment of the victims of Bush. In my opinion, the treatment of detainees should be governed by the principle of how one would want one’s son or daughter or other loved one treated if they were held by a foreign government.
I am dismayed and ashamed that the Bush Crime Family has been able to find so many willing henchmen and henchwomen willing to carry out and facilitate atrocious acts. Would that I lived in a society where Bush would be hard pressed to find anyone to participate in his wrongdoing. Then again, such a society would never have produced a President Bush.
I know that the American people are more decent than their rulers, and I hope that we will find a way to rescue our country from these villains. Alas, hope is not a plan.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Roe v Wade is Doomed; in Fact, All Our Rights Are Doomed
The movement to overturn Roe v Wade is characterized by some as a quest to restore states’ rights. I am a cynic about this. In my experience, people who want any level of government to have the kind of intrusive power to regulate women’s reproductive and health decisions don’t give a rat’s patootie about states’ rights. They will argue for state’s rights when they think states will do what they approve of, and they will run to the federal government whenever a state does something they don’t like. They play the states’ rights card when it comes to womb control legislation, but they promote federal legislation to keep states from legalizing marijuana or recognizing same sex marriage. I suppose there could be folks with consistent states’ rights principles who are sincerely pro-womb control and pro-federalism; I’ve just never met anyone of that description so far.
No, if Roe is overturned on states’ rights grounds, that will be an explicit recognition that no federal Constitutional right is at stake, and federal legislation will be considered in short order. It may well fail given that the majority of Americans are not as authoritarian as the GOP, but I don’t really trust the Democrats to protect civil rights on this issue any more than they have on everything else the GOP is determined to take away from us. The womb control mob will not rest until all the states or the feds control every womb in the country.
Of course, I don’t have a uterus, and if a woman in my family needed an abortion we could afford to travel to get one. It would still suck to live in a state governed by people who think they have a right to control your body. What’s next? State mandated calorie counting? Population control? Forced sterilization? Forced pregnancy? It’s all fair game to the authoritarians.
I reckon that if reproductive choice is legislated away, one way to deal with the issue would be to establish charitable organizations to assist low income families in obtaining information and travel services to get treatment where necessary. Such legislation will hit the poor and middle class but will have no impact on the rich and powerful. Senator Foghorn’s daughter or Reverend Busybody’s mistress can hop a jet to Canada any time they need services whereas working class women will be SOL.
Also, I predict that pharmaceuticals will be developed to take the place of intrusive procedures and that women will be able to treat themselves relatively more safely in the future. Of course, these will be made illegal and will be yet another subject of the "War on Medicine".
No, if Roe is overturned on states’ rights grounds, that will be an explicit recognition that no federal Constitutional right is at stake, and federal legislation will be considered in short order. It may well fail given that the majority of Americans are not as authoritarian as the GOP, but I don’t really trust the Democrats to protect civil rights on this issue any more than they have on everything else the GOP is determined to take away from us. The womb control mob will not rest until all the states or the feds control every womb in the country.
Of course, I don’t have a uterus, and if a woman in my family needed an abortion we could afford to travel to get one. It would still suck to live in a state governed by people who think they have a right to control your body. What’s next? State mandated calorie counting? Population control? Forced sterilization? Forced pregnancy? It’s all fair game to the authoritarians.
I reckon that if reproductive choice is legislated away, one way to deal with the issue would be to establish charitable organizations to assist low income families in obtaining information and travel services to get treatment where necessary. Such legislation will hit the poor and middle class but will have no impact on the rich and powerful. Senator Foghorn’s daughter or Reverend Busybody’s mistress can hop a jet to Canada any time they need services whereas working class women will be SOL.
Also, I predict that pharmaceuticals will be developed to take the place of intrusive procedures and that women will be able to treat themselves relatively more safely in the future. Of course, these will be made illegal and will be yet another subject of the "War on Medicine".
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
The Oscars were not all that Bad this Year
I watched the Oscars on Sunday for the first time in years, and I was pleased with some aspects of the program.
Firstly, I thought Jon Stewart did a great job as host. His snarkiness was just what was needed to counterbalance the pretentiousness of the event, and I enjoyed the apparent discomfort of the gathered luminaries during his monologue. For once in a long time, there was a host who did not seem to think that the whole thing was about him.
Secondly, there were no presenters of presenters, and there was a lot less contrived banter between teams of presenters. The presentations were short and to the point, and we were spared interminable acceptance speeches. All in all, I thought the show moved along about as rapidly as it could without shortchanging the prizewinners too much. After all, this is a prize giving ceremony primarily and a TV show secondarily, so you don’t want to surrender too much to TV format. I liked the comedic presentations of Ben Stiller and Wil Farrell and Steve Carell.
I have nothing to say about who won or who was snubbed. I am not a member of the Academy and am, therefore, not entitled to vote. I respect the membership’s right to vote as they please on whatever basis they please. Moreover, I did not see all that many picture shows this year, and it would be the height of jackassery to comment on movies I have not seen.
Firstly, I thought Jon Stewart did a great job as host. His snarkiness was just what was needed to counterbalance the pretentiousness of the event, and I enjoyed the apparent discomfort of the gathered luminaries during his monologue. For once in a long time, there was a host who did not seem to think that the whole thing was about him.
Secondly, there were no presenters of presenters, and there was a lot less contrived banter between teams of presenters. The presentations were short and to the point, and we were spared interminable acceptance speeches. All in all, I thought the show moved along about as rapidly as it could without shortchanging the prizewinners too much. After all, this is a prize giving ceremony primarily and a TV show secondarily, so you don’t want to surrender too much to TV format. I liked the comedic presentations of Ben Stiller and Wil Farrell and Steve Carell.
I have nothing to say about who won or who was snubbed. I am not a member of the Academy and am, therefore, not entitled to vote. I respect the membership’s right to vote as they please on whatever basis they please. Moreover, I did not see all that many picture shows this year, and it would be the height of jackassery to comment on movies I have not seen.
Rant of the Month
Matthew’s rant is first rate: http://freefreedomtoldhere.blogspot.com/2006/03/fuck-you-bushies.html
More on Authoritarian Christians
I’m still reading Elaine Pagels and her discussion of the conflict in the 2nd century between the orthodox church, which claimed that the church hierarchy derived its authority from God through the apostolic succession and mirrored the heavenly order, and the Gnostic followers of Valentinian, who rejected hierarchy in almost all its forms. I am astonished that so soon in church history, we find orthodox bishops complaining about Christians in their flocks holding “unauthorized” meetings, i.e. not approved by the bishop, and dedicated to authoritarianism. Men outrank women, believers are ranked in terms of seniority, bishops and clergy and deacons outrank the laity. Various individual bishops vie for supremacy. The orthodox model of the church very soon became “One God, one bishop”, and non-authoritarian organizational structures were considered badges of heresy.
The Gnostics recognized the various church offices, but these were chosen by lottery at frequent intervals from among all the believers, male and female, so that no rigid hierarchy might form. Every believer was deemed an equal before God with personal access to the Divine through the Holy Ghost. Every believer might be inspired by the Holy Ghost and might prophesy or teach regardless of station in life.
The authoritarians claimed their authority from the apostles whose teachings were deemed the last word. For them, it seems to me, the church was a completed product, and all that remained was to sell it to the world and perfect its control over believers everywhere. I have to question whether the council that selected the canon did so through the lens of their authoritarianism. Could any text that undermined the church hierarchy or provided for the liberation of individual believers pass muster with such a council? Could any alternative Christian tradition survive the consolidation of power by the authoritarians and their partnership with the state?
Personally, I reject the authoritarian model of church governance and claims by any human but Jesus to particular and exclusive authority from God. I like to imagine what Christianity might have been like if the various traditions that arose in the 1st and 2nd centuries had been permitted to flourish in competition with one another. In our time line, the authoritarians stifled nearly all such competition for 1300 years or so, and even the Protestant Reformers tended to have their own authoritarian streak. Calvin, for example, ruled Geneva with an iron fist and burned folks who disagreed with him at the stake. This moment in history may be the first when Christians are free to teach and worship in an unprecedented variety of ways. Perhaps a pluralistic society is needed to for a liberated Christianity to flourish, and the next centuries may be the golden age of a living church.
The Gnostics recognized the various church offices, but these were chosen by lottery at frequent intervals from among all the believers, male and female, so that no rigid hierarchy might form. Every believer was deemed an equal before God with personal access to the Divine through the Holy Ghost. Every believer might be inspired by the Holy Ghost and might prophesy or teach regardless of station in life.
The authoritarians claimed their authority from the apostles whose teachings were deemed the last word. For them, it seems to me, the church was a completed product, and all that remained was to sell it to the world and perfect its control over believers everywhere. I have to question whether the council that selected the canon did so through the lens of their authoritarianism. Could any text that undermined the church hierarchy or provided for the liberation of individual believers pass muster with such a council? Could any alternative Christian tradition survive the consolidation of power by the authoritarians and their partnership with the state?
Personally, I reject the authoritarian model of church governance and claims by any human but Jesus to particular and exclusive authority from God. I like to imagine what Christianity might have been like if the various traditions that arose in the 1st and 2nd centuries had been permitted to flourish in competition with one another. In our time line, the authoritarians stifled nearly all such competition for 1300 years or so, and even the Protestant Reformers tended to have their own authoritarian streak. Calvin, for example, ruled Geneva with an iron fist and burned folks who disagreed with him at the stake. This moment in history may be the first when Christians are free to teach and worship in an unprecedented variety of ways. Perhaps a pluralistic society is needed to for a liberated Christianity to flourish, and the next centuries may be the golden age of a living church.
Understanding Cheese Movers and Embracing Despair
Kevin Carson posts on “Who Moved My Cheese?” and the whole “do as your told and don’t question authority” school of management http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/03/spencer-johnson-cowardly-weasel.html.
In my own career, I have rarely had the pleasure of working for anyone who was not an idiot, and if I did not question the migration of the cheese, sometimes loudly and vehemently, the consequences to the organization would be dire. It is usually easier to prevent a disaster from happening than to clean it up afterwards. Still, bad managers often don’t appreciate it even when you pull their chestnuts from the fire.
I have learned over the years to pick my spots and to let my bosses screw up as much as they like without interfering unless the issue is likely to have an impact on me. Otherwise, I would be in perpetual confrontation mode. Accordingly, I keep on the lookout for decisions which could bankrupt the company or expose it to unmanageable risks, and I watch our for errors and omissions that are likely to put us as a company in a bad relationship with the bureaucrats up the corporate chain. When these major disasters are in the making, I pull out all the stops, since I feel that I have nothing to lose anyway.
The best you can hope for in a job where you work for a largish corporation is not to hate yourself for what you have to do. Your cheese is going to be moved all the time, usually for no good reason, and there is not much you can do about it except to keep your resume updated. Try to savor the comedic aspects of your situation as much as possible.
The most important lesson to learn about the cheese movers is that they might be stupid and that, even if they are not stupid, their agenda does not usually coincide with the welfare of the company. They are looking out for themselves, and if the company benefits from their actions, it is purely coincidental. Accordingly, your cheese mover's actions and logic will not make sense to you until you figure out what he is trying to accomplish.
My current immediate cheese mover likes to look busy while engaging in as little constructive activity as possible. This is because he is trying to justify his job and the jobs of everyone else in our unit while avoiding any potential for accountability whatsoever. He wants our performance to be measured by activity rather than results and for any major decision or undertaking to be deferred as long as possible.
For the most part, I simply embrace this, and having figured out what he is trying to do has made his actions seem somewhat less irrational. Of course, he does not always do the right thing even in pursuit of his own agenda, but I am able to steer him in the right direction from time to time now that I know what direction he wants to go. I focus my efforts on making sure that we don’t defer action so long that we lose valuable opportunities or increase costs too much in a way that draws adverse attention to the unit. The organization is not structured to provide for accountability except in the case of a massive failure or appearance of failure.
As you may guess, I derive no satisfaction at all from my work outside of my compensation and benefits. It is just a job. I neither love nor hate it, and I don’t think about it for even an instant when I am off duty. When people ask me what I do, I just say that I work in an office, that I sit in front of a computer screen most of the time and have meetings. That about sums it up. Compared to a lot of jobs I have had, it is paradise. I am not obliged to do any evil deeds, and my cheese movers are pretty well intentioned all in all. It helps that they don’t really understand what I do. I don’t have to put in any overtime most of the time, and nothing I do is of any real significance to anyone.
I am not living up to my potential, but then again I never have done. I am too busy keeping track of my cheese.
In my own career, I have rarely had the pleasure of working for anyone who was not an idiot, and if I did not question the migration of the cheese, sometimes loudly and vehemently, the consequences to the organization would be dire. It is usually easier to prevent a disaster from happening than to clean it up afterwards. Still, bad managers often don’t appreciate it even when you pull their chestnuts from the fire.
I have learned over the years to pick my spots and to let my bosses screw up as much as they like without interfering unless the issue is likely to have an impact on me. Otherwise, I would be in perpetual confrontation mode. Accordingly, I keep on the lookout for decisions which could bankrupt the company or expose it to unmanageable risks, and I watch our for errors and omissions that are likely to put us as a company in a bad relationship with the bureaucrats up the corporate chain. When these major disasters are in the making, I pull out all the stops, since I feel that I have nothing to lose anyway.
The best you can hope for in a job where you work for a largish corporation is not to hate yourself for what you have to do. Your cheese is going to be moved all the time, usually for no good reason, and there is not much you can do about it except to keep your resume updated. Try to savor the comedic aspects of your situation as much as possible.
The most important lesson to learn about the cheese movers is that they might be stupid and that, even if they are not stupid, their agenda does not usually coincide with the welfare of the company. They are looking out for themselves, and if the company benefits from their actions, it is purely coincidental. Accordingly, your cheese mover's actions and logic will not make sense to you until you figure out what he is trying to accomplish.
My current immediate cheese mover likes to look busy while engaging in as little constructive activity as possible. This is because he is trying to justify his job and the jobs of everyone else in our unit while avoiding any potential for accountability whatsoever. He wants our performance to be measured by activity rather than results and for any major decision or undertaking to be deferred as long as possible.
For the most part, I simply embrace this, and having figured out what he is trying to do has made his actions seem somewhat less irrational. Of course, he does not always do the right thing even in pursuit of his own agenda, but I am able to steer him in the right direction from time to time now that I know what direction he wants to go. I focus my efforts on making sure that we don’t defer action so long that we lose valuable opportunities or increase costs too much in a way that draws adverse attention to the unit. The organization is not structured to provide for accountability except in the case of a massive failure or appearance of failure.
As you may guess, I derive no satisfaction at all from my work outside of my compensation and benefits. It is just a job. I neither love nor hate it, and I don’t think about it for even an instant when I am off duty. When people ask me what I do, I just say that I work in an office, that I sit in front of a computer screen most of the time and have meetings. That about sums it up. Compared to a lot of jobs I have had, it is paradise. I am not obliged to do any evil deeds, and my cheese movers are pretty well intentioned all in all. It helps that they don’t really understand what I do. I don’t have to put in any overtime most of the time, and nothing I do is of any real significance to anyone.
I am not living up to my potential, but then again I never have done. I am too busy keeping track of my cheese.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Orthodoxy and Authority
Steve Scott http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2006/02/re-thinking-romans-13-part-2.html has been deconstructing Romans 13, the one that authoritarians point to as a Biblical edict to kowtow to the state. This has always been a challenging passage for me, because it makes no sense at all in light of the teachings of Jesus. I am grateful that Steve is taking a whack at it.
I suppose that one might acquiesce in state action as an example of turning the other cheek and not resisting evil, but most Romans 13 spouters seem to go further and require cheerful devotion to civil authorities as the instruments of God. They see patriotism as a Christian virtue. Doesn’t the passage suggest that the authorities always reward good and punish evil?
That settles it for me. Paul can’t possibly be talking about states. Modern nation states didn’t even exist in Paul’s day, and they certainly don’t fit the description of the passage. Could you really argue that it would be Biblical to follow Hitler’s or any leader’s orders to commit atrocities? If you get to choose which orders of authority to follow, doesn’t this undermine the whole passage as a command to obedience? I reckon the state is as much the instrument of God as smallpox or lava flows, and there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that obliges us to die of smallpox or stand in the path of a lava flow.
I have started reading Elaine Pagels on the history of Christianity, and it appears that what becomes known as orthodoxy has most often come down on the side of interpretations that support ecclesiastical authority over individual freedom. This should not be surprising, I suppose, since more liberal interpretations will necessarily have less institutional cohesiveness and will always be outgunned by the more organized orthodox schools of thought. In the case of Christianity, the orthodox variants enjoyed symbiotic relationships with the ruling orders and managed to wipe out most heterodoxy by force. Bishop and King, side by side, ruled Christendom. The heterodox lived on the margins if they were allowed to live at all. I would not be surprised to find that Romans 13 was added to Paul's epistle by some authoritarian bishop long after Paul's death.
In my view, the Reformation was made possible mainly by a falling out among thieves, i.e. the Bishops and the Kings. If Northern European states had not endorsed heterodoxy, how could it have ever taken hold? The ideas weren’t new, but the political environment was.
Even once heterodox movements tend to become institutionalized and more authoritarian as time passes after the manner of AFC Wallace’s “revitalization movements”. The once radical reformation movements become “reformed”, done, perfected for all time. Churches predicated on individual experience and spirituality may be considerably more ephemeral than churches with an authoritarian streak, and it would require special efforts to insure institutional continuity in a continually reforming church.
The church I belong to wants to be “reformed and ever reforming”, and this is probably going to take a lot of work just from an organizational standpoint. I hope it can be done and that it is not inevitable that a majority of members will one day decide that we as a congregation have finished reforming. They will be right, of course; the church will be finished from that moment.
I suppose that one might acquiesce in state action as an example of turning the other cheek and not resisting evil, but most Romans 13 spouters seem to go further and require cheerful devotion to civil authorities as the instruments of God. They see patriotism as a Christian virtue. Doesn’t the passage suggest that the authorities always reward good and punish evil?
That settles it for me. Paul can’t possibly be talking about states. Modern nation states didn’t even exist in Paul’s day, and they certainly don’t fit the description of the passage. Could you really argue that it would be Biblical to follow Hitler’s or any leader’s orders to commit atrocities? If you get to choose which orders of authority to follow, doesn’t this undermine the whole passage as a command to obedience? I reckon the state is as much the instrument of God as smallpox or lava flows, and there is nothing in the teachings of Jesus that obliges us to die of smallpox or stand in the path of a lava flow.
I have started reading Elaine Pagels on the history of Christianity, and it appears that what becomes known as orthodoxy has most often come down on the side of interpretations that support ecclesiastical authority over individual freedom. This should not be surprising, I suppose, since more liberal interpretations will necessarily have less institutional cohesiveness and will always be outgunned by the more organized orthodox schools of thought. In the case of Christianity, the orthodox variants enjoyed symbiotic relationships with the ruling orders and managed to wipe out most heterodoxy by force. Bishop and King, side by side, ruled Christendom. The heterodox lived on the margins if they were allowed to live at all. I would not be surprised to find that Romans 13 was added to Paul's epistle by some authoritarian bishop long after Paul's death.
In my view, the Reformation was made possible mainly by a falling out among thieves, i.e. the Bishops and the Kings. If Northern European states had not endorsed heterodoxy, how could it have ever taken hold? The ideas weren’t new, but the political environment was.
Even once heterodox movements tend to become institutionalized and more authoritarian as time passes after the manner of AFC Wallace’s “revitalization movements”. The once radical reformation movements become “reformed”, done, perfected for all time. Churches predicated on individual experience and spirituality may be considerably more ephemeral than churches with an authoritarian streak, and it would require special efforts to insure institutional continuity in a continually reforming church.
The church I belong to wants to be “reformed and ever reforming”, and this is probably going to take a lot of work just from an organizational standpoint. I hope it can be done and that it is not inevitable that a majority of members will one day decide that we as a congregation have finished reforming. They will be right, of course; the church will be finished from that moment.
Hedonism Rocked
Sadly, I am back from Negril only two days and already the conspecifics are harshing my mellow. I hope that the mellow surplus I generated last week will carry me through and that I can go on even more apathetic than before in my professional life.
The vacation was great, and I would go back in a heartbeat. In fact, I plan to go back about this time next year if we can swing it. Everything you have heard about Hedonsim II is true. It is a wild place, but within a day you will adapt to the environment and enjoy it. Naked people in the water slide by the disco? Shocking on day one, whatever on day two, you’re one of them on day three. Folks getting busy on the nude beach in broad daylight? Before long, you don’t even take notice. Can’t imagine hanging out on the nude beach in your birthday suit? By the second or third day, it will seem weird if you don’t.
The physical facility at Hedo, as we veterans call it, is a little seedy compared to the affiliated Sandals, Couples, Grand Lido or Beaches resorts nearby, but the people, both staff and other guests, are as relaxed and fun as you could hope for. It is very easy to meet people even if you don’t plan on having sex with them, and we never wanted for amiable companions. The spa was good. The food was not remarkable, but it was varied and plentiful and well prepared. The place is immaculate, and the service is first rate.
The best part of the place is the complete non-judgmental and relaxed attitude of the other guests. For a week, we actually lived the mantra “No problem, mon”, and I hope to hang onto this state of mind for a little while longer.
This is not to say that there were no weirdos, but even they were entertaining. One single man travelling alone referred to my travelling with my wife as "bringing my own sand to the beach". Jokes on him; a better analogy in our case would be "bringing sunscreen to the beach".
The vacation was great, and I would go back in a heartbeat. In fact, I plan to go back about this time next year if we can swing it. Everything you have heard about Hedonsim II is true. It is a wild place, but within a day you will adapt to the environment and enjoy it. Naked people in the water slide by the disco? Shocking on day one, whatever on day two, you’re one of them on day three. Folks getting busy on the nude beach in broad daylight? Before long, you don’t even take notice. Can’t imagine hanging out on the nude beach in your birthday suit? By the second or third day, it will seem weird if you don’t.
The physical facility at Hedo, as we veterans call it, is a little seedy compared to the affiliated Sandals, Couples, Grand Lido or Beaches resorts nearby, but the people, both staff and other guests, are as relaxed and fun as you could hope for. It is very easy to meet people even if you don’t plan on having sex with them, and we never wanted for amiable companions. The spa was good. The food was not remarkable, but it was varied and plentiful and well prepared. The place is immaculate, and the service is first rate.
The best part of the place is the complete non-judgmental and relaxed attitude of the other guests. For a week, we actually lived the mantra “No problem, mon”, and I hope to hang onto this state of mind for a little while longer.
This is not to say that there were no weirdos, but even they were entertaining. One single man travelling alone referred to my travelling with my wife as "bringing my own sand to the beach". Jokes on him; a better analogy in our case would be "bringing sunscreen to the beach".
Thumbs Up on Vonnegut Memoir
One of my beach books last week was Kurt Vonnegut’s memoir “Man Without a Country”. This is a breezy, easy read that takes about two hours, but Vonnegut’s ideas take much longer to digest. Among my favorite ideas in the book is the principle that every one of us alive today “just got here”. We didn’t create the mess of a world we have to live in.
Another intriguing idea is the value of the teachings of Jesus even to someone who does not believe in His divinity. Vonnegut points out that nobody seems to be lobbying to post the Sermon on the Mount in public buildings, just the 10 Commandments. Imagine, he writes, posting “Blessed are the merciful” in American courthouses. Revolutionary!
He also opines that the nuclear family is a frail and fragile institution on which to pin our hopes. Vonnegut writes that we need more people to talk to, to relate to, to deal with face to face than the nuclear family offers. Cyber-relationships seem to him to isolate and alienate us even more than ever, and he encourages us to get out of our houses and deal with some real live human beings every day.
All in all, reading this was several hours very well spent.
Another intriguing idea is the value of the teachings of Jesus even to someone who does not believe in His divinity. Vonnegut points out that nobody seems to be lobbying to post the Sermon on the Mount in public buildings, just the 10 Commandments. Imagine, he writes, posting “Blessed are the merciful” in American courthouses. Revolutionary!
He also opines that the nuclear family is a frail and fragile institution on which to pin our hopes. Vonnegut writes that we need more people to talk to, to relate to, to deal with face to face than the nuclear family offers. Cyber-relationships seem to him to isolate and alienate us even more than ever, and he encourages us to get out of our houses and deal with some real live human beings every day.
All in all, reading this was several hours very well spent.
Tagged; I'm It!
I have been tagged by Dr Lenny http://www.howdt.com/blog/ , Adem Kupi http://poxyhouses.blogspot.com/ , BW Richardson http://www.bwrmontag.blogspot.com/ and Iceberg http://iceberg18.blogspot.com/ in the “meme of fours”. I’ve never been tagged before, and I am blushing like a schoolgirl after her first kiss. Here goes:
4 jobs I have had:
campus cop; movie theater relief manager; child abuse prosecutor;
divorce lawyer/mediator
4 movies I can watch over and over:
Starship Troopers; Goodfellas; Face in the Crowd; Pride & Prejudice (1995)
4 places I have lived:
Dunbar, WV; Bellingham, WA; Bridgetown, Barbados; Safety Harbor, FL
4 TV shows I love (currently on)
Dog Whisperer; The Daily Show; The Soup; Lost
4 highly recommended TV shows I never watch:
CSI-Las Vegas; CSI-Miami; CSI-New York; Law and Order (any incarnation)
4 places I have vacationed
Grand Turk; Gorlice, Poland; Shrewsbury, England; Yosemite National Park
4 of my favorite places
Smithsonian; Bronx Zoo; Great Smoky Mountains and environs; Lower Lena Lake in the Olympic Mountains
4 favorite dishes
biscuits and sausage gravy; fried oysters; any kind of curry dish, especially vindaloo; linguine with white clam sauce
4 sites I visit daily
Independent Country http://independentcountry.blogspot.com/
Antiwar http://antiwar.com/blog/
Mutualist Blog http://www.mutualist.blogspot.com/
James Wolcott http://jameswolcott.com/
4 places I’d rather be right now
In Negril, Jamaica from whence I have just returned
Playing ball in the back yard with Jasper the pit bull
Recovering from a completed colonoscopy
Soaking in a hot tub in a Catskills resort
4 new bloggers to tag (just to see if they come by):
Truth Above All http://truthaboveall.blogspot.com/
Leave Us Alone http://leave-us-alone.blogspot.com/
Great Oak Forest http://oakforest.blogspot.com/
To Herd or Not to Herd http://djomama.blogspot.com/
Apologies if you have already been hit with this one.
4 jobs I have had:
campus cop; movie theater relief manager; child abuse prosecutor;
divorce lawyer/mediator
4 movies I can watch over and over:
Starship Troopers; Goodfellas; Face in the Crowd; Pride & Prejudice (1995)
4 places I have lived:
Dunbar, WV; Bellingham, WA; Bridgetown, Barbados; Safety Harbor, FL
4 TV shows I love (currently on)
Dog Whisperer; The Daily Show; The Soup; Lost
4 highly recommended TV shows I never watch:
CSI-Las Vegas; CSI-Miami; CSI-New York; Law and Order (any incarnation)
4 places I have vacationed
Grand Turk; Gorlice, Poland; Shrewsbury, England; Yosemite National Park
4 of my favorite places
Smithsonian; Bronx Zoo; Great Smoky Mountains and environs; Lower Lena Lake in the Olympic Mountains
4 favorite dishes
biscuits and sausage gravy; fried oysters; any kind of curry dish, especially vindaloo; linguine with white clam sauce
4 sites I visit daily
Independent Country http://independentcountry.blogspot.com/
Antiwar http://antiwar.com/blog/
Mutualist Blog http://www.mutualist.blogspot.com/
James Wolcott http://jameswolcott.com/
4 places I’d rather be right now
In Negril, Jamaica from whence I have just returned
Playing ball in the back yard with Jasper the pit bull
Recovering from a completed colonoscopy
Soaking in a hot tub in a Catskills resort
4 new bloggers to tag (just to see if they come by):
Truth Above All http://truthaboveall.blogspot.com/
Leave Us Alone http://leave-us-alone.blogspot.com/
Great Oak Forest http://oakforest.blogspot.com/
To Herd or Not to Herd http://djomama.blogspot.com/
Apologies if you have already been hit with this one.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Off to Negril
Mrs Vache Folle and I are headed off for a week in Jamaica, so I won’t be blogging for a while. I could use some rest as I am recovering from another bout of bronchitis. Moreover, I would like to be warm for a while. The pathologically frugal Mrs VF does not permit the thermostat to be set above 60. I aim to do some snorkeling and a whole lot of nothing for 7 days.
We are a little apprehensive about the trip because we are staying at a resort, Hedonism, with a reputation for wildness. The Folles are not wild. We’re tolerant of others, but we’re as dull as it gets. Moreover, we recently discovered that the resort is hosting a convention of swingers and wife swappers while we are there. I reckon it’s better we found out ahead of time so that we can avoid some comedic misunderstandings. I doubt anyone will want to swap husbands with Mrs VF, but Mrs VF is a looker. I aim to come home with the same wife I left with.
Another cause for some concern is that Mrs VF and I are the whitest non-albino people on the earth. Our ancestors apparently evolved on glaciers, and neither of us tans. We are apt to burst into flames if exposed to direct sunlight, so we will be easily identifiable by our hats and excessive clothing on an otherwise nude or near nude beach. This is for the health of our skin and, in my case, for humanitarian reasons. When I lived in Barbados, I was often taken for a native “Red Leg”, or white Bajun, because I did not have a tan and because I scurried from shade to shade.
Despite the concerns, I am keen to be off on vacation.
We are a little apprehensive about the trip because we are staying at a resort, Hedonism, with a reputation for wildness. The Folles are not wild. We’re tolerant of others, but we’re as dull as it gets. Moreover, we recently discovered that the resort is hosting a convention of swingers and wife swappers while we are there. I reckon it’s better we found out ahead of time so that we can avoid some comedic misunderstandings. I doubt anyone will want to swap husbands with Mrs VF, but Mrs VF is a looker. I aim to come home with the same wife I left with.
Another cause for some concern is that Mrs VF and I are the whitest non-albino people on the earth. Our ancestors apparently evolved on glaciers, and neither of us tans. We are apt to burst into flames if exposed to direct sunlight, so we will be easily identifiable by our hats and excessive clothing on an otherwise nude or near nude beach. This is for the health of our skin and, in my case, for humanitarian reasons. When I lived in Barbados, I was often taken for a native “Red Leg”, or white Bajun, because I did not have a tan and because I scurried from shade to shade.
Despite the concerns, I am keen to be off on vacation.
Q: When is Gulag Not a Gulag? A: When it's American!
One of my fascist conspecifics claimed to be offended by folks who referred to American detention centers as “gulags”. I asked him what he considered the critical distinction, and he replied that the gulags were more numerous, that they had a lot more prisoners, and that they operated over a long period of time. I asked him whether the first gulag could have been called a “gulag” when it opened and received its first prisoner, but he didn’t answer. He just said the comparison was “ludicrous” and left it at that. To him, calling an American detention facility a gulag is WORSE than actually running a camp that invites such comparisons.
Now that it turns out that the US is using some old Soviet facilities, I reckon that it is fair by any lights to call them “gulags”. Also, Haliburton is building us some fine detention centers right here in the US of A, the rationale for which Wendy McElroy has some ideas about: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010048.html These will be “gulags”, plain and simple.
There is something to be said for calling a spade a spade or a gulag a gulag. Let’s not permit tyrants to hide behind euphemisms.
Now that it turns out that the US is using some old Soviet facilities, I reckon that it is fair by any lights to call them “gulags”. Also, Haliburton is building us some fine detention centers right here in the US of A, the rationale for which Wendy McElroy has some ideas about: http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/010048.html These will be “gulags”, plain and simple.
There is something to be said for calling a spade a spade or a gulag a gulag. Let’s not permit tyrants to hide behind euphemisms.
Why Don't Extended Families Live Together?
In thinking about family structure, I often wonder why more of us do not join together in extended families and pool our resources. Wouldn’t both our “nuclear families” be better off if my brother and I shared a household? If we threw the old man and his wife into the mix, we’d be living high off the hog. We’d need one somewhat bigger house instead of the three houses we now occupy, and we would probably enjoy substantial savings on food and services.
My stay at home sister in law could let the dogs out every day and save me about $6,000 a year. She could also do some of the household chores during the day so that we who work need not kill ourselves when we get home. There would be many more adults to watch and love the children. Of course, we live 18 hours away from each other, but my brother lives within 5 minutes of our father.
Any combination of adult siblings, parents, children, etc. would result in a huge savings in costs if we lived together and pooled our resources. I suspect that we bear the monstrous costs of going on our own at least in part because we think that it is worth it. We don’t live with our parents and siblings because we don’t have to.
But this is only part of the equation. There seems to be an unspoken cultural assumption that we ought to live in nuclear and not extended families. Multigenerational families are viewed as unusual, even a little weird. Perhaps this is part of status seeking in that we do not wish to be seen to be struggling and unable to afford independence from our kin. This ethos renders us more dependent on our employers and less secure financially even as it provides us with freedom from social disapproval.
We also recognize that there may be some issues within families, especially when it comes to relations with in-laws. In Yonkers, where multigenerational households were more common, it was said that “you can’t have two women in one kitchen”. This applied to daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law but not to mothers and daughters for some reason I never figured out. These dynamics are not inherently insurmountable, however.
And if your relatives are jackasses, they will be harder to live with than if they are an amiable and considerate lot. I don’t think I could ever live under the same roof with my abusive stepfather or my mother-in-law’s toxic current husband. Otherwise, I think I could handle the rest of the family tolerably well. I actually like my siblings. I even like my Idiot Brother-in-Law although he is a slob and would probably drive his sister crazy.
My stay at home sister in law could let the dogs out every day and save me about $6,000 a year. She could also do some of the household chores during the day so that we who work need not kill ourselves when we get home. There would be many more adults to watch and love the children. Of course, we live 18 hours away from each other, but my brother lives within 5 minutes of our father.
Any combination of adult siblings, parents, children, etc. would result in a huge savings in costs if we lived together and pooled our resources. I suspect that we bear the monstrous costs of going on our own at least in part because we think that it is worth it. We don’t live with our parents and siblings because we don’t have to.
But this is only part of the equation. There seems to be an unspoken cultural assumption that we ought to live in nuclear and not extended families. Multigenerational families are viewed as unusual, even a little weird. Perhaps this is part of status seeking in that we do not wish to be seen to be struggling and unable to afford independence from our kin. This ethos renders us more dependent on our employers and less secure financially even as it provides us with freedom from social disapproval.
We also recognize that there may be some issues within families, especially when it comes to relations with in-laws. In Yonkers, where multigenerational households were more common, it was said that “you can’t have two women in one kitchen”. This applied to daughters-in-law and mothers-in-law but not to mothers and daughters for some reason I never figured out. These dynamics are not inherently insurmountable, however.
And if your relatives are jackasses, they will be harder to live with than if they are an amiable and considerate lot. I don’t think I could ever live under the same roof with my abusive stepfather or my mother-in-law’s toxic current husband. Otherwise, I think I could handle the rest of the family tolerably well. I actually like my siblings. I even like my Idiot Brother-in-Law although he is a slob and would probably drive his sister crazy.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Moral Arithmetic
JL Wilson sums up my feelings on holocaust denial quite nicely http://www.partialobserver.com/article.cfm?id=1761 .
Up until I visited Auschwitz last year, most of my knowledge of the Holocaust was derived from the late 1970s miniseries and other movies. Six million dead Jews was appalling, but I reckoned that six thousand or six hundred would have been enough to shock my conscience, and I could never figure out what all the hullabaloo over the exact number was. I think that an atrocity was done when the Nazis killed their first Jew and that each subsequent murder should be considered another equally horrifying count in the indictment of Nazism. In my book, arguing that the Nazis killed only one million Jews or some other number less than six million is not a valid way to absolve them of culpability.
I suppose that it is useful to have the atrocities be of such enormity that they do not invite ready comparisons with our own national sins. If my country killed a few thousand residents of the Philippines to suppress the rebellion there, that was nothing like the Holocaust with its SIX MILLION. If my country wiped out tens of thousands of Indians, that pales in comparison to the SIX MILLION who died in the Holocaust. That was TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Also, an enormous number means that the events are entitled special status as one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored murder instead of being just another run of the mill series of atrocities committed by states. States kill people in the hundreds of thousands all the time, so there is nothing special in many minds about events that culminate in the deaths of any fewer than say a million people or so.
How many Iraqi and Afghan civilians will the US have to kill as collateral damage before US subjects become concerned about the moral implications? Estimates that the sanctions of the last decade killed a million people left the Americans unmoved for the most part. A possible 100,000 dead and an officially acknowledged 30,000 dead are apparently not all that disturbing to most Americans. Americans rarely talk about the multitudes of Vietnamese dead as costs of that war but are troubled by the 50,000 plus US casualties. Perhaps my compatriots have an unlimited moral capacity to absorb the deaths of foreigners at the hands of the government but a limited capacity to accept American casualties.
Also, I suppose that it is important that the murders be done over a relatively short time period. If the German government killed six million Jews over a two hundred year period, that might not be as disturbing. By the same token, Americans seem to be OK with the instantaneous vaporization of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians on two occasions in 1945.
I don’t understand the moral arithmetic.
Up until I visited Auschwitz last year, most of my knowledge of the Holocaust was derived from the late 1970s miniseries and other movies. Six million dead Jews was appalling, but I reckoned that six thousand or six hundred would have been enough to shock my conscience, and I could never figure out what all the hullabaloo over the exact number was. I think that an atrocity was done when the Nazis killed their first Jew and that each subsequent murder should be considered another equally horrifying count in the indictment of Nazism. In my book, arguing that the Nazis killed only one million Jews or some other number less than six million is not a valid way to absolve them of culpability.
I suppose that it is useful to have the atrocities be of such enormity that they do not invite ready comparisons with our own national sins. If my country killed a few thousand residents of the Philippines to suppress the rebellion there, that was nothing like the Holocaust with its SIX MILLION. If my country wiped out tens of thousands of Indians, that pales in comparison to the SIX MILLION who died in the Holocaust. That was TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
Also, an enormous number means that the events are entitled special status as one of the most extreme examples of state sponsored murder instead of being just another run of the mill series of atrocities committed by states. States kill people in the hundreds of thousands all the time, so there is nothing special in many minds about events that culminate in the deaths of any fewer than say a million people or so.
How many Iraqi and Afghan civilians will the US have to kill as collateral damage before US subjects become concerned about the moral implications? Estimates that the sanctions of the last decade killed a million people left the Americans unmoved for the most part. A possible 100,000 dead and an officially acknowledged 30,000 dead are apparently not all that disturbing to most Americans. Americans rarely talk about the multitudes of Vietnamese dead as costs of that war but are troubled by the 50,000 plus US casualties. Perhaps my compatriots have an unlimited moral capacity to absorb the deaths of foreigners at the hands of the government but a limited capacity to accept American casualties.
Also, I suppose that it is important that the murders be done over a relatively short time period. If the German government killed six million Jews over a two hundred year period, that might not be as disturbing. By the same token, Americans seem to be OK with the instantaneous vaporization of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians on two occasions in 1945.
I don’t understand the moral arithmetic.
Wherein I Flirt with Know Nothingism
I am conflicted about immigration. In principle, in a perfect world, folks would be free to move around without regard to borders, and we would all live free and in harmony amid an ethos of mutual tolerance and respect. However, I don’t live in a perfect world. I live in a world where the people who move into my community or my country influence several levels of meddlesome government. This almost always reduces my freedom.
When folks from Westchester County move up here to Dutchess, they turn our farms into rows of McMansions. They think that our taxes are a bargain (they are compared to where they came from), and they think nothing of voting tax increases to pay for more schools, more police, libraries, parks and all kinds of infrastructure, much of which doesn’t benefit me at all. It’s not that I don’t like the Westchesterites individually. They’re no better or worse than anyone else who feels free to rob me in order to subsidize their desires. At some point, these same people will decide that the process of ruination that they have engaged in has gone too far, and they will vote in a cadre that will curtail development and regulate the crap out of everyone in town. These immigrants are, frankly, destroying my community, and there is nothing I can do about it. Their culture of meddlesome statism is at the heart of the problem.
The same goes for many immigrants from abroad. I suspect that it is no coincidence that increases in government power, and acquiescence in its exercise, have followed closely on the heels of mass in-migrations of people from countries who lack any tradition of limited government and respect for individual liberty. In my experience, my distrust of government and love of freedom are more readily understood and accepted by my fellow Americans with centuries of history on this continent than by descendants of more recent immigrants. I’m not saying that these folks aren’t nice people. They are, like the Westchesterites, no better or worse than other statists with their hands in my pockets. I have also found some more recent immigrants more receptive to libertarian ideals, among them some West Indians and Mexican laborers and entrepreneurs.
Lest you think me a bigot, let me say that I have many likeable acquaintances who descend from Ellis Island Immigrants or potato famine refugees. Mrs Vache Folle has such a heritage and is a perfectly agreeable person. She is also committed to the founding principles of her adopted country. I am all for diversity in religion, customs, language and what not, but the infection of America with statism is not to be borne.
I have proposed disenfranchising immigrants and the descendants of immigrants for 7 generations in order to reduce the influence of the statist meme complex on American politics. If this could be accomplished, I would likely be indifferent to immigration.
When folks from Westchester County move up here to Dutchess, they turn our farms into rows of McMansions. They think that our taxes are a bargain (they are compared to where they came from), and they think nothing of voting tax increases to pay for more schools, more police, libraries, parks and all kinds of infrastructure, much of which doesn’t benefit me at all. It’s not that I don’t like the Westchesterites individually. They’re no better or worse than anyone else who feels free to rob me in order to subsidize their desires. At some point, these same people will decide that the process of ruination that they have engaged in has gone too far, and they will vote in a cadre that will curtail development and regulate the crap out of everyone in town. These immigrants are, frankly, destroying my community, and there is nothing I can do about it. Their culture of meddlesome statism is at the heart of the problem.
The same goes for many immigrants from abroad. I suspect that it is no coincidence that increases in government power, and acquiescence in its exercise, have followed closely on the heels of mass in-migrations of people from countries who lack any tradition of limited government and respect for individual liberty. In my experience, my distrust of government and love of freedom are more readily understood and accepted by my fellow Americans with centuries of history on this continent than by descendants of more recent immigrants. I’m not saying that these folks aren’t nice people. They are, like the Westchesterites, no better or worse than other statists with their hands in my pockets. I have also found some more recent immigrants more receptive to libertarian ideals, among them some West Indians and Mexican laborers and entrepreneurs.
Lest you think me a bigot, let me say that I have many likeable acquaintances who descend from Ellis Island Immigrants or potato famine refugees. Mrs Vache Folle has such a heritage and is a perfectly agreeable person. She is also committed to the founding principles of her adopted country. I am all for diversity in religion, customs, language and what not, but the infection of America with statism is not to be borne.
I have proposed disenfranchising immigrants and the descendants of immigrants for 7 generations in order to reduce the influence of the statist meme complex on American politics. If this could be accomplished, I would likely be indifferent to immigration.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Career Options Stymied
If I wanted to become a hunter-gatherer in America today and live as my ancestors did back in the Paleolithic, could I do this without breaking the law? I suppose that I might be considered a vagrant in some quarters and run out of the county. I would almost always be trespassing on somebody’s land or violating the rules for using government land. I would probably violate hunting regulations galore and regulations that prohibit collecting plants and such. If I built a shelter anywhere, I would be camping and subject to time limits and a crap load of other rules. And if I earned my living by foraging, would the IRS impute the value of my food, animal pelt clothing, stone tools, and rudimentary shelter to me as taxable income? If so, could I pay my tax with beaver pelts? If I lived in a band of foragers who roamed the backwoods, I am pretty sure the Bureau of Land Management would try to remove us. If we had any children, the child welfare folks would take them away from us.
If I wanted to be a subsistence agriculturalist in America today, would this even be feasible economically? How would I pay property taxes, assuming I could afford any land? Would my hovel be up to code? The tax thugs might be all over me on account of any bartering I might do.
If I wanted to be an itinerant tinker like the Goat Man who used to pass through our village, I am not sure that I would be allowed to ply my trade in peace. How many business licenses would I have to take out, and how much business tax would be exacted from my meager earnings?
What if I wanted to follow the caribou herd and prey on it? Would I be allowed to do that? Or to drive herds of goats to seasonal pasture and live the life of a pastoralist? Is there a program for primitive goatherds on federal wasteland?
I am just thinking through my options.
If I wanted to be a subsistence agriculturalist in America today, would this even be feasible economically? How would I pay property taxes, assuming I could afford any land? Would my hovel be up to code? The tax thugs might be all over me on account of any bartering I might do.
If I wanted to be an itinerant tinker like the Goat Man who used to pass through our village, I am not sure that I would be allowed to ply my trade in peace. How many business licenses would I have to take out, and how much business tax would be exacted from my meager earnings?
What if I wanted to follow the caribou herd and prey on it? Would I be allowed to do that? Or to drive herds of goats to seasonal pasture and live the life of a pastoralist? Is there a program for primitive goatherds on federal wasteland?
I am just thinking through my options.
Free Market in Family Structure
I share a number of values with the League of the South, particularly interest and pride in southern history and heritage. But this rant against the breakdown of the nuclear family doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with Southern culture:
http://leagueofthesouth.net/blog/more.php?id=1369_0_1_0_M
The gist is that the trend away from marriage and the nuclear family means the end of civilization… yadda, yadda, yadda…. let’s all get back to nuclear families…. stigmaitize bastardy….blah, quack, woof. How does one propose to compel people to form nuclear families and enter into and maintain state sanctioned marriages when more and more people clearly prefer not to do so or are unable to do so?
The author of the article attributes the trend to moral decadence, making us ripe for mass conversion to Islam of all things; however, I reckon that we ought to consider whether the failure lies with the institutions at issue rather than with the people themselves. The institutions exist to serve people, not the other way around. As I see it, a big problem is the state’s meddling in family structure. If left to their own devices, people will by and large form family structures that meet their needs, that are economically and socially strategic. But people are not, in fact, left to their own devices because the state privileges some arrangements over others, albeit not as aggressively as some might wish and certainly with no consistency. Presumably the author of the article cited above would support state intervention to maintain his favorite household dynamic, although to his credit he does not explicitly call for coercion.
I call for separation of family and state. Repeal all laws that provide incentives or disincentives to the formation of any particular family form. Perhaps the nuclear family will regain its popularity in competition with other strategies; perhaps not. In any event, I predict that a variety of family structures would emerge to accommodate the diverse needs of differently situated families.
http://leagueofthesouth.net/blog/more.php?id=1369_0_1_0_M
The gist is that the trend away from marriage and the nuclear family means the end of civilization… yadda, yadda, yadda…. let’s all get back to nuclear families…. stigmaitize bastardy….blah, quack, woof. How does one propose to compel people to form nuclear families and enter into and maintain state sanctioned marriages when more and more people clearly prefer not to do so or are unable to do so?
The author of the article attributes the trend to moral decadence, making us ripe for mass conversion to Islam of all things; however, I reckon that we ought to consider whether the failure lies with the institutions at issue rather than with the people themselves. The institutions exist to serve people, not the other way around. As I see it, a big problem is the state’s meddling in family structure. If left to their own devices, people will by and large form family structures that meet their needs, that are economically and socially strategic. But people are not, in fact, left to their own devices because the state privileges some arrangements over others, albeit not as aggressively as some might wish and certainly with no consistency. Presumably the author of the article cited above would support state intervention to maintain his favorite household dynamic, although to his credit he does not explicitly call for coercion.
I call for separation of family and state. Repeal all laws that provide incentives or disincentives to the formation of any particular family form. Perhaps the nuclear family will regain its popularity in competition with other strategies; perhaps not. In any event, I predict that a variety of family structures would emerge to accommodate the diverse needs of differently situated families.
Focus on Practice
I am in the middle of reading Brian McLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy”, and I find it inspiring and thought provoking. One point from the book that resonates with me is an increased focus on practice rather than on doctrine. In my view, it is more important to live as a disciple of Jesus than to think the proper theological thoughts.
One can have a wide divergence of opinion on a range of theological questions, none of which may have any practical impact on how one lives and treats others. For example, if I love God with all my faculties and my neighbors as myself, does it really matter how I conceive of the concept of the trinity? My views on the trinity are not at all apt to inform the practice of my faith and my life within the community. It seems so bizarre to me that people were burned at the stake over this issue. To me, it is not unlike the violent conflict between Swift’s “Big Endians” and “Little Endians” over the right way to break an egg.
I don’t find it necessary or useful to take stands on a lot of theological issues as I reckon that they are entirely speculative and have no practical significance. For example, I don’t know if salvation is universal or particular. I don’t know if hell is anything other than a literary device. Also, my lack of training in theology would make my pronouncements on such subjects ridiculous.
There are some doctrines that, in fact, inform practice in significant ways, and I am beginning to think that what is commonly considered the single religion of Christianity is really two or more very distinct belief systems. A belief in salvation “by grace alone” provides a very different template for living than a belief that requires works or human effort of some kind and a constant focus on righteousness. The latter version of Christianity is much more akin to Islam than to my own beliefs. (It might be interesting to compare the utterances of various American televangelists with assorted mullahs and to see just how closely they track.)
One can have a wide divergence of opinion on a range of theological questions, none of which may have any practical impact on how one lives and treats others. For example, if I love God with all my faculties and my neighbors as myself, does it really matter how I conceive of the concept of the trinity? My views on the trinity are not at all apt to inform the practice of my faith and my life within the community. It seems so bizarre to me that people were burned at the stake over this issue. To me, it is not unlike the violent conflict between Swift’s “Big Endians” and “Little Endians” over the right way to break an egg.
I don’t find it necessary or useful to take stands on a lot of theological issues as I reckon that they are entirely speculative and have no practical significance. For example, I don’t know if salvation is universal or particular. I don’t know if hell is anything other than a literary device. Also, my lack of training in theology would make my pronouncements on such subjects ridiculous.
There are some doctrines that, in fact, inform practice in significant ways, and I am beginning to think that what is commonly considered the single religion of Christianity is really two or more very distinct belief systems. A belief in salvation “by grace alone” provides a very different template for living than a belief that requires works or human effort of some kind and a constant focus on righteousness. The latter version of Christianity is much more akin to Islam than to my own beliefs. (It might be interesting to compare the utterances of various American televangelists with assorted mullahs and to see just how closely they track.)
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Citizenship Test
A conspecific sent me a “citizenship test” by e-mail http://games.toast.net/independence/page1.asp . I got 28 out of 30 of the answers right, genius that I am. 24 correct is passing. The cover e-mail stated that 86% of high schoolers flunked as did 50% of people over 50. The questions call for some historical knowledge and knowledge about the constitution, but I am not sure that knowing the answers would make you a good “citizen”.
I like to distinguish between the attributes of a good “citizen” and a good “subject” of the state. The former status calls for participation and responsibility, while the latter calls for obedience. The former wants cultivation, the latter domestication. The former requires education, the latter indoctrination. The state doesn’t really care for good citizens; they are a nuisance. The state prefers compliant subjects. The state begets subjects, whereas independent institutions of civil society are needed to produce citizens.
I am not a big supporter of democracy for its own sake. Democracy without the rule of law and recognition of individual rights is as tyrannical as any other form of government, often more so. And democracy in the US is nothing more than political theater. Just about everyone is a “citizen” with an equal vote, no matter how ignorant or unprincipled he may be. The concept of citizen is so debased that citizens in America are indistinguishable from mere subjects.
I wonder if the people of the US would be better off if we were divided into distinct political classes where citizenship and the franchise were conferred on only that part of the population that met certain criteria deemed necessary for the responsibilities associated with citizenship. A class of responsible electors might be maintained to serve on juries, in offices of trust, and as voters in elections. Something must be done; look what the universal suffrage has wrought: Bush. Some criteria that I might suggest:
1. A citizen must have all grandparents born within the US or abroad to American parents. Heck, let’s make it great great great grandparents so as to weed out those potato famine refugees and the Ellis Island immigrants that almost ruined America. This insures that electors and officeholders will have a longstanding stake in America and its founding principles and be untainted by a familial experience with foreign tyranny.
2. No person employed by any government agency or receiving governmental funds for any reason may be a citizen for at least ten years after receipt of the most recent payment. This includes pension benefits.
3. No person employed by or who is an officer or director of a government contractor may be a citizen for ten years.
4. No person who is the business partner, spouse, parent, child or sibling of anyone in categories 2 or 3 above or 5 below may be a citizen while the former is barred.
5. No person who contributes funds to any political campaign may be a citizen for ten years after the contribution. No recipient of funds from a PAC, political party, or similar source may be a citizen for ten years.
6. No person convicted of a crime of violence may be a citizen ever. No person convicted of bribery, election fraud, or larceny may be a citizen ever.
7. Holders of elective office whether or not compensated shall be debarred from voting for ten years after leaving office.
8. Each candidate for citizenship must apply in person under oath and renew in person annually at the county courthouse where he resides. Otherwise, voting and other privileges will be suspended.
9. Any citizen who fails to vote in any election shall be suspended from voting for 4 years thereafter.
10. Any citizen who fails to perform jury duty at least very other year as required will be permanently removed from the citizenship rolls. Non-citizens will not be qualified to be jurors so citizens must take up the slack.
These criteria should insure that voters are not interested in government spending and that those who are interested are disqualified. No thugs are allowed, and you have to care enough about citizenship to fill out a form every year and sit on a jury every other year. This not an elitist program, and I reckon that many elite pork lovers would be cut out of politics. There is no education or literacy requirement. There is really not even a character requirement, but I reckon that the absence of improper incentives would keep the character impaired out of the citizenship racket. There is literally nothing in it for the citizen except duties and the rewards of virtue, i.e. virtue itself.
There should be enough citizens to make it too difficult for anyone to buy their votes.
Random Thoughts
I might be willing to sign on to surveillance if the playing field were equal, if it applied to everyone. Let everyone be surveilled 24/7 and let his activities be published on line for any person to see. If I could see government officials at work with 100% transparency, I would let them watch me do what I do. I have a lot less to hide than they do, and this might be a fair trade. The only trouble is that the populace is so stupid that it would watch Paris Hilton floss before it would keep an eye on the state, so the government would still screw us.
I am the first to admit that my character is a little dodgy, and even I can’t see how so many federal officials don’t resign in protest over the way the Bush regime conducts the government. They ought to be resigning in droves, but it appears that the regime has found thousands of unprincipled hacks to fill all the patronage positions in its gift. Where do you find such a reliable pool of hackitude unsullied by principle? The College Republicans, no doubt.
I hear that some neocons advocate invading and occupying Iran. Perhaps they meant to invade Iran in the first place but a typo led to an invasion of Iraq instead. Or they want a chance to show that they can do an invasion and occupation right, that the Iraq debacle was an aberration or that they have learned from their mistakes in Iraq. I suppose that an invasion of Iran might be pulled off with a few thousand troops and that, provided the people greet us with candy and flowers, the occupation would pay for itself with oil revenue. Note to the air force: don’t bomb the candy and flower warehouses this time. Surely, the Iranians are yearning to breathe free and to cast off the yoke of their democratically elected government. And they love Americans and would surely see us as liberators, not like those silly Iraqis. As long as we have an extra army and an extra trillion bucks lying around doing nothing, what are we waiting for?
Now that the US has set the precedent of pre-emptive war, would Iran or Syria be within its rights to attack the US now rather than wait for the threatened military strikes by the US?
Now that the President has the authority to imprison or kill anyone he likes at any time without any process or checks, can he delegate that authority by issuing “licenses to kill”? Can these be outsourced to private contractors? A lot of people would write pretty hefty checks for campaign contributions if they thought they could get such a license. I reckon a lot of ex-wives would be found to have ties to al Qaeda.
I am the first to admit that my character is a little dodgy, and even I can’t see how so many federal officials don’t resign in protest over the way the Bush regime conducts the government. They ought to be resigning in droves, but it appears that the regime has found thousands of unprincipled hacks to fill all the patronage positions in its gift. Where do you find such a reliable pool of hackitude unsullied by principle? The College Republicans, no doubt.
I hear that some neocons advocate invading and occupying Iran. Perhaps they meant to invade Iran in the first place but a typo led to an invasion of Iraq instead. Or they want a chance to show that they can do an invasion and occupation right, that the Iraq debacle was an aberration or that they have learned from their mistakes in Iraq. I suppose that an invasion of Iran might be pulled off with a few thousand troops and that, provided the people greet us with candy and flowers, the occupation would pay for itself with oil revenue. Note to the air force: don’t bomb the candy and flower warehouses this time. Surely, the Iranians are yearning to breathe free and to cast off the yoke of their democratically elected government. And they love Americans and would surely see us as liberators, not like those silly Iraqis. As long as we have an extra army and an extra trillion bucks lying around doing nothing, what are we waiting for?
Now that the US has set the precedent of pre-emptive war, would Iran or Syria be within its rights to attack the US now rather than wait for the threatened military strikes by the US?
Now that the President has the authority to imprison or kill anyone he likes at any time without any process or checks, can he delegate that authority by issuing “licenses to kill”? Can these be outsourced to private contractors? A lot of people would write pretty hefty checks for campaign contributions if they thought they could get such a license. I reckon a lot of ex-wives would be found to have ties to al Qaeda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)