Yes, I've been watching last Friday night's Real Time with Bill Maher.
You'll have to excuse my comments below at some point. Just be aware that if you can't, terrorists are the reason I'm saying these things and frankly? I needs to be said....
Two things.... the flu and terrorists. Two scummy things that we need to eradicate from the planet. I'd vote, kill the terrorists model first, being the more lowlife of the two. At least the flu can only attack as it's nature. Human beings have a choice and they decide that their petty God or Allan, their magic Guy in the Sky, is more important that a real human being right in front of them.
First, people who say flu vaccines don't work, why get them, aren't arguing they don't work (unless they're just ignorant), they're arguing they are only so effective as the flu changes and the shots are made five months ahead of time. But the do work, but only within a range of a percentage of what's possible. 23% is tossed about. Okay, so 23% of Americans find it useful. That's like 76 million people, who don't get it, get it lighter than they would or don't die. And they aren't infecting others or decreasing the number they would which is additional savings which aren't considered.
So yes, we all should get a flu shot.
Pres. Obama has started calling Muslim Terrorists, violent terrorists. Really? From within the perspective of all religions, he may be correct to do so. But from outside of the perspective of religion, I think he's wrong. At very least he should say religious terrorists or something. Yes, these people are in many cases just criminals wrapping themselves in the cloak of religion just to have fun or push a cause, but still religion is at the core of their efforts. It is not the mainstream cause of Muslims, most of them shouldn't suffer for the cause and actions of a few (don't go kill any Muslim, you have to wait till they yell "Jihad", or "Praise Allah" just before they push the button and blow you the hell up. Or shoot you. And the other woman and children in the market.
So no, all Muslims have little to do with Muslim Terrorists. But they are still Muslim Terrorists.
That being said, Pope Francis has said that you shouldn't talk smack about someone's religion because if the guy next to him was talking that way about his mother, he'd punch him out and then apparently mimicked the action. WTF? Jesus punching someone over anything? His representative on earth, doing what? Really? I love this guy, this Pope, I really do, but that was stepping over the line.
And I'm sorry, but anyone anywhere should have the right to call bullshit on your ridiculous religion or beliefs. Just walk away. Because if you can't, what are you? Twelve? Because the mindset I'm seeing behind religious killings is that of a child who has yet to mature into an adult who can play well with others, even when it's annoying to.
Anyone who wants to should be able to look you right in the eye, if you think you should be killing people for God, or Allah, of some Prophet and say to them, "F*ck your God", Allah, the Prophet, Jehovah, or Dog for that matter (because some people worship the most ridiculous crap, right?).
But you know what? And how many who are pissed at me for the previous paragraph are really reading THIS far?
We probably should NOT say, "F*ck your God." We should really say "Fuck YOU!" Because the concept of God, Allah, whathaveyou is really initially a good and positive mental construct. It is a well meaning attempt at humanism believe it or not. Typically a failed one I'd argue but it started out well. Usually it is there now to replace one that already existed that someone thought was defective and thought "F*ck YOUR God" to someone else coming before them. Probably long before them and so aren't there to defend themselves or their original intent. Just descendants of followers who probably now have a diluted and bastardized form of the original religion, much like today's Muslim Terrorists. Or Religious Terrorists. Or violent terrorists but really, isn't "violent" terrorists just redundant?
Name a terrorist who wasn't violent, because terror by its nature tends to be violent so really, at very LEAST religious terrorist should be the go to phrase. But then Catholics, and those idiots over at Scientology, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and all the other nut cases including Judaism would start whining.
What we should be saying is "F*ck YOU, you rat bastards for killing innocents and pushing your defective extreme (not fundamentalist) thoughts onto others who not only don't see things your way, but may very well in general see things your way as you do after all KILL MUSLIMS, you ASSholes!"
Praise being kind to other people who are real and need our compassion. Should that include terrorists? Well, by their own definition I'd argue, No.
Put down your guns, your bombs, head cutting off knives and swords and your bad attitude and rejoin the human race and then yes, I'd agree. You'd have my compassion again. Until then, you die, whenever possible. Not that it's very hard to do, kill you I mean, since after all half the time you die in the action of killing others and really that's the epitome of stupidity.
Your attrition does help our side however. The side of the entire rest of the world who is against you. So join the rest of humanity because if you think you are right and 99% of the rest of the world is wrong, you really are a loser. Come on. Come join us. Be a part of humanity. You can do it. Just turn your back on ridiculous beliefs. Really. It's doable. Many have done it already and more are all the time, realizing how stupid religious wars against the majority of the planet are.
But first you have to get your head out of your ass.
God, or Allah, ain't up in there.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Monday, January 12, 2015
Understanding Life
I find with so many things that they can be misunderstood, misconstrued and misinterpreted.
This however, is not one of them....
Moving along...I have grown through my life wanting things. I've been told, that is bad. A bad thing to do. And yet, no matter what I try to do, I still seem to do them.
I grew up in Catholicism and found it lacking. Sorely, lacking. I tried many other forms of religion, philosophy (which really, was the start off all this and a brother to psychology which my degree is in), and sociology (a much larger version of psychology).
I settled upon, Buddhism. Very possibly, not a Buddhism you would know or think of. Or maybe possibly so.
I'm not a ritualist, though I understand its usefulness. In any form of theism or philosophy, there is fat. It needs to be trimmed. In writing we have a theory, when you finish your final draft, cut 10% more.
So it is with other forms and disciplines.
I always wanted to be someone who works on computers. I did that. I always wanted to be a Webmaster. I did that. I wanted to be a technical writer. I did that. I wanted to be a writer and author. I've done that.
I wanted to own my own car. My own house, trees, acreage, my own... other things. I've done all that. As a child I wanted to own a mansion, to have servants who waited on me, to own a swimming pool, much acreage, a motorcycle (did that repeatedly), a boat, a plane (I learned to fly and skydive for that matter but my wife wouldn't let me get a plane for some reason, well, we're divorced now).
Then, I realized something.
All my life people said that was all bad. I have seen many stories of people who were materialistic, who became rich, and then were miserable. Donald Trump once said about that, that he knows many rich people and they all seem to be quite happy. Perhaps it's a tail only told by the poor?
Or I've known people who only wanted to sleep around, or to be considered the best in a field, or...whathaveyou.
But then, I realized it.
Speaking only for myself of course, I realized something about all of that. It wasn't that I wanted those things... forever. It wasn't (possibly) that others wanted those things... forever. It was that they wanted to break out of their pigeonhole, into the next level, to experience it, to tire of it, then to move on to another better challenge. Most of them perhaps, simply didn't realize that.
It is those who achieved those things and then sat and did nothing, who were the miserable ones.
I also think these are one of the primary reasons for many to seek out things like religion, philosophy, a guru, extreme sports even, or a therapist.
When really all they need to do is to consider what I'm saying here and follow through.
Of those who realized that and strove to achieve more, what was their choice in continuing on their quest for the next better thing? Did that then in the end make them miserable, too? After all, some people will just always be displeased, always. Avoid those types. On the other hand, it's good to want to achieve more and better, if handled properly. We should always after all, strive to improve, but recognize your achievements and appreciate your efforts for therein lay some of the pleasure.
Or, did they chose the right thing as the next step in the path?
Sometimes the next greater thing, after you hit a certain point, isn't the next obvious step up, but a step away from it. Sometimes, the next step is an oblique to your path, or a reversal.
We just have to realize that in our lives that what we sometimes think is the next step up, only goes so high. One needs to realize when it's time to shift direction. It is those who never see that and then continue on in the same direction always and forever, who suffer.
Those others who see the shifting tides, who can fathom the finest paths to freedom, are the ones who never experience the gloom of satiation and so go on to continue with lives fulfilled with freedom and experience.
That, can be you too.
This however, is not one of them....
Moving along...I have grown through my life wanting things. I've been told, that is bad. A bad thing to do. And yet, no matter what I try to do, I still seem to do them.
I grew up in Catholicism and found it lacking. Sorely, lacking. I tried many other forms of religion, philosophy (which really, was the start off all this and a brother to psychology which my degree is in), and sociology (a much larger version of psychology).
I settled upon, Buddhism. Very possibly, not a Buddhism you would know or think of. Or maybe possibly so.
I'm not a ritualist, though I understand its usefulness. In any form of theism or philosophy, there is fat. It needs to be trimmed. In writing we have a theory, when you finish your final draft, cut 10% more.
So it is with other forms and disciplines.
I always wanted to be someone who works on computers. I did that. I always wanted to be a Webmaster. I did that. I wanted to be a technical writer. I did that. I wanted to be a writer and author. I've done that.
I wanted to own my own car. My own house, trees, acreage, my own... other things. I've done all that. As a child I wanted to own a mansion, to have servants who waited on me, to own a swimming pool, much acreage, a motorcycle (did that repeatedly), a boat, a plane (I learned to fly and skydive for that matter but my wife wouldn't let me get a plane for some reason, well, we're divorced now).
Then, I realized something.
All my life people said that was all bad. I have seen many stories of people who were materialistic, who became rich, and then were miserable. Donald Trump once said about that, that he knows many rich people and they all seem to be quite happy. Perhaps it's a tail only told by the poor?
Or I've known people who only wanted to sleep around, or to be considered the best in a field, or...whathaveyou.
But then, I realized it.
Speaking only for myself of course, I realized something about all of that. It wasn't that I wanted those things... forever. It wasn't (possibly) that others wanted those things... forever. It was that they wanted to break out of their pigeonhole, into the next level, to experience it, to tire of it, then to move on to another better challenge. Most of them perhaps, simply didn't realize that.
It is those who achieved those things and then sat and did nothing, who were the miserable ones.
I also think these are one of the primary reasons for many to seek out things like religion, philosophy, a guru, extreme sports even, or a therapist.
When really all they need to do is to consider what I'm saying here and follow through.
Of those who realized that and strove to achieve more, what was their choice in continuing on their quest for the next better thing? Did that then in the end make them miserable, too? After all, some people will just always be displeased, always. Avoid those types. On the other hand, it's good to want to achieve more and better, if handled properly. We should always after all, strive to improve, but recognize your achievements and appreciate your efforts for therein lay some of the pleasure.
Or, did they chose the right thing as the next step in the path?
Sometimes the next greater thing, after you hit a certain point, isn't the next obvious step up, but a step away from it. Sometimes, the next step is an oblique to your path, or a reversal.
We just have to realize that in our lives that what we sometimes think is the next step up, only goes so high. One needs to realize when it's time to shift direction. It is those who never see that and then continue on in the same direction always and forever, who suffer.
Those others who see the shifting tides, who can fathom the finest paths to freedom, are the ones who never experience the gloom of satiation and so go on to continue with lives fulfilled with freedom and experience.
That, can be you too.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Is Islam out of control? Is it time to take control?
At what point do we consider that Islam, is out of control in the world?
.jpg)
I've called for them to take this on before. Some have stood up in the Muslim community around the world to denounce these criminal actions. But when will they pull out all the stops? They are great at fighting for themselves. If this is a true religion, when will they start fighting for others? Otherwise I have to suspect Islam is just another false religion that praises yet another false God (well actually I know it does, but that's beside the point here). Where IS Allah in all this? Are these people following Allah, Mohamed, or just themselves?
Should we have special task forces just dealing with violent Muslim activists? Don't we already? Should we start cracking down on them, more than we are, with different tactics? They have long argued a right to these actions, is it time to say no more and become aggressive? Is this the time for the Religion War to begin? Are we tired enough yet of the nonsense religion has been and is still fostering upon us as a species?
These concepts are dangerous.
Now this is news, Anonymous Is Targeting Islamist Sites Over Charlie Hebdo Attacks and Anonymous claims first victim in 'Operation Charlie Hebdo'.
Now this is news, Anonymous Is Targeting Islamist Sites Over Charlie Hebdo Attacks and Anonymous claims first victim in 'Operation Charlie Hebdo'.
So are these ideologues who are taking it upon themselves to protect a religion, or their beliefs through a religion, to be taken seriously yet? I mean, SERIOUSLY. To that point that we act?
Do we need special task forces dealing only with this situation until it is ended?
If we were to do that, there is no doubt in my mind that innocents would be killed in the effort to kill this mindset in that of those young, those disaffected and those typically male.
Or should Islam begin it's own task force to deal with this issue, heading off outsiders starting their own mindset that we've all had enough?
The issue with Charlie Hebdo in France, may have turned into the next step, escalating this issue. Has a gunman taken hostages in another situation, perhaps linked to the killing of a police officer yesterday, in an attempt to help or support the two Charlie Hebdo gunmen still at large and possibly now surrounded by police? We already know about these two orphaned jokers....
French police released photos of the Kouachi brothers - Cherif (L) and Said (R)
Well it seems these guys are dead now.
If Islam doesn't start to do something about this situation, should non-Muslims, forces from outside of Islam? Shouldn't Islam start doing something to clean up their own mess? Isn't it about time? Well it seems these guys are dead now.
I've called for them to take this on before. Some have stood up in the Muslim community around the world to denounce these criminal actions. But when will they pull out all the stops? They are great at fighting for themselves. If this is a true religion, when will they start fighting for others? Otherwise I have to suspect Islam is just another false religion that praises yet another false God (well actually I know it does, but that's beside the point here). Where IS Allah in all this? Are these people following Allah, Mohamed, or just themselves?
If it is just themselves, shouldn't Islam handle it? Because with the way things are going, if outsiders are left to police Islam, that is a very dangerous thing indeed. This could spark the beginning of the end for all religions.
Because we non-Muslims, are sick to death of this NON SENSE.
Yesterday Fareed Zakaria called for the leaders of Muslim countries to speak up and out about this, to denounce these men. Why isn't Islam up in arms themselves screaming about it, denouncing these actions by these criminals, these mass murderers? Because to not speak up and out about it is to agree with it. Are Muslims cowards? Is it a religion of people fearful of themselves, their beliefs, their "God"?
Isn't it time that God finally be put into his place?
Islam as a religion needs to be devalued. Judaism was long ago, as was Catholicism. It is time for Islam. It is a religion too young to exist in the modern age. Once they realize this, to play well with others as a whole, it is merely a cancer in the world that needs to be cut out.
People are scared, though they are putting on a brave face. But as some have pointed out, it's rational and okay to be afraid. Just be aware that if the people that people are being afraid of is YOU, you might want to consider taking matters into your own hands as a whole before scared people do.
We saw what happened to Iraq after 9/11. An angry and scared America lashed out and ridiculously attacked Iraq and we don't need any kind of a re-occurrence of that nonsense. Lashing out like that is a sign of cowardice, of fear. Scared people act stupidly. I studied martial arts and the first thing we were taught was never to allow fear to win over in a fight. That all being said, Saddam had to go but he should have gone the first time around in the 1980s.
People are scared, though they are putting on a brave face. But as some have pointed out, it's rational and okay to be afraid. Just be aware that if the people that people are being afraid of is YOU, you might want to consider taking matters into your own hands as a whole before scared people do.
We saw what happened to Iraq after 9/11. An angry and scared America lashed out and ridiculously attacked Iraq and we don't need any kind of a re-occurrence of that nonsense. Lashing out like that is a sign of cowardice, of fear. Scared people act stupidly. I studied martial arts and the first thing we were taught was never to allow fear to win over in a fight. That all being said, Saddam had to go but he should have gone the first time around in the 1980s.
If I were a Muslim, I sure as hell wouldn't let outsiders do it. All Muslims need to stand up now and demand an end to the hijacking of their religion and start making it something that all of them can praise and share in the world. And not just for the Charlie Hebdo situation, but for all and future situations.
Religion loves absolutes, Islam even more so, Islamic terrorists (and wannabes like the Charlie Hebdo murderers who are merely criminals) even more so, still. When someone in your Muslim group starts talking crap, shout them down. Punch them in the face. Kick them in the balls. Kill them, if need be, before they kill others when you would really have an issue with masses of others killing random Muslims. Let's avoid that.
Be a real Man, be a real Woman (though being female in Islam is problematic) for your God's sake. Be a Muslim! Stand up wherever you are right now and shout it: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Muslims everywhere stop killing!" Refuse to allow it. Take a zero tolerance stance. Typically I'm against zero tolerance situations but when it comes to certain things like killing, especially innocents, it may be justified. If you want to kill, to stone someone, try killing killers.
This is an effort that needs to come from the ground up, but also from the top down. The leaders of Muslim countries need to stand up, speak up, make changes that will resonate. If they don't, then who? Because if they don't and they don't know who, not being proactive just isn't going to work. There's a lot of Muslims in the world. But there's a lot of others in the world too. Sooner or later people are going to feel they've had enough.
So stop allowing ANY Muslims to be known for cowardice and punk tactics like using bombs to kill innocents, or slaughtering people who have never held a gun and never would.
Otherwise, what does that say about Islam?
Religion loves absolutes, Islam even more so, Islamic terrorists (and wannabes like the Charlie Hebdo murderers who are merely criminals) even more so, still. When someone in your Muslim group starts talking crap, shout them down. Punch them in the face. Kick them in the balls. Kill them, if need be, before they kill others when you would really have an issue with masses of others killing random Muslims. Let's avoid that.
Be a real Man, be a real Woman (though being female in Islam is problematic) for your God's sake. Be a Muslim! Stand up wherever you are right now and shout it: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Muslims everywhere stop killing!" Refuse to allow it. Take a zero tolerance stance. Typically I'm against zero tolerance situations but when it comes to certain things like killing, especially innocents, it may be justified. If you want to kill, to stone someone, try killing killers.
This is an effort that needs to come from the ground up, but also from the top down. The leaders of Muslim countries need to stand up, speak up, make changes that will resonate. If they don't, then who? Because if they don't and they don't know who, not being proactive just isn't going to work. There's a lot of Muslims in the world. But there's a lot of others in the world too. Sooner or later people are going to feel they've had enough.
So stop allowing ANY Muslims to be known for cowardice and punk tactics like using bombs to kill innocents, or slaughtering people who have never held a gun and never would.
Otherwise, what does that say about Islam?
Because a God who would allow this to happen, who seems to call for this to happen and keep happening, is a small God indeed, anyway.
By the way, if you think I'm anti Muslims, you're wrong. I'm not. I'm pro people. I'm anti religion. I don't dislike people because they choose religion. I dislike people when they make horrible choices. Religion isn't a horrible choice, it's a bad choice. Big difference (for me anyway).
Let's consider this, "France's New Hero Is The Muslim Police Officer Killed Confronting The Charlie Hebdo Gunmen."
Here's a thought, How to Suck at Your Religion. Because if I had a God, He'd have a sense of humor. Enjoy....
Still here? Okay....
Someone responded to this blog with this:
"What an ill-informed, reactionary piece of toss this is. Muslims around the world are confronting these cretinous zealots... every day. The question we need to ask is why are young, western Muslims turning to an extreme version of the faith, and on...the societies in which they have lived. Task forces won't deal with that, they'll exacerbate it."
By the way, if you think I'm anti Muslims, you're wrong. I'm not. I'm pro people. I'm anti religion. I don't dislike people because they choose religion. I dislike people when they make horrible choices. Religion isn't a horrible choice, it's a bad choice. Big difference (for me anyway).
Let's consider this, "France's New Hero Is The Muslim Police Officer Killed Confronting The Charlie Hebdo Gunmen."
Here's a thought, How to Suck at Your Religion. Because if I had a God, He'd have a sense of humor. Enjoy....
Still here? Okay....
Someone responded to this blog with this:
"What an ill-informed, reactionary piece of toss this is. Muslims around the world are confronting these cretinous zealots... every day. The question we need to ask is why are young, western Muslims turning to an extreme version of the faith, and on...the societies in which they have lived. Task forces won't deal with that, they'll exacerbate it."
Good points. I agree task forces are useless. What is my main point with this blog? Muslim leaders needs to stand up and speak out. Those t the grassroots levels need to stand up and speak out, vociferously. This needs a grassroots effort. My point here was that if Islam doesn't do something, others will and I fully agree, that's a horrible idea. But yet, if Islam doesn't do it, someone will eventually. If you love your Islam, do something, get people involved. Speak out.
Yes, there are Muslims around the world confronting these cretinous zealots. But they aren't obviously doing enough, not enough are doing it and again, that is my point. This isn't going to go away soon. Unless superhuman action is taken from within the Muslim community and so far? I'm just not seeing it.
As for young Muslim men turning to extreme versions of Islam, well, that's young men in general, and when you add a history such as their or poverty, or not having a voice, or simply feeling disenfranchised, you get young men like that. Young men are always on the lookout for excitement, for a cause, for a focus, for one single thought that requires no thought. But that's what religion is all about too. So again, religion is a big part of the issue to begin with.
I've spoken on all these issues here before. We need to address why these people are killing people. But Islam needs to act and make it a major issue that parallels the primary elements of their religion. And honestly? I don't see that happening.
Here's part of the problem. Said, your cousin is talking shit about killing for Mohammed. You turn him in.but he wasn't going to do anything. You've caused a huge issue now. Said says something like that in public, at the temple, in a coffee shop. Everyone, stands and denies his Islamicism. That starts to happen everywhere. Muslim media denounces it, leaders, "We are a non violent religion!" That is what's cool. That is what's accepted.
Here's part of the problem. Said, your cousin is talking shit about killing for Mohammed. You turn him in.but he wasn't going to do anything. You've caused a huge issue now. Said says something like that in public, at the temple, in a coffee shop. Everyone, stands and denies his Islamicism. That starts to happen everywhere. Muslim media denounces it, leaders, "We are a non violent religion!" That is what's cool. That is what's accepted.
It will still take years but then instead of zealots, criminals and mentally ill, it will get down to only criminals and mentally ill (we're getting there) and then only the mentally ill. But Islam needs to do it. Perhaps they need our help externally to give them a bad guy to get started but they have to stand up and say they believe to their core EVERYWHERE that Islam doesn't kill.
I hear that from Muslims now, indeed, but not like what I'm talking about. It has to be on par with someone standing in a coffee shop or temple and saying, "Mohammed is a homosexual!!"
Yeah, he'd die, right? Same has to be true of the concept of killing for Mohammed. When did the "Prophet" become God, anyway, cuz it sure seems like that's what has happened with many of these guys.
Now this, is what I'm talking about! Hezbollah Leader Says Islamic Extremists Have Hurt Islam More Than Cartoonists
Now this, is what I'm talking about! Hezbollah Leader Says Islamic Extremists Have Hurt Islam More Than Cartoonists
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
Charlie Hebdo Murders. More Stupid Faux "Terrorist" Attacks
More Murder, this time in France at the offices of Charlie Hebdo where two police officers and ten employees and journalists were murdered.
First, see this article about the victims. Because really, we care about them. Not the slime who murdered them. Currently according to French police, believed to be the Kouachi brothers - Cherif and Said (see link, bottom of page for their photos). A couple of very low criminal types.
|
| French police released photos of the Kouachi brothers - Cherif (L) and Said (R) |
I strongly denounce killing in the name of any religion. I'm kind of against killing period, actually.
For those anti American types out there who say America shouldn't kill either...well, I fully agree. And we're working on that. I wish we were working on that harder but groups like ISIS\ISIL, Assad in Syria, etc., make it difficult to stop.
There is a big difference however between nation states and religious killings.
Yes I agree some people should just be shot and put down. But they are few and far between and really need a concerted communal effort first to not kill them (serial killers come to mind, and terrorists). If the communal effort however is some village who says "yes, we need to stone this woman for adultery", or "for driving a car", or "for that man for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed", or "for disparaging Allah", or whatever other bullshit you can dream up in your deluded tiny mindsets, then you need a far bigger community to decide for you because obviously you are incapable of deciding rationally for yourselves.
It's sad, very, very sad. This kind of thing is simply no longer acceptable.
What we need to do is dilute the arguments for these killings, not bow to them as Sony recently did with the nut cases in North Korea.
You want Mohammed? You got it....
That being said....my politically correct Mohammed drawing against the drawing Mohammed's image jihad cartoon:
To good Muslims, my apologies for all this.
To the certain criminal Muslim cretin elite, kiss me Irish arse.
By the way, if you feel you need to track me down and kill me, at least do the good service of warning me so I can start packing heat. But you won't, will you.? You'd show up and kill me from behind, in the dark, unknown, hidden, cowardly. Wouldn't you?
Or in plain sight with an automatic gun, sniping, or using a bomb probably killing more innocents, possibly more Muslims. Actions you think looks cool, where you know I can't fight back.
Which you see, is what "terrorists" are all about, which makes you cowards. We don't have much terrorism anymore. What we have now are just criminals committing crimes. Low level wannabees. Low lifes. People with no lives. Scum.
I've actually avoided doing this for some time, but I knew it was going to happen eventually. Just be aware, if you come for me I have training since childhood and I shoot back. Unlike many of these types of victims. Well all these killings have finally brought on a backlash.
And so....
Mohammed, such a silly guy who liked a good party.
You see, we need to put an end to the nonsense of people thinking they can kill over words like this, or cartoons. Grow up.
And.... there's this:
And dammit, it's funny. Anyone who takes their religion so seriously without joy and laughter, has entirely missed the reason behind religion.
Humor after all is a higher function of intellect and so in saying that religion should be entirely serious, is to indicate either the worshiper or their God, isn't. You can be devout and have a sense of humor. One sign of how foolish you or your religion is, is an inability to see humor in it. God is laughing, why shouldn't you? He really won't mind. Unless He is just a fabrication of your own sad and limited image of a God is. Religious writings are written by men, mostly. Another consideration of their own self importance over that of what a real God would be like. And if you can't see that, maybe you're the stupid one who should be bombed out of existence.
I'm really not that concerned because religion is on the way out anyway as humanity becomes more educated and realizes they have been deluded for a very long time, following the agenda of other men long since dead and not magic beings in the sky.
Yes, religion is silly. Killing for it is even sillier. The sooner people realize that the better for us all. If you want to go along believing in nonsense, you are welcome to in my book. Just don't try and put that off on the rest of us and for God's sake, don't kill over it.
Either way, have a sense of humor.
Now of course, let's move on to the one that started it all...
Just in case you think I'm picking on Mohammed....
Seriously and again back to the original point. What's more cowardly than killing unarmed journalists? Children? I've seen they seem to be doing that too. I must be missing something but I don't see how killing innocents or the unarmed is either brave, deserving of reward of any kind or useful to one's cause, unless that cause is to get people pissed off at you, your agenda and if religious based, your stupid religion, considering they are already starting in the minus column in my book, anyway.
I think we need more films where Muslim terrorists (and various "Murderers for Jesus", for that matter) seemingly die in glory (probably murdering more innocents) and then end up with (in the Muslim case) 72 virgin... demons... in Hell. That is, they aren't praised but made to be the fools they are.
Perhaps a flood of films like this, cartoons, etc. until these Muslim murderer types are so overwhelmed worldwide that they finally HAVE to give up their murderous religious fun.
While we're at it, let's have "The Interview" bomb dropped into North Korea (might as well cover all spectrums while I'm at it) en masse. Aren't you sick of these bullies yet?
I do think that all this nonsense in the Muslim community in recent years (the killings) exemplifies the death throws of religion in general worldwide. As with any wounded and cornered animal, just before it dies, it gives a good show of killing anything within reach. Humankind can then finally rise from the veld and count itself among the intelligent species in the galaxy. '
Many of us are biding our time, trying hard to be patient in a pool of delusional despair for many of them who fear the end of their beliefs. It is painful and you have my condolences. You can try but what is to be will be and you can't look at it as prophecy will triumph, because what is to come is what can only triumph. Religion has had its place long since passed by. It survived and had a hardy existence. It continued as long as it could
But then, inevitably, it will die off as reality overtakes wish fulfillment and childhood fantasies. .
Disclaimer: Most Muslims aren't bad people, so don't harangue them for goodness' sake. But they all do have to get over the concept that non Muslims have to live by their rules of their religion. Honestly, we don't for the most part, care. Same issues for, Christians with Attitude.
Just learn to get along.
Good Grief.
For those anti American types out there who say America shouldn't kill either...well, I fully agree. And we're working on that. I wish we were working on that harder but groups like ISIS\ISIL, Assad in Syria, etc., make it difficult to stop.
There is a big difference however between nation states and religious killings.
Yes I agree some people should just be shot and put down. But they are few and far between and really need a concerted communal effort first to not kill them (serial killers come to mind, and terrorists). If the communal effort however is some village who says "yes, we need to stone this woman for adultery", or "for driving a car", or "for that man for drawing a cartoon of Mohammed", or "for disparaging Allah", or whatever other bullshit you can dream up in your deluded tiny mindsets, then you need a far bigger community to decide for you because obviously you are incapable of deciding rationally for yourselves.
It's sad, very, very sad. This kind of thing is simply no longer acceptable.
What we need to do is dilute the arguments for these killings, not bow to them as Sony recently did with the nut cases in North Korea.
You want Mohammed? You got it....
 |
| by David Pope |
 |
| Silly drawing of Mohammed dancing a silly dance in a sandstorm.... |
To the certain criminal Muslim cretin elite, kiss me Irish arse.
By the way, if you feel you need to track me down and kill me, at least do the good service of warning me so I can start packing heat. But you won't, will you.? You'd show up and kill me from behind, in the dark, unknown, hidden, cowardly. Wouldn't you?
Or in plain sight with an automatic gun, sniping, or using a bomb probably killing more innocents, possibly more Muslims. Actions you think looks cool, where you know I can't fight back.
Which you see, is what "terrorists" are all about, which makes you cowards. We don't have much terrorism anymore. What we have now are just criminals committing crimes. Low level wannabees. Low lifes. People with no lives. Scum.
I've actually avoided doing this for some time, but I knew it was going to happen eventually. Just be aware, if you come for me I have training since childhood and I shoot back. Unlike many of these types of victims. Well all these killings have finally brought on a backlash.
And so....
 |
| La vie de Mahomet Publish Charlie Hebdo's Mohammed cartoons in solidarity with the victims of censorship and violence |
You see, we need to put an end to the nonsense of people thinking they can kill over words like this, or cartoons. Grow up.
And.... there's this:
And dammit, it's funny. Anyone who takes their religion so seriously without joy and laughter, has entirely missed the reason behind religion.
Humor after all is a higher function of intellect and so in saying that religion should be entirely serious, is to indicate either the worshiper or their God, isn't. You can be devout and have a sense of humor. One sign of how foolish you or your religion is, is an inability to see humor in it. God is laughing, why shouldn't you? He really won't mind. Unless He is just a fabrication of your own sad and limited image of a God is. Religious writings are written by men, mostly. Another consideration of their own self importance over that of what a real God would be like. And if you can't see that, maybe you're the stupid one who should be bombed out of existence.
I'm really not that concerned because religion is on the way out anyway as humanity becomes more educated and realizes they have been deluded for a very long time, following the agenda of other men long since dead and not magic beings in the sky.
Yes, religion is silly. Killing for it is even sillier. The sooner people realize that the better for us all. If you want to go along believing in nonsense, you are welcome to in my book. Just don't try and put that off on the rest of us and for God's sake, don't kill over it.
Either way, have a sense of humor.
Now of course, let's move on to the one that started it all...
Just in case you think I'm picking on Mohammed....
Seriously and again back to the original point. What's more cowardly than killing unarmed journalists? Children? I've seen they seem to be doing that too. I must be missing something but I don't see how killing innocents or the unarmed is either brave, deserving of reward of any kind or useful to one's cause, unless that cause is to get people pissed off at you, your agenda and if religious based, your stupid religion, considering they are already starting in the minus column in my book, anyway.
I think we need more films where Muslim terrorists (and various "Murderers for Jesus", for that matter) seemingly die in glory (probably murdering more innocents) and then end up with (in the Muslim case) 72 virgin... demons... in Hell. That is, they aren't praised but made to be the fools they are.
Perhaps a flood of films like this, cartoons, etc. until these Muslim murderer types are so overwhelmed worldwide that they finally HAVE to give up their murderous religious fun.
While we're at it, let's have "The Interview" bomb dropped into North Korea (might as well cover all spectrums while I'm at it) en masse. Aren't you sick of these bullies yet?
I do think that all this nonsense in the Muslim community in recent years (the killings) exemplifies the death throws of religion in general worldwide. As with any wounded and cornered animal, just before it dies, it gives a good show of killing anything within reach. Humankind can then finally rise from the veld and count itself among the intelligent species in the galaxy. '
Many of us are biding our time, trying hard to be patient in a pool of delusional despair for many of them who fear the end of their beliefs. It is painful and you have my condolences. You can try but what is to be will be and you can't look at it as prophecy will triumph, because what is to come is what can only triumph. Religion has had its place long since passed by. It survived and had a hardy existence. It continued as long as it could
But then, inevitably, it will die off as reality overtakes wish fulfillment and childhood fantasies. .
Disclaimer: Most Muslims aren't bad people, so don't harangue them for goodness' sake. But they all do have to get over the concept that non Muslims have to live by their rules of their religion. Honestly, we don't for the most part, care. Same issues for, Christians with Attitude.
Just learn to get along.
Good Grief.
Monday, January 5, 2015
Enhanced Interrogation has gotten a bad rap.
There are times in the human experience when you have to take things back from the language abusers. Sometimes, good things simply get hijacked. Less frequently bad ideas do not become hijacked for good ideas. It happens all the time, both ways.
Islam for instance as a religion, needs to be taken back from Islamic terrorists.
NOTE January 7, 2015 - The cowardly attack on the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and injuring seven, is being reported as an apparent Islamist attack. The only more cowardly attack could have been made on children, which has also been happening in relation to Muslim groups like ISIS\ISIL. Can there be a more cowardly action than to attack people who have no way of protecting themselves? It's like the killing children in a glass bowl. These killers deserve our anger (and not Muslims in general, by the way). Get over yourselves and your agendas already, be that religious or geopolitical. Mohammed certainly does not deserve this kind of help or bad press. If He wants people dead, let Him kill them himself. Or better yet, let Him kill these punks with guns.
Honestly and trust me, Mohammed along with Jesus says, "STOP killing in my name!"
The latest Muslim Murderers of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter. Very sad excuses for human beings, to be sure.
Now, as I was saying....
Many words have been hijacked, it's a natural evolution in language, actually. One however, that at times needs to be struggled against. Here is a video that gives some examples of a few aspects of this concept that is interesting.
The term for instance, "intelligent design" is an example, perhaps in reverse. It started in theological writings around 1920s in an American Christian movement and needs to be used more accurately and scientifically rather than in theistic terms. Whether or not you argue that point, matters little. Because the fact remains that the term could be hijacked and reused to mean the exact opposite of what it was originally intended for.
Hijacking words isn't always a bad thing. But when it is it needs to be addressed, reversed, or at least made to be widely understood. For making knowledge of it commonplace is to dilute its meaning and therefore reverse it's misuse. It just takes longer.
I have a fairly good knowledge of the history of the intelligence community. The Bush Administration took them into a dark place they didn't want to go in the first place. The CIA is situated in a position where it can easily be abused by the Executive Branch of our government and typically, they don't like it very much, as in this case.
The disingenuous term "enhanced interrogation" needs to be reclaimed for actual enhanced interrogation, something that has been used in intelligence agencies for many decades. Probably for hundreds of years. By setting aside that Bush administration term to mean only torture interrogation, is going down an ugly, lazy road. By using it appropriately we can reclaim its actual meaning and at the same time, denounce the abuse that was put into play by way of a misleading phrase.
I wouldn't want anyone to go through it (the actual interrogation not the torture version, you following this?). It is grueling. It involves lying to the person being interrogated (supported by the supreme court), twisting things, using some info to make it look like you know more, it is expanding on knowledge of a small amount of information in such a way that it appears you literally know everything.
It is also other things just like that. These have been shown to be highly effective. However, it takes time. Which apparently doesn't matter as in at least one case, the "enhanced interrogation" time and as there was a forty-five day lapse before any questions were asked at all and then, they eventually found the guy was on our side!
If this doesn't speak to incompetence....
Islam for instance as a religion, needs to be taken back from Islamic terrorists.
NOTE January 7, 2015 - The cowardly attack on the French weekly satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people and injuring seven, is being reported as an apparent Islamist attack. The only more cowardly attack could have been made on children, which has also been happening in relation to Muslim groups like ISIS\ISIL. Can there be a more cowardly action than to attack people who have no way of protecting themselves? It's like the killing children in a glass bowl. These killers deserve our anger (and not Muslims in general, by the way). Get over yourselves and your agendas already, be that religious or geopolitical. Mohammed certainly does not deserve this kind of help or bad press. If He wants people dead, let Him kill them himself. Or better yet, let Him kill these punks with guns.
Honestly and trust me, Mohammed along with Jesus says, "STOP killing in my name!"
|
| French police released photos of the Kouachi brothers - Cherif (L) and Said (R) |
Now, as I was saying....
Many words have been hijacked, it's a natural evolution in language, actually. One however, that at times needs to be struggled against. Here is a video that gives some examples of a few aspects of this concept that is interesting.
The term for instance, "intelligent design" is an example, perhaps in reverse. It started in theological writings around 1920s in an American Christian movement and needs to be used more accurately and scientifically rather than in theistic terms. Whether or not you argue that point, matters little. Because the fact remains that the term could be hijacked and reused to mean the exact opposite of what it was originally intended for.
Hijacking words isn't always a bad thing. But when it is it needs to be addressed, reversed, or at least made to be widely understood. For making knowledge of it commonplace is to dilute its meaning and therefore reverse it's misuse. It just takes longer.
I have a fairly good knowledge of the history of the intelligence community. The Bush Administration took them into a dark place they didn't want to go in the first place. The CIA is situated in a position where it can easily be abused by the Executive Branch of our government and typically, they don't like it very much, as in this case.
The disingenuous term "enhanced interrogation" needs to be reclaimed for actual enhanced interrogation, something that has been used in intelligence agencies for many decades. Probably for hundreds of years. By setting aside that Bush administration term to mean only torture interrogation, is going down an ugly, lazy road. By using it appropriately we can reclaim its actual meaning and at the same time, denounce the abuse that was put into play by way of a misleading phrase.
I wouldn't want anyone to go through it (the actual interrogation not the torture version, you following this?). It is grueling. It involves lying to the person being interrogated (supported by the supreme court), twisting things, using some info to make it look like you know more, it is expanding on knowledge of a small amount of information in such a way that it appears you literally know everything.
It is also other things just like that. These have been shown to be highly effective. However, it takes time. Which apparently doesn't matter as in at least one case, the "enhanced interrogation" time and as there was a forty-five day lapse before any questions were asked at all and then, they eventually found the guy was on our side!
If this doesn't speak to incompetence....
It is also unfortunately, necessary at times.
Actual EI does not involve waterboarding, stress positions, keeping someone up for a week at a time, though some of that can be a part of it. Though I would argue that is excessive and the same can be achieved with less. But it doesn't involve torture.
Actual EI is a dialog at a higher level and it does ferret out information. It's been used for years by intelligence agencies and no I don't mean those in the Middle East or others (or us) who use torture in so these so called "enhanced interrogation".
Actual enhanced interrogation is an interrogation method that is enhanced with a higher level of interrogative skills and really only requires a little information and excellent speaking and debating skills; skills which have been honed through an intensive intelligence field orientation.
That being said, over the years due to cost cutting our intelligence skills have become weakened. We have continued to try to not use HUMINT, human intelligence methods. Rather we've been trying to do it all on the cheap, using ELINT, electronic intelligence.
The fine art of human on human intelligence has lost its edge.
The Bush administration took this method of dealing with spies and disingenuously expanded it beyond the scope of what EI is and always has been. We've known for decades not to use the so called "enhanced interrogation" methods because they simply don't work. That isn't news. In fact it was mandated for us to not use torture and yet, the Bush administration pushed for it.
We need to make the term, "enhanced interrogation" mean just that, an enhanced interrogation, not an interrogation that is skewed into the "Twilight Zone" of information acquisition. Torture can work but it's a one end one means thing. For most uses, it just isn't functional, however.
All I can say is if that isn't clear enough of an explanation to explain what I'm saying, then I mustn't be talking to someone who has a clear understanding of English or linguistics.
Actual EI does not involve waterboarding, stress positions, keeping someone up for a week at a time, though some of that can be a part of it. Though I would argue that is excessive and the same can be achieved with less. But it doesn't involve torture.
Actual EI is a dialog at a higher level and it does ferret out information. It's been used for years by intelligence agencies and no I don't mean those in the Middle East or others (or us) who use torture in so these so called "enhanced interrogation".
Actual enhanced interrogation is an interrogation method that is enhanced with a higher level of interrogative skills and really only requires a little information and excellent speaking and debating skills; skills which have been honed through an intensive intelligence field orientation.
That being said, over the years due to cost cutting our intelligence skills have become weakened. We have continued to try to not use HUMINT, human intelligence methods. Rather we've been trying to do it all on the cheap, using ELINT, electronic intelligence.
The fine art of human on human intelligence has lost its edge.
The Bush administration took this method of dealing with spies and disingenuously expanded it beyond the scope of what EI is and always has been. We've known for decades not to use the so called "enhanced interrogation" methods because they simply don't work. That isn't news. In fact it was mandated for us to not use torture and yet, the Bush administration pushed for it.
We need to make the term, "enhanced interrogation" mean just that, an enhanced interrogation, not an interrogation that is skewed into the "Twilight Zone" of information acquisition. Torture can work but it's a one end one means thing. For most uses, it just isn't functional, however.
All I can say is if that isn't clear enough of an explanation to explain what I'm saying, then I mustn't be talking to someone who has a clear understanding of English or linguistics.
Monday, December 29, 2014
Intellectualism and Education
First off...wishing you all a very happy and prosperous and New Year in, 2015 especially to all those who have read this blog so far today, in order of numbers reading from the...United States, Russia, France, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Germany, Iceland, Poland, Australia, Brazil and anyone else my analytics page didn't mention!
Now I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I've considered myself an intellectual for decades. Though I know in some cases now a days it's considered un "PC" and some revolutions they tend to kill first, all the intellectuals. Which, I'd argue, is really stupid. When all the doctors are killed off during a revolution with fighting and shooting and the killing and all, well, doctors are a necessary thing, kind of.
Since childhood it was my primary orientation to learn about new things, to stretch my imagination, to expand my mind. Oddly enough, I just seemed stupid to many around me, mostly because of our educational system and parents who didn't have a clue what to do with a kid like me who was always getting into trouble. And asking questions.
Mostly because no one knew how to channel my needs. My mother was quite good however and inadvertently, in her being exhausted and simply farming me out to the best teachers she could find, just to take me off her hands in the afternoons for a few hours. A purely selfish thing, turned genius.
I saw intellectualism as a pursuit that is aside from ego concerns, had nothing to do with it, really. I've seen many groups over the years devoted to "intellectualism" that really should have been labeled as Ego or Social groups.
All that intellectualism was ever to me was a pursuit of the mind. And again, not the ego. Although one can't ignore the ego, one can certainly give the pursuit of knowledge a far higher consideration.
One can have an IQ of eighty (not that it's important as a number but it's a good cliche everyone understands), and still be an intellectual. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, it's just an orientation, a pursuit in your life.
I find people who hammer on this concept and those who hold it oh so dear, as again, being all about ego. Either because they have either run into those groups I referred to above, or they are themselves people to whom intellectualism is some kind of a threat; and so once again, an ego issue.
I see many people in the public eye now a days demanding to be considered intellectuals, and yet all I see in that is their ego. Or a misrepresentation of intellectual pursuits, an inability to properly navigate the pillars of knowledge among the pits of misrepresentation and illusory knowledge. Of information dressed as knowledge with people trying hard to show how knowledgeable they are, when they have a complete inability to interpret information into knowledge.
I'm sure there was a point in all this....
I guess what this is all about is that being an intellectual, it is far more important than being considered or viewed as one. Perhaps it should be a quiet and personal pursuit? So when it does come out in public it should be carefully played and deftly used. Otherwise it merely supports the generally accepted misconception that intellectualism is all about (once again) ego.
And, it's not.
It's just, not.
There is more to that, too. It's about seeing a broad spectrum of things and not just the specifics of one's trade, or the areas most needed by society.
The reason I mentioned the higher education situation is that it's important, it has to do with our future, and bettering society. Also we need as some have indicated, alternatives to college or education. An environment allowing young people to brainstorm, to learn, to start businesses.
However, having a generation learn through this type of paradigm only advances certain elements more than others, though not enough elements. The thing about liberal arts educations is it offers a broad spectrum understanding of the world.
To find one day that we have a majority of new people running things who have very specific educations is to support and pursue leaders who do not have a broad spectrum of understanding on a wide variety of issues, and at more in depth levels. Something that would lead to very different kind of society. Possibly one that will not fully consider everything that needs consideration, merely from a lack of perspective.
Obviously we need people with more specific and technical educations, but certainly not all of them and we seem to be heading that way.
The thing I never understood was what people think intellectualists are. If you are the bluest of blue collar workers, if you dig in a coal mine, an oil field, or whatever, a garbage man, there is no reason you can't also be an intellectualist. At very least, learn about your field. If you are something, be professional about it. Be the best you can be. And if you are going to do that, learn all you can about your field, and ANY FIELDS that touch upon it.
Then, you will be the best, smartest, the most safe, the most productive...coal miner, oil field worker or garbage man (or woman), or whatever, that there is. And even if you're not, you can certainly try to be and that, enhances the quality of your life, the life of those around you and you could argue, the entire world.
Typically, an intellectual might be considered to be someone who strives to know much about many things. There is however, nothing wrong with choosing a slice of that to be best at or most knowledgeable at. It is also to strive to enhance one's intellect and pursue things that increase various aspects of one's intellect, and that is up to your own interpretation.
There has been a move for some time now to fight against the more liberal arts degrees. To give up on them altogether because the corporate mindset has finally invaded our education system at a systemic level and that, is problematic to say the least.
We are at a crossroads and need to see the map and not just gaze down the road to guess at what direction we should take. Or to simply take the road nearest, or most easy to travel upon. Otherwise, this direction that we've been on for some time now, and are finally starting to understand is not the best road to take, will become the only road available to us.
It already in many ways, appears to be. But it isn't, not really. Not yet.
There is still time to do something about it. We just need to understand that being an intellectual is a good thing, and understand what that good thing is really about. And then, do something about it.
Now I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but I've considered myself an intellectual for decades. Though I know in some cases now a days it's considered un "PC" and some revolutions they tend to kill first, all the intellectuals. Which, I'd argue, is really stupid. When all the doctors are killed off during a revolution with fighting and shooting and the killing and all, well, doctors are a necessary thing, kind of.
Since childhood it was my primary orientation to learn about new things, to stretch my imagination, to expand my mind. Oddly enough, I just seemed stupid to many around me, mostly because of our educational system and parents who didn't have a clue what to do with a kid like me who was always getting into trouble. And asking questions.
Mostly because no one knew how to channel my needs. My mother was quite good however and inadvertently, in her being exhausted and simply farming me out to the best teachers she could find, just to take me off her hands in the afternoons for a few hours. A purely selfish thing, turned genius.
I saw intellectualism as a pursuit that is aside from ego concerns, had nothing to do with it, really. I've seen many groups over the years devoted to "intellectualism" that really should have been labeled as Ego or Social groups.
All that intellectualism was ever to me was a pursuit of the mind. And again, not the ego. Although one can't ignore the ego, one can certainly give the pursuit of knowledge a far higher consideration.
One can have an IQ of eighty (not that it's important as a number but it's a good cliche everyone understands), and still be an intellectual. It has nothing to do with how smart you are, it's just an orientation, a pursuit in your life.
I find people who hammer on this concept and those who hold it oh so dear, as again, being all about ego. Either because they have either run into those groups I referred to above, or they are themselves people to whom intellectualism is some kind of a threat; and so once again, an ego issue.
I see many people in the public eye now a days demanding to be considered intellectuals, and yet all I see in that is their ego. Or a misrepresentation of intellectual pursuits, an inability to properly navigate the pillars of knowledge among the pits of misrepresentation and illusory knowledge. Of information dressed as knowledge with people trying hard to show how knowledgeable they are, when they have a complete inability to interpret information into knowledge.
I'm sure there was a point in all this....
I guess what this is all about is that being an intellectual, it is far more important than being considered or viewed as one. Perhaps it should be a quiet and personal pursuit? So when it does come out in public it should be carefully played and deftly used. Otherwise it merely supports the generally accepted misconception that intellectualism is all about (once again) ego.
And, it's not.
It's just, not.
There is more to that, too. It's about seeing a broad spectrum of things and not just the specifics of one's trade, or the areas most needed by society.
The reason I mentioned the higher education situation is that it's important, it has to do with our future, and bettering society. Also we need as some have indicated, alternatives to college or education. An environment allowing young people to brainstorm, to learn, to start businesses.
However, having a generation learn through this type of paradigm only advances certain elements more than others, though not enough elements. The thing about liberal arts educations is it offers a broad spectrum understanding of the world.
To find one day that we have a majority of new people running things who have very specific educations is to support and pursue leaders who do not have a broad spectrum of understanding on a wide variety of issues, and at more in depth levels. Something that would lead to very different kind of society. Possibly one that will not fully consider everything that needs consideration, merely from a lack of perspective.
Obviously we need people with more specific and technical educations, but certainly not all of them and we seem to be heading that way.
The thing I never understood was what people think intellectualists are. If you are the bluest of blue collar workers, if you dig in a coal mine, an oil field, or whatever, a garbage man, there is no reason you can't also be an intellectualist. At very least, learn about your field. If you are something, be professional about it. Be the best you can be. And if you are going to do that, learn all you can about your field, and ANY FIELDS that touch upon it.
Then, you will be the best, smartest, the most safe, the most productive...coal miner, oil field worker or garbage man (or woman), or whatever, that there is. And even if you're not, you can certainly try to be and that, enhances the quality of your life, the life of those around you and you could argue, the entire world.
Typically, an intellectual might be considered to be someone who strives to know much about many things. There is however, nothing wrong with choosing a slice of that to be best at or most knowledgeable at. It is also to strive to enhance one's intellect and pursue things that increase various aspects of one's intellect, and that is up to your own interpretation.
There has been a move for some time now to fight against the more liberal arts degrees. To give up on them altogether because the corporate mindset has finally invaded our education system at a systemic level and that, is problematic to say the least.
We are at a crossroads and need to see the map and not just gaze down the road to guess at what direction we should take. Or to simply take the road nearest, or most easy to travel upon. Otherwise, this direction that we've been on for some time now, and are finally starting to understand is not the best road to take, will become the only road available to us.
It already in many ways, appears to be. But it isn't, not really. Not yet.
There is still time to do something about it. We just need to understand that being an intellectual is a good thing, and understand what that good thing is really about. And then, do something about it.
Monday, December 22, 2014
A Pantheistic Anarchist Libertine?
This might be a tough blog article to follow, partially because I'm going to skip through it very quickly. If you don't see the connections, the islands of thought I'm running through, I believe it will become clearer if you think on it long enough and may start to make more sense.
I know when I read something like that and at first it doesn't make total sense to me, if I think long enough on it or perhaps research it a bit, in the end I'm pretty sure I'd start to make sense of it.
Sometimes brilliance is not in the genius of the person speaking, but of the person listening.
I was just thinking about labels and came up with one for my thoughts on something I was talking about with someone this past week. I don't much like being labeled. As (believe it or not) Chris Hardwick said about social media postings, it's just a snapshot of an emotion and in minutes, it can change. In reality, I can vacillate myself as is needed.
Life in general is a grey area that changes from moment to moment which is in part why laws and religions are so disingenuous. Yes, it is better to have laws than not and to seek guidance in moral endeavors outside of oneself. But it is also necessary to realize as individuals and in dealing with others, that reality is more than merely how it appears to us and can appear differently from one to another, and again, thus the laws in a society which are necessary for a cohesive, agreed upon reality and its repercussions in able to achieve some kind of fairness.
I was talking to a guy at work the other day who said that you have to have your ideals and stick to them, regardless. Really? Maybe to a point, but when your ideas turn dysfunctional in a new environment or situation, or even simply in a new group, you have to adapt. For the best of your future, and possibly for all involved. To do otherwise is, stupid. "Sticking to your morals at all costs can be extremely dysfunctional. Or at very least, quite base and just simple thinking.
The problem with any absolute is that there is always a situation that won't fit. Where it becomes itself, dysfunctional. Something that Law and Religion don't account for, absolutes that will always in the end, fall down.
T'he gentleman I was talking to was talking with me about political campaign trails, presidential candidates, being the President, and lies. He thought that when it happens that the president said one thing and later did another later, the president was basically lying.
He didn't see at all that it was really reality hitting the candidate who becomes president and then with new previously information unavailable to him, that the realization set in that what he had intended during the campaign, meant now just about nothing in some cases. Reality actually dictates that what he had wanted just ain't gonna fly.
Yes, that probably doesn't happen as often as not. Still, he was very solid on his belief in absolutes. And yet, some of the greatest atrocities have occurred under some one or some group sticking to their absolutes. In fact, it's the great danger in religions.
"Life is black and white," some say. No, it's not. If you believe that, then mentally you're understanding of reality is that of a child.
Life is really various shades of grey, and then there are the colors. So one has to have a multi-layered comprehension to even somewhat accurately understand reality.
I sometimes wonder if this black and white way of looking at things isn't a social class issue or something that mostly first world people have the luxury of claiming adherence to. Is it something endemic to many Americans because they have it so good? Because many of us do not.
What I mean is, when you live in places where you regularly watch people die of starvation, crime or political abuse, maybe you simply don't have the luxury of seeing life as black or white because it can quickly get you or your loved ones killed.
There are many things we are not involved in during our daily lives: Presidential decisions, pilot's decisions in a plane that disappeared or in any flight for that matter, Israeli decisions on attacking their enemies; so many, many things.
God, could do all that, some might say.
If "God" does all that (whatever "that" is), then how can we ever understand reality, if we don't clearly see what is really going on, too? Or at least, try to.
I get my own orientation from espionage considerations years ago, in asking myself, how do spies need to think? What does a scenarist consider or need to know prior to walking into a dangerous situation where all die if they conceive incorrectly?
Writers are known as scenarists but so are spies. They constantly, sometimes in the moment, need to fully comprehend and plot out various resolutions to scenes. A writer does it for dramatic purposes, for entertainment and enlightenment. Spies do it to survive and to achieve a greater nationally (or corporate) bases solution.
One has to view any situation on the level of psychology, sociology, the groups involved in the scene, the individuals' orientation, family, friends, oneself, the weather...everything you can imagine.
You walk into a situation where the opposing group is against you and they will do one thing, but two of them have family situations leaning them otherwise. One has his faith shaken. One is for women's rights. The overall situation is not therefore, black and white. Thinking that way is what gets you killed. Therefore, life is various shades of grey. In that way, you walk out of their alive, perhaps with what you needed.
Hey, that's my scene. And this just turned into a blog article, so here we are.
This is my argument, you have to stick to your beliefs, but only an idiot sticks to them 100% of the time, in all cases, even when they no longer retain meaning. That makes some (mostly conservative types, ignorant types), uneasy. Because they cannot trust someone who is changeable like that. But if you consider all the possibilities too, if you are clever enough to see the grey and not just the black and white, then you will see what they see.
What bothers conservatives is they know they usually aren't clever enough to see the options others do and so it's unfair to them. Irony there is, they base their entire premise of politics, especially economic politics, on their being able to achieve, and the poor, need to on their own.
Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
That isn't to say one becomes sleazy or a lowlife, but try to maintain your essential-ness. One has to be intelligent enough, mature enough, sophisticated enough, to see things clearly, to understand the situation and in the end, even when it goes against your nature or your morals, that you "do the right thing".
Anyway, that label that I thought of was:
Pantheistic Anarchist Libertine.
I searched on that and found this:
"Jesus Was A Pantheist".
Who knew?
I know when I read something like that and at first it doesn't make total sense to me, if I think long enough on it or perhaps research it a bit, in the end I'm pretty sure I'd start to make sense of it.
Sometimes brilliance is not in the genius of the person speaking, but of the person listening.
I was just thinking about labels and came up with one for my thoughts on something I was talking about with someone this past week. I don't much like being labeled. As (believe it or not) Chris Hardwick said about social media postings, it's just a snapshot of an emotion and in minutes, it can change. In reality, I can vacillate myself as is needed.
Life in general is a grey area that changes from moment to moment which is in part why laws and religions are so disingenuous. Yes, it is better to have laws than not and to seek guidance in moral endeavors outside of oneself. But it is also necessary to realize as individuals and in dealing with others, that reality is more than merely how it appears to us and can appear differently from one to another, and again, thus the laws in a society which are necessary for a cohesive, agreed upon reality and its repercussions in able to achieve some kind of fairness.
I was talking to a guy at work the other day who said that you have to have your ideals and stick to them, regardless. Really? Maybe to a point, but when your ideas turn dysfunctional in a new environment or situation, or even simply in a new group, you have to adapt. For the best of your future, and possibly for all involved. To do otherwise is, stupid. "Sticking to your morals at all costs can be extremely dysfunctional. Or at very least, quite base and just simple thinking.
The problem with any absolute is that there is always a situation that won't fit. Where it becomes itself, dysfunctional. Something that Law and Religion don't account for, absolutes that will always in the end, fall down.
T'he gentleman I was talking to was talking with me about political campaign trails, presidential candidates, being the President, and lies. He thought that when it happens that the president said one thing and later did another later, the president was basically lying.
He didn't see at all that it was really reality hitting the candidate who becomes president and then with new previously information unavailable to him, that the realization set in that what he had intended during the campaign, meant now just about nothing in some cases. Reality actually dictates that what he had wanted just ain't gonna fly.
Yes, that probably doesn't happen as often as not. Still, he was very solid on his belief in absolutes. And yet, some of the greatest atrocities have occurred under some one or some group sticking to their absolutes. In fact, it's the great danger in religions.
"Life is black and white," some say. No, it's not. If you believe that, then mentally you're understanding of reality is that of a child.
Life is really various shades of grey, and then there are the colors. So one has to have a multi-layered comprehension to even somewhat accurately understand reality.
I sometimes wonder if this black and white way of looking at things isn't a social class issue or something that mostly first world people have the luxury of claiming adherence to. Is it something endemic to many Americans because they have it so good? Because many of us do not.
What I mean is, when you live in places where you regularly watch people die of starvation, crime or political abuse, maybe you simply don't have the luxury of seeing life as black or white because it can quickly get you or your loved ones killed.
There are many things we are not involved in during our daily lives: Presidential decisions, pilot's decisions in a plane that disappeared or in any flight for that matter, Israeli decisions on attacking their enemies; so many, many things.
God, could do all that, some might say.
If "God" does all that (whatever "that" is), then how can we ever understand reality, if we don't clearly see what is really going on, too? Or at least, try to.
I get my own orientation from espionage considerations years ago, in asking myself, how do spies need to think? What does a scenarist consider or need to know prior to walking into a dangerous situation where all die if they conceive incorrectly?
Writers are known as scenarists but so are spies. They constantly, sometimes in the moment, need to fully comprehend and plot out various resolutions to scenes. A writer does it for dramatic purposes, for entertainment and enlightenment. Spies do it to survive and to achieve a greater nationally (or corporate) bases solution.
One has to view any situation on the level of psychology, sociology, the groups involved in the scene, the individuals' orientation, family, friends, oneself, the weather...everything you can imagine.
You walk into a situation where the opposing group is against you and they will do one thing, but two of them have family situations leaning them otherwise. One has his faith shaken. One is for women's rights. The overall situation is not therefore, black and white. Thinking that way is what gets you killed. Therefore, life is various shades of grey. In that way, you walk out of their alive, perhaps with what you needed.
Hey, that's my scene. And this just turned into a blog article, so here we are.
This is my argument, you have to stick to your beliefs, but only an idiot sticks to them 100% of the time, in all cases, even when they no longer retain meaning. That makes some (mostly conservative types, ignorant types), uneasy. Because they cannot trust someone who is changeable like that. But if you consider all the possibilities too, if you are clever enough to see the grey and not just the black and white, then you will see what they see.
What bothers conservatives is they know they usually aren't clever enough to see the options others do and so it's unfair to them. Irony there is, they base their entire premise of politics, especially economic politics, on their being able to achieve, and the poor, need to on their own.
Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
That isn't to say one becomes sleazy or a lowlife, but try to maintain your essential-ness. One has to be intelligent enough, mature enough, sophisticated enough, to see things clearly, to understand the situation and in the end, even when it goes against your nature or your morals, that you "do the right thing".
Anyway, that label that I thought of was:
Pantheistic Anarchist Libertine.
I searched on that and found this:
"Jesus Was A Pantheist".
Who knew?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)