I define conservative as being opposed to the rights of the individual, and in favor of the rights of corporations, the State, and/or other organizations. Given that assumption, there is one issue where I am conservative, and that is funerals. I do not believe anyone has a right to protest at a funeral. I think we should respect the dead, the mourners, and all who come to pay respects at a funeral. I think this is one of the basic hallmarks of civilization.
The legislation being considered by the Arizona legislature is good, but at 300 feet, does not go far enough in terms of distance. I say ban any protest within 1000 feet.
It is difficult for me to understand the mentality of cults like the Westboro Baptist Church. I think that their psychology is based upon hate. Like cockroaches and slugs, they are of no interest to me, other than in terms of how to avoid or eliminate. Their strategy is log-stupid. Rather than gain any influence, they are actually serving the interests of their political opponents. If I were Baptist, I would be mortified that their Church includes the word "Baptist" in their title.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Win, Lose, Draw
In chess, I find that drawing leaves me almost as content as winning. I draw about one out of five games or so. If each side plays without making a mistake, then a draw is the natural outcome of chess.
Losing does not bother me if the other side plays exceptionally well. Losing is annoying only if it is the result of a blunder, a particularly egregious mistake. True, chess is a game of mistakes, and neither side would win without there being at least one mistake. If I make a mistake, then perhaps I will learn from it. Not so with a blunder. A blunder is a failure to see something on the board that should be immediately obvious, such as imminent checkmate or the capture of a piece or pawn. A blunder reprimands carelessness.
We all make mistakes and, it should be admitted, blunders. It is the nature of the game. Perhaps supercomputers do not make blunders, but humans do. I composed a little ditty to describe my blundering.
Ultimately, what determines one's success in chess is raw calculating speed. I know that I'm slow, compared to the best players. Not only that, I don't always see everything. I can see up to four or five moves ahead, although usually I just look two or three moves ahead. The better players can look further into the game and faster. I am astounded by players that only require fifteen minutes or even less for an entire game when playing against me. If they can win consistently under that time constraint, to me it seems like they are superhuman.
Losing does not bother me if the other side plays exceptionally well. Losing is annoying only if it is the result of a blunder, a particularly egregious mistake. True, chess is a game of mistakes, and neither side would win without there being at least one mistake. If I make a mistake, then perhaps I will learn from it. Not so with a blunder. A blunder is a failure to see something on the board that should be immediately obvious, such as imminent checkmate or the capture of a piece or pawn. A blunder reprimands carelessness.
We all make mistakes and, it should be admitted, blunders. It is the nature of the game. Perhaps supercomputers do not make blunders, but humans do. I composed a little ditty to describe my blundering.
My brain ain't the best brain.The beauty of online chessplaying is that one can find players of the same approximate skill level. This is not always possible in a local club.
It's an old brain,
Prone to mistakes.
But it's better than no brain
or a half-brain
or a birdbrain,
and I'm happy just the same.
Ultimately, what determines one's success in chess is raw calculating speed. I know that I'm slow, compared to the best players. Not only that, I don't always see everything. I can see up to four or five moves ahead, although usually I just look two or three moves ahead. The better players can look further into the game and faster. I am astounded by players that only require fifteen minutes or even less for an entire game when playing against me. If they can win consistently under that time constraint, to me it seems like they are superhuman.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thanks for Banning Me
In retrospect, I am delighted to be banned from FICS.
There are numerous alternatives for playing chess online. By forcing me out of FICS, the admin did me a favor. I found a better community, easier to use, with many more players and a better designed interface.
I would probably never have left FICS had I not been banned, because I'm a creature of habit and had even become an enthusiast, which is one of my faults, reducing my level of objectivity. I had evaluated FICS as being much better than it is. I liked it so much that I was mentioning it to all my chessplaying friends. I had even added a link to FICS, just a few days before being banned. What irony--and foolishness on my part. All of that is over now, a mistake in the past, now corrected.
I can't think of a better Christmas present than to be banned from FICS, which requires the use of software that has not been updated since 2007. Yet the worst shortcoming is an obtuse admin, incapable or unwilling to communicate with others. I say let the trolls play with the trolls. Perhaps they will find solutions for one another. Players that deport themselves like gentlemen can find a better community with just a little searching. I confess I'm reluctant to offer a link to my new chess community. It seems bad luck. Once bitten, twice shy.
There are numerous alternatives for playing chess online. By forcing me out of FICS, the admin did me a favor. I found a better community, easier to use, with many more players and a better designed interface.
I would probably never have left FICS had I not been banned, because I'm a creature of habit and had even become an enthusiast, which is one of my faults, reducing my level of objectivity. I had evaluated FICS as being much better than it is. I liked it so much that I was mentioning it to all my chessplaying friends. I had even added a link to FICS, just a few days before being banned. What irony--and foolishness on my part. All of that is over now, a mistake in the past, now corrected.
I can't think of a better Christmas present than to be banned from FICS, which requires the use of software that has not been updated since 2007. Yet the worst shortcoming is an obtuse admin, incapable or unwilling to communicate with others. I say let the trolls play with the trolls. Perhaps they will find solutions for one another. Players that deport themselves like gentlemen can find a better community with just a little searching. I confess I'm reluctant to offer a link to my new chess community. It seems bad luck. Once bitten, twice shy.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Sisyphus
I am reminded of the myth of Sisyphus. Sometimes when I work on something intensely, after hundreds or thousands of hours, someone thwarts my efforts, so that my efforts backfire. This is seldom accomplished through intellectual means.
I'm a good chess player. I don't know what my USCF ranking would be, but I realize that masters are much better at the game. I'm best at slow games, around twenty to thirty minutes, considered slow these days. When I was a boy, games were not timed and could last for one or two hours. My brother or I might spend ten, fifteen, twenty minutes studying a single move. I fare poorly at blitz chess, because I become fascinated by positions and want to analyze every detail, and then I run out of time. I resent having to rush through things. I like to ponder until I find the perfect solution. But blitz does have the advantage of brevity. Perhaps it serves to quicken one's calculating speed. I'm not sure. I don't think I've gotten any faster, but more likely slower as I've aged.
I spent hundreds of hours mastering an unusual chess opening, learning just about every facet of it, only to be banned from the internet chess server for what seems to me a spurious rationale pulled out of thin air. My brother had visited for Christmas, and I was so enthusiastic about the chess server that I showed him how it worked, even registering him and letting him play from my Internet connection. Such enthusiasm I had. He was the one who had taught me chess at the age of four, so I thought to repay him by teaching him about the internet chess server that I had recently discovered. I spent an hour teaching him how it worked. This was supposedly (I mean I do not believe it) interpreted by an admin as violating a rule of one person having two accounts, because it was from the same IP address. But there were two people, not one. I was interrupted in the middle of a game in which I was winning, disconnected and banned without any warning.
I had been polite to all the players and even in those cases where the players were not polite to me, I just quit playing them. I had spent months learning and perfecting an unusual opening that had given me great success. I think that my unusual opening, judged unsound by many but refuted by none, was the ultimate reason I was banned. I have noticed that some chessplayers are contemptuous of any opening that is not being currently played by one or preferably all the grandmasters. The chess world is hierarchical, the lower ranks being deferential to the best players. Some players believe we should only do what the grandmasters say to do. They read articles written by grandmasters and copy their ideas. Their play consists of rote memorization of the products of other minds. When I break them out of book, they go to pieces. Some players immediately abort the game on the very first move when they observe my opening, because they have no adequate response and can't be troubled to find one.
A few days before my ban, I defeated the wrong person, a connected person, who was angry that I had played my opening. He said it was unsound, and grandmasters didn't play it, and he didn't want to play it either, and he even told me to "go f--- myself," twice, in case I didn't process it the first time. He was either the admin himself or friends with the admin, I think, because he demonstrated a mastery of the network's technical side. It is too much of a coincidence that I am banned so soon after this nasty unprovoked altercation from a player whose very arrogance suggests he was indeed the admin. So I am banned because I play an unusual opening. This fits in with the other expectations I have developed of society.
I suppose it doesn't matter. Chess is a just a game of limited value and minority appeal. I do not have a friend who plays as well as I do. That is one of the problems with chess. Getting good at it is a double-edged sword. I am reminded of my old friend from school. At first he beat me two out of three games. A few weeks later, I beat him half the time, and that was the perfect scenario, but I kept improving. Next I was beating him almost every game, and then he stopped playing me forever, because he hated losing, but did not want to invest the time required to get better at chess, which in retrospect was a prudent choice on his part that I wish I had followed.
If I had my life to live over, I would have learned a musical instrument instead of a nerdy game that appeals to soldierly types, often men of narrow interests and deep prejudices. Music opens up a world of beauty. It allows one to connect with other beings in a way that is not possible through chess. Chess is a blood sport, of limited appeal except to warriors. But one is what one is. I suppose I would have made a good lieutenant. It is good I have not been in war in this lifetime--good for me and merciful to the foes I otherwise would have encountered.
I'm a good chess player. I don't know what my USCF ranking would be, but I realize that masters are much better at the game. I'm best at slow games, around twenty to thirty minutes, considered slow these days. When I was a boy, games were not timed and could last for one or two hours. My brother or I might spend ten, fifteen, twenty minutes studying a single move. I fare poorly at blitz chess, because I become fascinated by positions and want to analyze every detail, and then I run out of time. I resent having to rush through things. I like to ponder until I find the perfect solution. But blitz does have the advantage of brevity. Perhaps it serves to quicken one's calculating speed. I'm not sure. I don't think I've gotten any faster, but more likely slower as I've aged.
I spent hundreds of hours mastering an unusual chess opening, learning just about every facet of it, only to be banned from the internet chess server for what seems to me a spurious rationale pulled out of thin air. My brother had visited for Christmas, and I was so enthusiastic about the chess server that I showed him how it worked, even registering him and letting him play from my Internet connection. Such enthusiasm I had. He was the one who had taught me chess at the age of four, so I thought to repay him by teaching him about the internet chess server that I had recently discovered. I spent an hour teaching him how it worked. This was supposedly (I mean I do not believe it) interpreted by an admin as violating a rule of one person having two accounts, because it was from the same IP address. But there were two people, not one. I was interrupted in the middle of a game in which I was winning, disconnected and banned without any warning.
I had been polite to all the players and even in those cases where the players were not polite to me, I just quit playing them. I had spent months learning and perfecting an unusual opening that had given me great success. I think that my unusual opening, judged unsound by many but refuted by none, was the ultimate reason I was banned. I have noticed that some chessplayers are contemptuous of any opening that is not being currently played by one or preferably all the grandmasters. The chess world is hierarchical, the lower ranks being deferential to the best players. Some players believe we should only do what the grandmasters say to do. They read articles written by grandmasters and copy their ideas. Their play consists of rote memorization of the products of other minds. When I break them out of book, they go to pieces. Some players immediately abort the game on the very first move when they observe my opening, because they have no adequate response and can't be troubled to find one.
A few days before my ban, I defeated the wrong person, a connected person, who was angry that I had played my opening. He said it was unsound, and grandmasters didn't play it, and he didn't want to play it either, and he even told me to "go f--- myself," twice, in case I didn't process it the first time. He was either the admin himself or friends with the admin, I think, because he demonstrated a mastery of the network's technical side. It is too much of a coincidence that I am banned so soon after this nasty unprovoked altercation from a player whose very arrogance suggests he was indeed the admin. So I am banned because I play an unusual opening. This fits in with the other expectations I have developed of society.
I suppose it doesn't matter. Chess is a just a game of limited value and minority appeal. I do not have a friend who plays as well as I do. That is one of the problems with chess. Getting good at it is a double-edged sword. I am reminded of my old friend from school. At first he beat me two out of three games. A few weeks later, I beat him half the time, and that was the perfect scenario, but I kept improving. Next I was beating him almost every game, and then he stopped playing me forever, because he hated losing, but did not want to invest the time required to get better at chess, which in retrospect was a prudent choice on his part that I wish I had followed.
If I had my life to live over, I would have learned a musical instrument instead of a nerdy game that appeals to soldierly types, often men of narrow interests and deep prejudices. Music opens up a world of beauty. It allows one to connect with other beings in a way that is not possible through chess. Chess is a blood sport, of limited appeal except to warriors. But one is what one is. I suppose I would have made a good lieutenant. It is good I have not been in war in this lifetime--good for me and merciful to the foes I otherwise would have encountered.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Gays May Serve in the Military
At last. What I dreamed about at the age of twenty-two has become law in the United States: gay men and women may serve in our armed forces. I remember writing an impassioned letter to a local newspaper columnist in support of gays in the military. That letter was never published--although the columnist came out in favor of gays in the military ten years later. Whether I sowed a seed or whether another persuaded him, I have no clue.
Sexuality is not a relevant criterion for military service. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of a self-evident assertion.
HRC sent me an email that noted, in part, "Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have been our steadfast champions in this fight. Here's what Senator Lieberman said today that shows how your energy, your drive, your commitment and your focus have been behind every single step: 'This historic day has been seventeen years in the making and would not have happened without the leadership of Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign.'"
As far as I'm concerned, HRC is vindicated by this victory. I am glad that I have supported that organization.
Joe Lieberman, also, is somewhat redeemed by this in my eyes. He certainly has a new luster. I agree with Megan McCain that he would have been a far better choice for a running mate for John McCain than Sarah Palin. I probably would not have voted for them, but I would have studied the pair much more closely than I did McCain/Palin. Palin has but to speak for a minute in order to annihilate all interest.
The benefits of this prudent change in policy will be everyone in the United States, the allies of the United States, and everyone that will live in the United States or its allies in the future.
Perhaps gays may benefit, as well, although that is not at all clear to me. The military is about self-sacrifice. It is no picnic.
Sexuality is not a relevant criterion for military service. Nothing more needs to be said in defense of a self-evident assertion.
HRC sent me an email that noted, in part, "Senators Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins have been our steadfast champions in this fight. Here's what Senator Lieberman said today that shows how your energy, your drive, your commitment and your focus have been behind every single step: 'This historic day has been seventeen years in the making and would not have happened without the leadership of Joe Solmonese and the Human Rights Campaign.'"
As far as I'm concerned, HRC is vindicated by this victory. I am glad that I have supported that organization.
Joe Lieberman, also, is somewhat redeemed by this in my eyes. He certainly has a new luster. I agree with Megan McCain that he would have been a far better choice for a running mate for John McCain than Sarah Palin. I probably would not have voted for them, but I would have studied the pair much more closely than I did McCain/Palin. Palin has but to speak for a minute in order to annihilate all interest.
The benefits of this prudent change in policy will be everyone in the United States, the allies of the United States, and everyone that will live in the United States or its allies in the future.
Perhaps gays may benefit, as well, although that is not at all clear to me. The military is about self-sacrifice. It is no picnic.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
An American Heroine
I read the obituary of a great American heroine, Adele Starr.
Not many people can look back on their lives with certainty that they made a difference. Adele certainly could have done so. She helped to make the world a better place.
Not many people can look back on their lives with certainty that they made a difference. Adele certainly could have done so. She helped to make the world a better place.
Telemarketers
Telemarketers are lonely. Why else would they call, day after day, to leave a harsh automated message on one's answering machine? Out of compassion, I have decided to alleviate their loneliness by offering up their email addresses for anyone who is interested in being a pen-pal. Perhaps automated bots on the Internet can communicate with those who run automated bots on the telephone.
~*~ The Lonely Hearts List ~*~
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Email
Remember: True Love Waits
~*~ The Lonely Hearts List ~*~
Remember: True Love Waits
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Savagery of the Enemy
It is not the statements or reactions of the U.S. government that makes one despise Wikileaks for aiding and abetting a traitor. Rather, it is the savagery of the Enemy -- Islamist terrorists -- who today disrupted the peace in beautiful and free Stockholm, Sweden.
Those of foreign origin who fail to appreciate the advantages of Western freedoms should be deported to their native lands in order to experience the contrast.
Those of foreign origin who fail to appreciate the advantages of Western freedoms should be deported to their native lands in order to experience the contrast.
Good News for a Change
The media harps on bad news so much that it is refreshing to catch a thread of positive change on rare occasions.
I have become an admirer of our ambassador to the U.N., Susan E. Rice. The U.S. has introduced a U.N. resolution supporting LGBT rights. It is opposed chiefly by the savages from Africa and the Middle East, who wish to continue butchering their own citizens.
I have become an admirer of our ambassador to the U.N., Susan E. Rice. The U.S. has introduced a U.N. resolution supporting LGBT rights. It is opposed chiefly by the savages from Africa and the Middle East, who wish to continue butchering their own citizens.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Soured on Wikileaks
The more I think about Wikileaks, the less I like it. I'm uncomfortable with the readiness that the founder has to reveal the private diplomatic communication of the United States. One can argue over whether the United States should be involved in certain areas of the world. But regardless of the disclosure, the United States will remain involved in those areas, for better or worse. The disclosure will have none of the results that Julian predicts.
Freedom of speech is a fragile liberty, new in human history. The powers-that-be will use Wikileaks as a pretext to stifle free speech elsewhere on the Internet, now and in the future. They are refining their censorship strategies and capabilities. The world will be a less free place as a result. I believe it is Julian who was short-sighted. He should have refused to publish the documents uploaded by the traitor at least for ten years, by which time their information would have grown stale, and current politicians replaced by new ones. The documents were mostly irrelevant, but moreover, his intellect was incapable of determining their relevance. Julian is a stupid man who thinks himself intelligent. Such men are among the most dangerous.
He has not been arrested yet because the powers are cunning and do not wish to make a martyr. They are playing for the hearts and minds, same as Julian. In the end, they will win. They are good at what they do. Julian is not. "Grab the headlines at any cost" strikes me as a poor strategy.
Freedom of speech is a fragile liberty, new in human history. The powers-that-be will use Wikileaks as a pretext to stifle free speech elsewhere on the Internet, now and in the future. They are refining their censorship strategies and capabilities. The world will be a less free place as a result. I believe it is Julian who was short-sighted. He should have refused to publish the documents uploaded by the traitor at least for ten years, by which time their information would have grown stale, and current politicians replaced by new ones. The documents were mostly irrelevant, but moreover, his intellect was incapable of determining their relevance. Julian is a stupid man who thinks himself intelligent. Such men are among the most dangerous.
He has not been arrested yet because the powers are cunning and do not wish to make a martyr. They are playing for the hearts and minds, same as Julian. In the end, they will win. They are good at what they do. Julian is not. "Grab the headlines at any cost" strikes me as a poor strategy.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Africa, the Caribbean, and Homosexuality
I remember walking out of "Malcolm X," the movie, because it demonized all white people. Some of the blacks in the audience hissed at my mother and me as we left. I had gone to see the movie because I was curious about the man, wanted to learn about him, and the movie had received many positive reviews. I came away realizing that Malcolm X was a black racist, not like Martin Luther King, Jr. at all.
Homosexuality is not a racial issue, although some black ministers pretend that it is. They claim that most gays are white. It may be that most visible, well-to-do, celebrity gays are white. But homosexuality does not favor one race or the other.
I was amused recently at the story of a prominent black minister in Atlanta who is facing lawsuits from four young men relating to his alleged courtship and sexual relationships with them. He had been an outspoken foe of gay marriage and had denounced homosexuality from the pulpit. Isn't that interesting?
In reality, blacks can be just as wicked as whites ever were, when it comes to gays among their own race. A recent incident in Jamaica is just the tip of the iceberg worldwide. The Caribbean is no picnic, but Africa seems like a brutal environment for black gays. The only really enlightened country in Africa at this time is South Africa.
I think that, if roles had been reversed, and blacks had wielded the power long ago in the U.S., they would not have conducted themselves any better than the whites did. The current situation in the Caribbean and in Africa do not suggest any reasons to think otherwise.
The idea that "we're all equal" goes both ways. We're all equally good. We can also be equally bad.
Homosexuality is not a racial issue, although some black ministers pretend that it is. They claim that most gays are white. It may be that most visible, well-to-do, celebrity gays are white. But homosexuality does not favor one race or the other.
I was amused recently at the story of a prominent black minister in Atlanta who is facing lawsuits from four young men relating to his alleged courtship and sexual relationships with them. He had been an outspoken foe of gay marriage and had denounced homosexuality from the pulpit. Isn't that interesting?
In reality, blacks can be just as wicked as whites ever were, when it comes to gays among their own race. A recent incident in Jamaica is just the tip of the iceberg worldwide. The Caribbean is no picnic, but Africa seems like a brutal environment for black gays. The only really enlightened country in Africa at this time is South Africa.
I think that, if roles had been reversed, and blacks had wielded the power long ago in the U.S., they would not have conducted themselves any better than the whites did. The current situation in the Caribbean and in Africa do not suggest any reasons to think otherwise.
The idea that "we're all equal" goes both ways. We're all equally good. We can also be equally bad.
Welfare for the Rich
If a rich man screws up due to incompetence, the government gives millions of dollars to him, and says, "I don't care what you do with it. Go on vacation for all I care. If you want more, just ask!"
If a poor man works hard, but falls on hard times due to the incompetence of the rich business owners, the government does not care. The poor man can lose his car, his house, his whole life.
This is because so many people vote Republican or for conservative Democrats that are Republican in all but name.
People vote Republican for a variety of reasons. Some rich folk are just plain greedy and want their taxes as close to zero as possible. Some hate the gays and want to keep them down. Some hate the brown races. Some think abortion is murder. An assortment of nuts go into the Republican cake. The result is that the government favors the rich business criminals who really own the GOP nine times out of ten. The American worker gets the short end of the stick.
*I can do middle-aged rage quite well, can't I?
If a poor man works hard, but falls on hard times due to the incompetence of the rich business owners, the government does not care. The poor man can lose his car, his house, his whole life.
This is because so many people vote Republican or for conservative Democrats that are Republican in all but name.
People vote Republican for a variety of reasons. Some rich folk are just plain greedy and want their taxes as close to zero as possible. Some hate the gays and want to keep them down. Some hate the brown races. Some think abortion is murder. An assortment of nuts go into the Republican cake. The result is that the government favors the rich business criminals who really own the GOP nine times out of ten. The American worker gets the short end of the stick.
*I can do middle-aged rage quite well, can't I?
Childish Behavior over Wikileaks
Some of our leaders are acting childish over the Wikileaks situation, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, who at least keeps a sense of humor about it.
I think Wikileaks should focus on corporations, rather than the U.S. government. I don't really see any benefits arising from random disclosure of private diplomatic mail, much of it trivial. All it did was stir up the hornet's nest that is the Republican Party. They have a short fuse. Already they're calling for hanging. It's not surprising. I could have predicted the Republican response. They don't spend much time thinking about things before they reach for their guns.
I think Wikileaks should focus on corporations, rather than the U.S. government. I don't really see any benefits arising from random disclosure of private diplomatic mail, much of it trivial. All it did was stir up the hornet's nest that is the Republican Party. They have a short fuse. Already they're calling for hanging. It's not surprising. I could have predicted the Republican response. They don't spend much time thinking about things before they reach for their guns.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Don't Believe the Songs
The media, in this case the music and video industry, push a palatable product, romantic love. Insipid formula plots typically imagine two strangers having sex, falling in love afterward, and living together forever afterward in perfect bliss. That is simply not the case nine times out of ten.
When I think back to my so-called lovers in the distant past, I think the sex in those days was meaningless, dangerous, in no way superior to masturbation, and depressing, because the individuals were in it for a cheap thrill akin to sniffing nitrous oxide. They moved on in short order, which made me feel like a party condiment.
Reflections such as the above are probably why so many prunes preach abstinence. I don't preach abstinence, but modified, compassionate abstinence. Abstain from sex with casual acquaintances, passing fancies, brief infatuations and the like. I was always hopping into bed with the objects of one-sided infatuations, who took what was offered and then moved on to conquer other lovers with their sole virtue, their face.
However, I hold that there is a slim possibility for a magical requited love. If there is a dear and intimate friend that one has known for a long period of time, let us say six months in this age of AIDS, and the trust in this person is strong, then all right, research safer sex together and learn all of the proper techniques and precautions, prepare with due diligence for the sacred rite, and then taste of the fruit of the gods and see whether it is all that. Knowledge of the risks involved spared me from a lifetime coping with the HIV virus.
I cannot understand young men that have a cavalier attitude towards the viruses and bacteria that seek to use, harm, and kill us. Microbes are the enemies of the human race. They will attempt to exploit the sex act to their own ends. One must not let them win. We are smarter than they are, but they are invisible to our sight. If one is unaware, or assumes that microbes are not a serious concern, then the parasites stand better odds of winning another host. Read, read, and read some more, and learn all about the enemy, and in that way our best weapon, intelligence, can be harnessed against our greatest enemy, microbes.
When I think back to my so-called lovers in the distant past, I think the sex in those days was meaningless, dangerous, in no way superior to masturbation, and depressing, because the individuals were in it for a cheap thrill akin to sniffing nitrous oxide. They moved on in short order, which made me feel like a party condiment.
Reflections such as the above are probably why so many prunes preach abstinence. I don't preach abstinence, but modified, compassionate abstinence. Abstain from sex with casual acquaintances, passing fancies, brief infatuations and the like. I was always hopping into bed with the objects of one-sided infatuations, who took what was offered and then moved on to conquer other lovers with their sole virtue, their face.
However, I hold that there is a slim possibility for a magical requited love. If there is a dear and intimate friend that one has known for a long period of time, let us say six months in this age of AIDS, and the trust in this person is strong, then all right, research safer sex together and learn all of the proper techniques and precautions, prepare with due diligence for the sacred rite, and then taste of the fruit of the gods and see whether it is all that. Knowledge of the risks involved spared me from a lifetime coping with the HIV virus.
I cannot understand young men that have a cavalier attitude towards the viruses and bacteria that seek to use, harm, and kill us. Microbes are the enemies of the human race. They will attempt to exploit the sex act to their own ends. One must not let them win. We are smarter than they are, but they are invisible to our sight. If one is unaware, or assumes that microbes are not a serious concern, then the parasites stand better odds of winning another host. Read, read, and read some more, and learn all about the enemy, and in that way our best weapon, intelligence, can be harnessed against our greatest enemy, microbes.
Friday, December 3, 2010
How to Manage Friends
There are people that I like to see every day. There are some people I'd like to be around all of the time. These are pleasant, reasonable, happy, calm people that like to be around me as well.
Then there are friends that one should only contact in moderation. Every day may be too much. They grow cranky and cantankerous for reasons that may not be at all apparent. Feeling bad, due to physical or psychological ailments, they lash out at others. If you happen to be around, you will get the sharp end of the stick. The trick is not to be around often. Familiarity breeds contempt. Let a day pass. A week. A month. The novelty of your next appearance may startle them from whatever mood they are in, and they may yet prove pleasant company once again. The trick is to cultivate distance, making oneself scarce.
Then there are friends that one should only contact in moderation. Every day may be too much. They grow cranky and cantankerous for reasons that may not be at all apparent. Feeling bad, due to physical or psychological ailments, they lash out at others. If you happen to be around, you will get the sharp end of the stick. The trick is not to be around often. Familiarity breeds contempt. Let a day pass. A week. A month. The novelty of your next appearance may startle them from whatever mood they are in, and they may yet prove pleasant company once again. The trick is to cultivate distance, making oneself scarce.
WikiLeaks, Rape, & So On
A certain government appears to be engaged in dirty tricks judging by the so-called rape charges against the founder of Wikileaks. People in power are incapable of curbing their indiscretions, because power is an addiction. They offer a road map into their souls that is a thousandfold more informative than anything available on Wikileaks.
I hope all of the facts of the so-called rape case are revealed in full, including any potential third parties involved in the accusations.
I am not impressed with the "rape" allegations, which have finally been made clear in the mainstream media, that the Wikileaks founder engaged in consensual sex with adult women using a condom initially, but did not stop immediately after the condom broke. First of all, condoms do not often break. If someone is using defective condoms, they should throw them away and purchase a different brand. It is important to avoid the use of oil-based lubrication. Water-soluble lubricants are better for the latex of the condom. Any person who engages in promiscuous sex should be aware of these facts. Second, the behavior of not-stopping would be difficult to prove in a court of law. No physical harm is alleged. Even if the allegation were true, it seems impolite, but not predatory or criminal in nature, and certainly not worth the attention of Interpol. The whole affair smacks of entrapment and mercenary motives.
It is a common and obvious trick to humiliate a political opponent with a false sexual allegation. This was done in Malaysia not long ago. A politician was accused of sodomy, which is to say consensual homosexual sex, in order to silence him. Sodomy remains illegal in Malaysia, punishable by caning or prison. The charges were bogus, but it seemed to be an effective tactic.
A few U.S. Presidents have had to find themselves a wife in order to survive in politics, because to be gay was thought incompatible with power. My best guess is that three of our Presidents were gay, although that may be a conservative estimate. I would not be surprised if a dozen were gay or bisexual. But it is difficult to know, since many are dead. A few relevant documents survive, however, justifying speculation.
I am amused by the claim made by some of our generals that gays should not be allowed into the military or, once there, tolerated. I would like to place them in the Persian army--as generals, to be fair, with no reduction in rank or privileges--serving under Darius, on the eve of a battle against Alexander. By day's end, they would arrive at a different conclusion.
For a long time, I have wondered why my species has so much difficulty grappling with issues related to sex and sexuality. I thought religion was to blame, but I did not know why religion should be at odds with sex or sexuality. Sex leads to more human lives, and if human life is sacred, the creation of God, why then should sex be embarrassing or taboo, in any of its forms?
Now that I have studied microbes, I know why. Lovemaking has been associated with disease for thousands of years, and even before our species evolved--millions of years, I suppose. There is more than HIV out there. Bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and even larger parasites exploit our lovemaking in order to infect us and use us as hosts. This is why men began to think that God frowned on certain sex acts, or even all sex acts. Whores were, apparently, punished by God with syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, warts, herpes, and a thousand other curses. Disease was poorly understood. Not until the 1800s did men realize that microbes existed! Even today, some cling to the belief that AIDS is a curse sent by God.
Perhaps science will deliver us from our many problems with sex by one of two methods. In the first method, sex may become unnecessary. A new version of our species, designed by humans, may lack genitalia. Reproduction can be accomplished in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Even by enthusiasts, sex can be regarded as a non-productive waste of time and energy, besides the many other negative views that puritanical people take of it.
An alternative method may be the enhancement of our immune systems, so that we can defeat all the microbes that seek to use us for their own ends. We could conquer disease. I'm afraid that people prefer to focus upon conquering other people at the moment. Disease is regarded as a very low priority by our leaders. The trouble with microbes is they are invisible to the naked eye. We are wired to grapple with visible enemies, even when those enemies represent a tiny fraction of the threat posed by microbes.
I hope all of the facts of the so-called rape case are revealed in full, including any potential third parties involved in the accusations.
I am not impressed with the "rape" allegations, which have finally been made clear in the mainstream media, that the Wikileaks founder engaged in consensual sex with adult women using a condom initially, but did not stop immediately after the condom broke. First of all, condoms do not often break. If someone is using defective condoms, they should throw them away and purchase a different brand. It is important to avoid the use of oil-based lubrication. Water-soluble lubricants are better for the latex of the condom. Any person who engages in promiscuous sex should be aware of these facts. Second, the behavior of not-stopping would be difficult to prove in a court of law. No physical harm is alleged. Even if the allegation were true, it seems impolite, but not predatory or criminal in nature, and certainly not worth the attention of Interpol. The whole affair smacks of entrapment and mercenary motives.
It is a common and obvious trick to humiliate a political opponent with a false sexual allegation. This was done in Malaysia not long ago. A politician was accused of sodomy, which is to say consensual homosexual sex, in order to silence him. Sodomy remains illegal in Malaysia, punishable by caning or prison. The charges were bogus, but it seemed to be an effective tactic.
A few U.S. Presidents have had to find themselves a wife in order to survive in politics, because to be gay was thought incompatible with power. My best guess is that three of our Presidents were gay, although that may be a conservative estimate. I would not be surprised if a dozen were gay or bisexual. But it is difficult to know, since many are dead. A few relevant documents survive, however, justifying speculation.
I am amused by the claim made by some of our generals that gays should not be allowed into the military or, once there, tolerated. I would like to place them in the Persian army--as generals, to be fair, with no reduction in rank or privileges--serving under Darius, on the eve of a battle against Alexander. By day's end, they would arrive at a different conclusion.
For a long time, I have wondered why my species has so much difficulty grappling with issues related to sex and sexuality. I thought religion was to blame, but I did not know why religion should be at odds with sex or sexuality. Sex leads to more human lives, and if human life is sacred, the creation of God, why then should sex be embarrassing or taboo, in any of its forms?
Now that I have studied microbes, I know why. Lovemaking has been associated with disease for thousands of years, and even before our species evolved--millions of years, I suppose. There is more than HIV out there. Bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and even larger parasites exploit our lovemaking in order to infect us and use us as hosts. This is why men began to think that God frowned on certain sex acts, or even all sex acts. Whores were, apparently, punished by God with syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, warts, herpes, and a thousand other curses. Disease was poorly understood. Not until the 1800s did men realize that microbes existed! Even today, some cling to the belief that AIDS is a curse sent by God.
Perhaps science will deliver us from our many problems with sex by one of two methods. In the first method, sex may become unnecessary. A new version of our species, designed by humans, may lack genitalia. Reproduction can be accomplished in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Even by enthusiasts, sex can be regarded as a non-productive waste of time and energy, besides the many other negative views that puritanical people take of it.
An alternative method may be the enhancement of our immune systems, so that we can defeat all the microbes that seek to use us for their own ends. We could conquer disease. I'm afraid that people prefer to focus upon conquering other people at the moment. Disease is regarded as a very low priority by our leaders. The trouble with microbes is they are invisible to the naked eye. We are wired to grapple with visible enemies, even when those enemies represent a tiny fraction of the threat posed by microbes.
Water for Elephants
I began reading a popular bestseller--that is, I think it's a bestseller. Inside the cover are two pages with nothing but accolades from the leading newspapers and authors of our time, including Stephen King, one of my personal favorites, for better or worse.
I was impressed by the intricate care that went into the storytelling. No one could dispute that the author labored over every word, scene, and setting. It is poetry, and I immersed myself and read more than I usually do and plan to read the rest today.
The only thing I found jarring was that the style was in contradiction to many of the "Writing Commandments" that I learned long ago, such as avoiding the use of cliches and avoiding sentence fragments. I suppose that is one reason Stephen King liked the work, because he violates the same rules with impunity. I suppose they are not rules anymore, not really. I think there is something cheap about using cliches on every page, though, and I don't think it's snobbery to think so.
However, the author obeyed the Commandment that I violate, which is to show, not tell, which requires more effort on the part of the writer, but is more effective at engaging the reader's imagination.
The author's style reminds me so much of Stephen King's that I sometimes feel like I am reading Stephen King. The American vernacular, as he likes to describe it.
I forget the title of the book. Water for Elephants, I think. It was given to me as a birthday or Christmas present a year ago, and I have finally gotten around to reading it.
If I had known that cliches were OK, then heavens to Betsy, I'd have been using them left and right, all the time. As it is, a few pass by my guard, but I throttle most of them before they get on the page.
I was impressed by the intricate care that went into the storytelling. No one could dispute that the author labored over every word, scene, and setting. It is poetry, and I immersed myself and read more than I usually do and plan to read the rest today.
The only thing I found jarring was that the style was in contradiction to many of the "Writing Commandments" that I learned long ago, such as avoiding the use of cliches and avoiding sentence fragments. I suppose that is one reason Stephen King liked the work, because he violates the same rules with impunity. I suppose they are not rules anymore, not really. I think there is something cheap about using cliches on every page, though, and I don't think it's snobbery to think so.
However, the author obeyed the Commandment that I violate, which is to show, not tell, which requires more effort on the part of the writer, but is more effective at engaging the reader's imagination.
The author's style reminds me so much of Stephen King's that I sometimes feel like I am reading Stephen King. The American vernacular, as he likes to describe it.
I forget the title of the book. Water for Elephants, I think. It was given to me as a birthday or Christmas present a year ago, and I have finally gotten around to reading it.
If I had known that cliches were OK, then heavens to Betsy, I'd have been using them left and right, all the time. As it is, a few pass by my guard, but I throttle most of them before they get on the page.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
We Can Make It Even Better
To those who praise their country and think that we live a charmed life, I'd say, right on.
We're much better off now than we were hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago.
America is a better place to live than Russia, China, or Iran, by about a million to one.
But we can make the country even better by avoiding complacency.
Where there are societal injustices, they should be corrected.
Where there is corruption, we should introduce reforms.
Where there is a law that harms, rather than benefits society, we should change the law or remove it altogether.
Constant improvement or evolution is the name of the game and one of the chief advantages to our system of government.
This is the precise point where liberals differ from conservatives.
Conservatives pretend that everything's OK just the way it is. Maybe, for them. One of the problems is that they simply don't care about people other than themselves, or else they don't care enough. Sometimes things are not OK even for them and for their own kind, and they refuse to acknowledge that anything is wrong, simply because they have gotten used to the way things are, and don't want any change.
Change is good. Sometimes it is wise to change even if there are unforeseen consequences. One can always revert back to a previous way of doing things. The reluctance to change results in stagnation. Any programmer knows that software that is not constantly improved is eventually abandoned. It becomes obsolete, outmoded. Competitors arise that have better features. So it is with nations and cultures. Just because a certain plan has worked, to a certain limited extent, does not mean it cannot stand some improvement.
Conservatives are just stodgy. They lack a spirit of adventure. They are unwilling to try new things. They are frightened to death by anything that is new. Novelties are interpreted as threats. They exaggerate dangers and discount possible rewards.
I think an accurate method to predict a person's political sympathies is to ask them what foods they like. The liberals will eat anything or at least try anything. The conservatives have a long list of foods they won't eat under any circumstances. Conservatives are squeamish and react with disgust to many foods that are perfectly nutritious, safe, and yummy. Liberals learn to eat new foods outside of their usual diet. Liberals are willing to experiment. The sense of adventure has not been completely washed out of a liberal.
We're much better off now than we were hundreds of years ago, or even decades ago.
America is a better place to live than Russia, China, or Iran, by about a million to one.
But we can make the country even better by avoiding complacency.
Where there are societal injustices, they should be corrected.
Where there is corruption, we should introduce reforms.
Where there is a law that harms, rather than benefits society, we should change the law or remove it altogether.
Constant improvement or evolution is the name of the game and one of the chief advantages to our system of government.
This is the precise point where liberals differ from conservatives.
Conservatives pretend that everything's OK just the way it is. Maybe, for them. One of the problems is that they simply don't care about people other than themselves, or else they don't care enough. Sometimes things are not OK even for them and for their own kind, and they refuse to acknowledge that anything is wrong, simply because they have gotten used to the way things are, and don't want any change.
Change is good. Sometimes it is wise to change even if there are unforeseen consequences. One can always revert back to a previous way of doing things. The reluctance to change results in stagnation. Any programmer knows that software that is not constantly improved is eventually abandoned. It becomes obsolete, outmoded. Competitors arise that have better features. So it is with nations and cultures. Just because a certain plan has worked, to a certain limited extent, does not mean it cannot stand some improvement.
Conservatives are just stodgy. They lack a spirit of adventure. They are unwilling to try new things. They are frightened to death by anything that is new. Novelties are interpreted as threats. They exaggerate dangers and discount possible rewards.
I think an accurate method to predict a person's political sympathies is to ask them what foods they like. The liberals will eat anything or at least try anything. The conservatives have a long list of foods they won't eat under any circumstances. Conservatives are squeamish and react with disgust to many foods that are perfectly nutritious, safe, and yummy. Liberals learn to eat new foods outside of their usual diet. Liberals are willing to experiment. The sense of adventure has not been completely washed out of a liberal.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Conformity
There has always been one certainty that I felt I could depend upon, as sure as death and taxes, and that is that people will apply a magnifying glass to whatever it is that they feel represents a defect. If one is homosexual, then that fact is magnified and obsessed over to the exclusion of all other facts. I have encountered people at work and elsewhere that assumed that I had AIDS or led a promiscuous lifestyle or did any number of things. It is always the elephant in the room. If one supports the legalization of marijuana, or objects to random drug testing, then that is interpreted to mean that one is a druggie or at least a pothead. People leap to astonishing conclusions without bothering to reevaluate their preconceptions. I have become leery about getting to know strangers. In my experience, people extract one fact or the other, then go behind one's back and gossip in order to make themselves look better by comparison to the "bad" nonconformist. This is at least the case in environments where the majority are conservative Republicans. Even the so-called Independents or "moderates" will show a double-face in order to curry favor with the bosses. One can forget about ideals, confidences, or promises of any kind.
Beware of the back-stab. I began as an open and trusting individual, a typical "naive liberal," I suppose. My back suffered a number of wounds before I learned not to trust others with personal information of any kind whatsoever. I learned to be reflective like a mirror. In response to questions, I learned to say, "I don't know," or "Not much I guess," or "Maybe." Then I would follow up with, "How about you?" I had learned early on, and capitalized upon the fact that all people love talking about themselves most of all. They are not interested in me or in anyone else near so much as themselves. In this way I avoided divulging much of any information about myself. Perhaps it was a mistake in some cases. Perhaps I misjudged others from time to time, but "burnt once, twice shy," as the saying goes.
It is the rare individual who has even the slightest shred of a scruple. If someone discovers a bit of information they find amusing or interesting, one can count on the fact that, whatever their promises to the contrary, they will share it with everyone that they possibly can, until it becomes the most often repeated story in the office.
In my last job in the corporate world, I was hard-working and the tasks I worked upon were difficult. How difficult, I do not think most people would believe. There were men who felt envious and worried about how I made them appear, so they would bring up my sexuality in conversation with others, because they perceived that was my weak point, my key vulnerability where I differed from others, yet they were the same as others. They would harp upon this point again and again without fail, as though it were their favorite tune in the entire world. This was a recurring theme throughout my career. My work was good, but I was gay, and would not lie about it, and so that held me back. All that matters is whatever is popular and in fashion. If gay is not considered okay in the workplace, then it becomes a personal liability.
I remember the lazy do-nothings and know-nothings, and they sometimes made as much, or more money than I did, yet all they ever did was stand around talking with others with their pot-bellies hanging out, carrying a mug of coffee in one hand and groping themselves with the other. I wonder how many of these the company chose to hire instead of people like me, and whether that really benefited the company over the years. It does not seem to me like organizations care very much who does the work or who doesn't. All that seems to matter is who cozies up to whom and who seems to fit the mold. Perhaps this is why many companies produce little except mountains of paperwork and complicated schemes designed to fleece their customers, or take advantage of their workers or even their own investors.
I felt under such enormous pressure to be like the others in order to fit in and be accepted by everyone that I began dating women at one point. I have written about that experience before on this blog. I am not sure whether I kept the entry or deleted it. I don't care about the stories. I wish I could delete the actual experiences, which were painful, pointless and sometimes humiliating. I never lied to anyone and never pretended to be anything that I was not. That strategy, of course, doomed any potential chances, but I still believe that honesty is the only way to proceed in matters of the heart. Dishonesty may succeed better in the short-term, but it creates circumstances that can result in harm later on.
Gays are not immune to cant. I got into an online flame war once with a gay man that liked everything else about me, or so he said--he may have been lying--but objected to my mention of marijuana. I suppose his motive in scolding me was that he felt I was making the gay community look bad. He said the mere admission of usage meant that a person was worthless, and if that person were gay, then he could justifiably be called a "faggot."
Some people do reveal their true character when engaged in dispute with others. If my opponent chooses to hoist the Nazi flag, then far be it from me to dissuade him from doing so. I will let others draw their own conclusions. I find it an amusing insult, considering the source, and do not feel belittled by the word. There was a time, in high school, when the word "faggot" wielded malevolent power over my emotions, but my old wounds have long since scabbed over, and I developed a certain degree of immunity to the toxin. It remains an unpleasant word, much like the n-word would be to a black person, but it will certainly not keep me up at nights worrying about it. Usage of the insult reveals more about the user and his prejudices than the target.
Most people are not interested in debate or in considering rational arguments of any sort. They are only interested in the acquisition of personal power, popularity, and prestige. If there is an opinion they think will make them appear macho, intelligent, cool, hip, or "right with God," they will seize that opinion, and use it to place themselves above others in the pecking order. Self-image is what people are concerned about, rather than deciding what is real or what is false.
The idea of sobriety is naturally appealing, and the idea of being a drug addict is not, and so many people choose to believe in the Prohibition, not just of hard drugs but also of Marijuana, because they do not wish to be associated with "druggies" or "hippies". The question of whether Prohibition is correct and proper never occurs to them or seems irrelevant, and they are not willing to even consider any arguments. They are concerned with their own self-image as a decent, upright citizen. They wish to think of themselves a certain way, as being on the side of "Law n' Order," whether or not "Law n' Order" is right or wrong.
I am reminded of how slavery was accepted and defended throughout the South prior to the Civil War. Everyone wished to be associated with the good, genteel, well-to-do plantation owners. No one wished to be associated with the penniless, uneducated African immigrants. Arguments against slavery were rejected in the South with great ferocity, and those Southerners who opposed slavery in public were ostracized from their communities. Such is the way of H. Sapiens, a species much concerned with self-image, prestige and conformity. Lies do prosper for a very long time, even when questioned, and even when extensive, devastating and well-researched arguments are advanced against them. People simply refuse to consider reason. They cling to a certain way of thinking or rather, unthinking.
Beware of the back-stab. I began as an open and trusting individual, a typical "naive liberal," I suppose. My back suffered a number of wounds before I learned not to trust others with personal information of any kind whatsoever. I learned to be reflective like a mirror. In response to questions, I learned to say, "I don't know," or "Not much I guess," or "Maybe." Then I would follow up with, "How about you?" I had learned early on, and capitalized upon the fact that all people love talking about themselves most of all. They are not interested in me or in anyone else near so much as themselves. In this way I avoided divulging much of any information about myself. Perhaps it was a mistake in some cases. Perhaps I misjudged others from time to time, but "burnt once, twice shy," as the saying goes.
It is the rare individual who has even the slightest shred of a scruple. If someone discovers a bit of information they find amusing or interesting, one can count on the fact that, whatever their promises to the contrary, they will share it with everyone that they possibly can, until it becomes the most often repeated story in the office.
In my last job in the corporate world, I was hard-working and the tasks I worked upon were difficult. How difficult, I do not think most people would believe. There were men who felt envious and worried about how I made them appear, so they would bring up my sexuality in conversation with others, because they perceived that was my weak point, my key vulnerability where I differed from others, yet they were the same as others. They would harp upon this point again and again without fail, as though it were their favorite tune in the entire world. This was a recurring theme throughout my career. My work was good, but I was gay, and would not lie about it, and so that held me back. All that matters is whatever is popular and in fashion. If gay is not considered okay in the workplace, then it becomes a personal liability.
I remember the lazy do-nothings and know-nothings, and they sometimes made as much, or more money than I did, yet all they ever did was stand around talking with others with their pot-bellies hanging out, carrying a mug of coffee in one hand and groping themselves with the other. I wonder how many of these the company chose to hire instead of people like me, and whether that really benefited the company over the years. It does not seem to me like organizations care very much who does the work or who doesn't. All that seems to matter is who cozies up to whom and who seems to fit the mold. Perhaps this is why many companies produce little except mountains of paperwork and complicated schemes designed to fleece their customers, or take advantage of their workers or even their own investors.
I felt under such enormous pressure to be like the others in order to fit in and be accepted by everyone that I began dating women at one point. I have written about that experience before on this blog. I am not sure whether I kept the entry or deleted it. I don't care about the stories. I wish I could delete the actual experiences, which were painful, pointless and sometimes humiliating. I never lied to anyone and never pretended to be anything that I was not. That strategy, of course, doomed any potential chances, but I still believe that honesty is the only way to proceed in matters of the heart. Dishonesty may succeed better in the short-term, but it creates circumstances that can result in harm later on.
Gays are not immune to cant. I got into an online flame war once with a gay man that liked everything else about me, or so he said--he may have been lying--but objected to my mention of marijuana. I suppose his motive in scolding me was that he felt I was making the gay community look bad. He said the mere admission of usage meant that a person was worthless, and if that person were gay, then he could justifiably be called a "faggot."
Some people do reveal their true character when engaged in dispute with others. If my opponent chooses to hoist the Nazi flag, then far be it from me to dissuade him from doing so. I will let others draw their own conclusions. I find it an amusing insult, considering the source, and do not feel belittled by the word. There was a time, in high school, when the word "faggot" wielded malevolent power over my emotions, but my old wounds have long since scabbed over, and I developed a certain degree of immunity to the toxin. It remains an unpleasant word, much like the n-word would be to a black person, but it will certainly not keep me up at nights worrying about it. Usage of the insult reveals more about the user and his prejudices than the target.
Most people are not interested in debate or in considering rational arguments of any sort. They are only interested in the acquisition of personal power, popularity, and prestige. If there is an opinion they think will make them appear macho, intelligent, cool, hip, or "right with God," they will seize that opinion, and use it to place themselves above others in the pecking order. Self-image is what people are concerned about, rather than deciding what is real or what is false.
The idea of sobriety is naturally appealing, and the idea of being a drug addict is not, and so many people choose to believe in the Prohibition, not just of hard drugs but also of Marijuana, because they do not wish to be associated with "druggies" or "hippies". The question of whether Prohibition is correct and proper never occurs to them or seems irrelevant, and they are not willing to even consider any arguments. They are concerned with their own self-image as a decent, upright citizen. They wish to think of themselves a certain way, as being on the side of "Law n' Order," whether or not "Law n' Order" is right or wrong.
I am reminded of how slavery was accepted and defended throughout the South prior to the Civil War. Everyone wished to be associated with the good, genteel, well-to-do plantation owners. No one wished to be associated with the penniless, uneducated African immigrants. Arguments against slavery were rejected in the South with great ferocity, and those Southerners who opposed slavery in public were ostracized from their communities. Such is the way of H. Sapiens, a species much concerned with self-image, prestige and conformity. Lies do prosper for a very long time, even when questioned, and even when extensive, devastating and well-researched arguments are advanced against them. People simply refuse to consider reason. They cling to a certain way of thinking or rather, unthinking.
More Revealing than WikiLeaks Ever Was
Wikileaks presents one with a difficult issue to grapple with, in part because its actions concern the principle of freedom of the press, which has a long and checkered history. Traditionally, newspapers have been at liberty to disclose certain things that might be regarded as secrets by our government. This has been permitted for the sake of the public interest, on the theory that the public has a right to know what its servants are doing. I think that, had the U.S. not been at war, the political reaction against Wikileaks would have been much less than it is.
There is merit in Joe Lieberman's argument that the documents published by Wikileaks were illegally seized. The mainstream media does not seem to make a point out of it, choosing instead to focus upon the content and the repercussions. In effect, Wikileaks was performing a wiretap without a warrant or even any authority at all. Had a government agency acted in such a way, it would seem like Big Brother. Do not U.S. diplomats have a right to privacy? Are diplomats supposed to operate in dread that their remarks made in confidence will be one day published?
However, all the documents revealed by Wikileaks are as nothing, next to the revealing statements made by some immoderate politicians and pundits calling for the assassination of the founder of Wikileaks. Such remarks have been made before in regard to other nonviolent civilians and often followed by the spilling of blood.
"Win at any costs" is improper, I think. Otherwise, how are we to be distinguished from the enemy? If we are good, then we should act so. Words alone are not enough. I believe the Obama Administration has handled the situation well, at least in terms of not making any violent and illegal threats. Sarah Palin, for her part, has criticized the Adminstration for its supposed incompetence and called upon the full capabilities of Nato to be unleashed against Wikileaks. One Republican lawmaker wants to classify the founder in the same category as Al Qaeda, opening up the possibility of assassination with potential collateral damage. These sentiments are all familiar and have been observed many times before.
The long-term results of the Wikileaks disclosure remain unclear to me. It may be that the disclosures serve, rather than harm, the interests of those who complain the loudest about it. That seems to be the suspicion of the Russians. The Iranians believe it is an orchestrated attempt by the United States to dupe them. I don't know what to believe. The Wikileaks will be valuable to scholars, however. They will be the primary beneficiary. Only when the reports can be digested, summarized and interpreted will the public really benefit from them. It seems like too much raw data for a layman. I have not been motivated to read them, so far, in part because I find the information depressing, as it tends to reinforce what I already understand.
I do have grave doubts about the ethics of stealing private documents from the government, particularly in cases where no crime was being committed, although it could be argued that turnabout is fair play, as the government performs warrantless wiretaps nowadays and engages in what used to be thought illegal surveillance and espionage against its own citizens. Nowadays the government even has the right to poke about in people's underwear for no reason other than they seek to board a plane.
I do trust Hillary Clinton's judgment, in general, in matters of foreign policy, and if she believes that the disclosure is harmful, then I am inclined to think that they might be so. I did not vote for her in the Democratic primary of 2008, but remain an admirer. In retrospect, perhaps I should have voted for her after all. Obama has been a disappointment on gay issues. I think that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly savaged by right-wingers for what seem to be irrational reasons or just because she is an outspoken woman. She is far more polite and diplomatic than Ann Coulter on the right.
There is merit in Joe Lieberman's argument that the documents published by Wikileaks were illegally seized. The mainstream media does not seem to make a point out of it, choosing instead to focus upon the content and the repercussions. In effect, Wikileaks was performing a wiretap without a warrant or even any authority at all. Had a government agency acted in such a way, it would seem like Big Brother. Do not U.S. diplomats have a right to privacy? Are diplomats supposed to operate in dread that their remarks made in confidence will be one day published?
However, all the documents revealed by Wikileaks are as nothing, next to the revealing statements made by some immoderate politicians and pundits calling for the assassination of the founder of Wikileaks. Such remarks have been made before in regard to other nonviolent civilians and often followed by the spilling of blood.
"Win at any costs" is improper, I think. Otherwise, how are we to be distinguished from the enemy? If we are good, then we should act so. Words alone are not enough. I believe the Obama Administration has handled the situation well, at least in terms of not making any violent and illegal threats. Sarah Palin, for her part, has criticized the Adminstration for its supposed incompetence and called upon the full capabilities of Nato to be unleashed against Wikileaks. One Republican lawmaker wants to classify the founder in the same category as Al Qaeda, opening up the possibility of assassination with potential collateral damage. These sentiments are all familiar and have been observed many times before.
The long-term results of the Wikileaks disclosure remain unclear to me. It may be that the disclosures serve, rather than harm, the interests of those who complain the loudest about it. That seems to be the suspicion of the Russians. The Iranians believe it is an orchestrated attempt by the United States to dupe them. I don't know what to believe. The Wikileaks will be valuable to scholars, however. They will be the primary beneficiary. Only when the reports can be digested, summarized and interpreted will the public really benefit from them. It seems like too much raw data for a layman. I have not been motivated to read them, so far, in part because I find the information depressing, as it tends to reinforce what I already understand.
I do have grave doubts about the ethics of stealing private documents from the government, particularly in cases where no crime was being committed, although it could be argued that turnabout is fair play, as the government performs warrantless wiretaps nowadays and engages in what used to be thought illegal surveillance and espionage against its own citizens. Nowadays the government even has the right to poke about in people's underwear for no reason other than they seek to board a plane.
I do trust Hillary Clinton's judgment, in general, in matters of foreign policy, and if she believes that the disclosure is harmful, then I am inclined to think that they might be so. I did not vote for her in the Democratic primary of 2008, but remain an admirer. In retrospect, perhaps I should have voted for her after all. Obama has been a disappointment on gay issues. I think that Hillary Clinton has been unfairly savaged by right-wingers for what seem to be irrational reasons or just because she is an outspoken woman. She is far more polite and diplomatic than Ann Coulter on the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)