i keep watching these videos of people debating bill maher about his view that "islam is the problem". they all get to the same point: you're taking a small group of extremists and conflating that to represent all of islam. i used to agree with that retort. fuck you bill, islam is no worse than christianity and it's US foreign policy that is causing them to hate us and goddammit they've got just cause to hate us and blah blah fuckin' blah. now, i'm not saying that last part isn't true. in fact it is 100% true. but let's look at that defense of bill's seemingly ridiculous opinion.
what if there were no religion, but there were a drug. a drug that gave you inner peace and a sense of self and spirituality. and 1 billion people took this drug daily and based their whole way of life around it. and entire countries based their government on what this drug does for them, its rituals and rules. but, once ever so often, a few hundred of these drug users (or perhaps a drug user who happens to be the ruler of a country) go batshit insane and kill people for not adhering to the way they experience the drug. thousands of people. well then another country (perhaps, the good ol' US of fuckin' A) would put a stop to that shit quickly and violently. and they wouldn't just hunt down and kill those responsible, or topple their regimes (though they certainly would do that), they would outlaw the goddamn drug! "caution: regular use of this drug might make you go batshit insane and hack the head off a fellow human being. ask your doctor if islamijuana is right for you." nope. illegal worldwide and a vicious long-term "war" would be fought to crush the drug's use. (nevermind that you in the us of a have your own drug that works similarly for you. however, it usually only makes you bigoted, ethnocentric and highly gullible.)
i'm not saying we stamp out islam. (or christianity). i'm saying we acknowledge that islam IS the problem. religion, generally, is the problem. but right now, in the 21st century, islam is the most dangerous strain of that drug called religion. like cocaine in the 80's, black tar heroin in the 90s, crystal meth today. islam is the one fucking up the most shit. and that's gotta stop if we're ever going to move on (perhaps evolve a little?) and focus on more important endeavors as a species.
just get with the fucking program, will ya already?
sometimes you just need to get with the fucking program. quit your whining and resisting and PRETENDING and jump on board. be the guy/gal you need to be. figure out what is causing you pain or grief and deal with it. there may be many things; deal with them one at a time, you dumbass. but deal with them or never bitch and whine again. better yet, never bitch or whine again regardless. don't do it. deal with things, situations, people. deal with it/them and move on. and don't deceive. yourself or others. you KNOW what is wrong and what is right. rationalize all you want, but you always know what's right and what's wrong. what to do, what to not do. what to say, what to think, etc.
just stop whining and deal with issues. just stop rationalizing and quit doing stupid shit. just get with the fucking program, will ya already?
just stop whining and deal with issues. just stop rationalizing and quit doing stupid shit. just get with the fucking program, will ya already?
arming the teachers
so the pro-gun crowd wants to arm teachers. that'll stop those mass shootings in schools, right? if that were to happen, i'd give it 6 months before a teacher would shoot and kill a kid (or kids). whether claimed self-defense ('claimed' because of course we'd never know the true story; wouldn't that be a media cluster-fest?), accident (buffy is teaching gun safety and accidentally discharges a loaded weapon and blows off little suzy's face), or just another person who should not own a gun (mental illness or extreme duress turning into a gun rage), it won't matter because we'll be entrenched in our camps (pro-gun, anti-gun, somewhere-in-between) and using our religious god's name in vain to scream our opinion into the universe.
Then what? arm the kids. i mean, the logical next rung in this deathly spiral, huh? arm the kids cuz they ain't taking away my motherfucking guns! we. are. fucked.
never thought i'd end up homeschooling, but.....
but seriously, i wouldn't do homeschooling. so i'd end up finding a private school that ensures no one is armed in the school, and pay out the ass IN ADDITION to raised school taxes because how the fuck are they gonna pay for arming the teachers and getting them certified and other bullshit training funded by dollars that should go to higher salaries and better classroom materials and technology and.......why the fuck do i bother. motherfucking businesses (and their paid off politicians) are going to reap the benefits. capitalism baby!
isn't it about to be the greatest time in a school janitor's life? he'll get to clean toilets....packing. armed and ready to kick ass. i can't wait.
Then what? arm the kids. i mean, the logical next rung in this deathly spiral, huh? arm the kids cuz they ain't taking away my motherfucking guns! we. are. fucked.
never thought i'd end up homeschooling, but.....
but seriously, i wouldn't do homeschooling. so i'd end up finding a private school that ensures no one is armed in the school, and pay out the ass IN ADDITION to raised school taxes because how the fuck are they gonna pay for arming the teachers and getting them certified and other bullshit training funded by dollars that should go to higher salaries and better classroom materials and technology and.......why the fuck do i bother. motherfucking businesses (and their paid off politicians) are going to reap the benefits. capitalism baby!
isn't it about to be the greatest time in a school janitor's life? he'll get to clean toilets....packing. armed and ready to kick ass. i can't wait.
the lesson of star wars
star wars is a classic good vs evil story, much like the bible and similar sacred religious writings. the lessons are obvious...or are they? i think the true lesson of star wars comes from anakin's greedy desire to take over everything and run it all because only he could do it right. anakin wanted to be (and sorta became) a dictator over the people of the empire. anakin knew the true nature of humans (and other life forms of that time long ago). and, right or wrong, good or evil, he knew that a dictatorship was the only way to govern this massive empire.
democracy sounds great. we all know it is pure and good. but it just don't work when your group gets larger than a couple hundred.
human beings are greedy, selfish, and ignorant. governing these walking assholes requires a strong hand to ensure no one goes off and does something really harmful like rape or murder or poisoning the groundwater or shitting on other people's desks.
but exactly how to govern is not clearly evident, with many options, and thus there becomes disagreement and conflict. the bigger the group being governed, the more people must be involved in leading and deciding. and it doesn't take a very large group being governed at all to have multiple "leaders", all in conflict and disagreement.
ah, you say, but that's where the power of a democracy comes in to save us all. a democracy uses this conflict, and the willingness of the participants to compromise, to create outcomes that are best for the most people.
and there's the breakdown. human beings are loathe to compromise. we hate it. we know it is the best path in the end. or at least i think "we" do.
(there's that royal we again)
but, at our core, we want everything and we want it now, fuck everyone else. compromise is seen as weak and it never happens. never.
so just how do you govern this self-obsessed mass of douchebaggery? take out the conflict and things become a helluva lot simpler. ergo, dictatorship. one dude in charge means no one to conflict with.
i'm not saying a dictatorship is good, by any means. i mean, you may only have one person in charge and making decisions, but that person is just as much a narcissistic dumbass as everyone else being governed.
so dictatorships usually end up pretty horrific. just think if you and you alone were in charge of a few million people or more. be honest with yourself and realize it would not be the shining city on the hill. it might not be north korea, but some amount of people will be oppressed, and probably severely so.
but it sure does keep people in line. how in the hell do you think iraq stayed together before we invaded the second time and took out saddam's government? saddam was brutal and ruled harshly. but the country held together under his rule, certainly fragile but not the mess it is today. today they have democracy, woohoo! and a fucking mess that will only get straightened out when some form of dictatorship takes back over (should happen any time now). same with afghanistan.
"whoa, dude, are you saying the good ol' usa should be a dictatorship?" i'm just saying that a lot of our problems would be solved. not saying everyone would like it. but you would get rid of a shit-ton of debate and argument, wasted time and energy. just pick one way to do it and everyone fucking get on board or deal with consequences.
but since we are all just big heaping piles of shit, you're never going to get the "right" dude in charge and dictating. some neanderthal will take control by force and rule heavy.
but if that is your dude, if he thinks like you and you are the same color and worship your god in the same way, etc., then life could be good in a dictatorship. perspective is everything.
PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
ANAKIN: Well, if it works...
democracy sounds great. we all know it is pure and good. but it just don't work when your group gets larger than a couple hundred.
human beings are greedy, selfish, and ignorant. governing these walking assholes requires a strong hand to ensure no one goes off and does something really harmful like rape or murder or poisoning the groundwater or shitting on other people's desks.
but exactly how to govern is not clearly evident, with many options, and thus there becomes disagreement and conflict. the bigger the group being governed, the more people must be involved in leading and deciding. and it doesn't take a very large group being governed at all to have multiple "leaders", all in conflict and disagreement.
ah, you say, but that's where the power of a democracy comes in to save us all. a democracy uses this conflict, and the willingness of the participants to compromise, to create outcomes that are best for the most people.
and there's the breakdown. human beings are loathe to compromise. we hate it. we know it is the best path in the end. or at least i think "we" do.
(there's that royal we again)
but, at our core, we want everything and we want it now, fuck everyone else. compromise is seen as weak and it never happens. never.
so just how do you govern this self-obsessed mass of douchebaggery? take out the conflict and things become a helluva lot simpler. ergo, dictatorship. one dude in charge means no one to conflict with.
i'm not saying a dictatorship is good, by any means. i mean, you may only have one person in charge and making decisions, but that person is just as much a narcissistic dumbass as everyone else being governed.
so dictatorships usually end up pretty horrific. just think if you and you alone were in charge of a few million people or more. be honest with yourself and realize it would not be the shining city on the hill. it might not be north korea, but some amount of people will be oppressed, and probably severely so.
but it sure does keep people in line. how in the hell do you think iraq stayed together before we invaded the second time and took out saddam's government? saddam was brutal and ruled harshly. but the country held together under his rule, certainly fragile but not the mess it is today. today they have democracy, woohoo! and a fucking mess that will only get straightened out when some form of dictatorship takes back over (should happen any time now). same with afghanistan.
"whoa, dude, are you saying the good ol' usa should be a dictatorship?" i'm just saying that a lot of our problems would be solved. not saying everyone would like it. but you would get rid of a shit-ton of debate and argument, wasted time and energy. just pick one way to do it and everyone fucking get on board or deal with consequences.
but since we are all just big heaping piles of shit, you're never going to get the "right" dude in charge and dictating. some neanderthal will take control by force and rule heavy.
but if that is your dude, if he thinks like you and you are the same color and worship your god in the same way, etc., then life could be good in a dictatorship. perspective is everything.
PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
ANAKIN: Well, if it works...
what is truth?
truth is elusive. what is it? abstract, for sure. because truth is defined by the observer. everyone has their own truth.
(i am saying and typing 'truth' so much that it no longer sounds like a real word.)
this causes angst because we want to know (or want to feel we know) the actual truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. we need to have our version of truth defined such that, when presented with opposing arguments or various viewpoints, we have something to guide our truth-determination process. because we want to know whether we are dealing with the truth or not. our truth, not the speaker of questionable truth.
so we hear or read "obama is a muslim." we know this to be not truth, and thus we can decide how to react or whether to react at all.
or we hear statistics thrown around supposedly supporting the speaker's argument as proven fact. we don't know of these statistics, so we might look them up ourselves and try to determine if we feel they are truth or not. or we might go to trusted and probably like-minded sources to get their responses. we establish our truth on the subject and, again, decide how to react or whether to react at all.
(this 'royal we' tone is started to sound stale, sorry)
so how is our skill at truth analysis formed? well, this is where we get to morality. and what influences morality in most people on our planet? religion! which is fine, except those using religion as their moral garmin don't always end up with the golden rule. as you would think they should, every dang time.
what do others use to guide their morality? i suppose i rely on a handful of various ideas and thoughts (no single ideology or religion). the golden rule at its most basic probably guides me the most. "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." pretty goddamn simple. yet, like truth, in all her bombastic and self-obsessed glory, elusive.
(i am saying and typing 'truth' so much that it no longer sounds like a real word.)
this causes angst because we want to know (or want to feel we know) the actual truth. the whole truth and nothing but the truth. we need to have our version of truth defined such that, when presented with opposing arguments or various viewpoints, we have something to guide our truth-determination process. because we want to know whether we are dealing with the truth or not. our truth, not the speaker of questionable truth.
so we hear or read "obama is a muslim." we know this to be not truth, and thus we can decide how to react or whether to react at all.
or we hear statistics thrown around supposedly supporting the speaker's argument as proven fact. we don't know of these statistics, so we might look them up ourselves and try to determine if we feel they are truth or not. or we might go to trusted and probably like-minded sources to get their responses. we establish our truth on the subject and, again, decide how to react or whether to react at all.
(this 'royal we' tone is started to sound stale, sorry)
so how is our skill at truth analysis formed? well, this is where we get to morality. and what influences morality in most people on our planet? religion! which is fine, except those using religion as their moral garmin don't always end up with the golden rule. as you would think they should, every dang time.
what do others use to guide their morality? i suppose i rely on a handful of various ideas and thoughts (no single ideology or religion). the golden rule at its most basic probably guides me the most. "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself." pretty goddamn simple. yet, like truth, in all her bombastic and self-obsessed glory, elusive.
michel and me
my therapist (aka my wife) has me reading montaigne, or at least reading about montaigne. i have downloaded his essays to the kindle but haven't started reading. i'm referring to Michel de Montaigne, the 16th-century french philosopher who kinda was the first blogger (read about him, interesting fellow).
anyway, montaigne spends a lot of time looking inward and writing essays about it, kinda blogging, if you will, i think for the same reason i (and no doubt many others) write these things. it is part of our journey and exploration, one piece along with talking with others, reading, experiencing life, etc. he kinda just wrote things down. and asked questions like what is it to be a human being? and thought about it. and empathized and sympathized. he observed himself and others, including animals, and then looked deeply inward and tried to see it from others' perspective. he was a skeptic in the sense that he doubted not only what he knew, or what others claimed to know, but also doubted the process of knowing. just because you saw it with your own eyes doesn't mean it was true or right or correct.
i write all of this because i think (at least thus far) montaigne is the closest i've come to describing my current state. and it is a great launching point for me to further explore. so...like my friend michel, i'm going to write.
montaigne was somewhat of an accidental philosopher: he never saw himself or his life as remarkable in any way, he never proposed theories and really had no desire to convince anyone of anything. he was actually more of a thinker. "He did not tell us what we should do, but explored what we actually do." i'm the same. i just want to understand myself a little better, in order to be a better human (gotta figure out what that means first). i don't want to find any secret or grand design or philosophy-that-explains-everything, mainly because i know those don't exist. you have to find out for yourself, and you do that through continuous learning, experiencing, engaging, and improving. and plenty of Guinness.
Thanks to my therapist for pointing me to Sarah Bakewell and her great series about montaigne.
anyway, montaigne spends a lot of time looking inward and writing essays about it, kinda blogging, if you will, i think for the same reason i (and no doubt many others) write these things. it is part of our journey and exploration, one piece along with talking with others, reading, experiencing life, etc. he kinda just wrote things down. and asked questions like what is it to be a human being? and thought about it. and empathized and sympathized. he observed himself and others, including animals, and then looked deeply inward and tried to see it from others' perspective. he was a skeptic in the sense that he doubted not only what he knew, or what others claimed to know, but also doubted the process of knowing. just because you saw it with your own eyes doesn't mean it was true or right or correct.
i write all of this because i think (at least thus far) montaigne is the closest i've come to describing my current state. and it is a great launching point for me to further explore. so...like my friend michel, i'm going to write.
montaigne was somewhat of an accidental philosopher: he never saw himself or his life as remarkable in any way, he never proposed theories and really had no desire to convince anyone of anything. he was actually more of a thinker. "He did not tell us what we should do, but explored what we actually do." i'm the same. i just want to understand myself a little better, in order to be a better human (gotta figure out what that means first). i don't want to find any secret or grand design or philosophy-that-explains-everything, mainly because i know those don't exist. you have to find out for yourself, and you do that through continuous learning, experiencing, engaging, and improving. and plenty of Guinness.
Thanks to my therapist for pointing me to Sarah Bakewell and her great series about montaigne.
future vs moment
i continually try to determine why i feel and act the way i do. someone once told me that people tend to act in one of 2 ways: guilt about the past or worry about the future. once in my life, in fact most of it until very recently, i felt little worry about the future. for some reason i felt that the future was what it was and would be what it would be, and also that everything would be OK. not good, or even great. definitely not bad. but OK.
i had guilt, however, like a nun reading penthouse. consumed with guilt about what i had done, how i had acted. very low self-confidence and constantly reviewing in my head past misdeeds, which usually weren't misdeeds but situations where i felt i looked stupid.
today i'm quite the opposite and have few self-confidence issues (though some might disagree) and little guilt. so i focus on the future and worry, i suppose. and back to the first sentence about why i do what i do, i try to figure out why i feel worry. or anxiety. or pessimism.
don't fret the future at the expense of the moment. that thought came to me this morning like a punch right straight in the mouth from gary floater. my worry about the future makes the moment less meaningful. and aren't moments what we really want in life?
"the moment ends,
though i feel winds
blowing differently than ever before
and they're pushing me further from shore"
- phish the moma dance
you have a moment, but as soon as it ends you are immediately available to an infinite possibility of moments. it may be "far from shore", i.e. out of your comfort zone or maybe not be related in any way to the previous moments.
in future posts i will explore further why i worry about the future, what a moment truly is, and more detail supporting these ideas. but for now i had to get this posted quick so i can go watch the boys play star wars wearing duck boots and pimp hats.
i had guilt, however, like a nun reading penthouse. consumed with guilt about what i had done, how i had acted. very low self-confidence and constantly reviewing in my head past misdeeds, which usually weren't misdeeds but situations where i felt i looked stupid.
today i'm quite the opposite and have few self-confidence issues (though some might disagree) and little guilt. so i focus on the future and worry, i suppose. and back to the first sentence about why i do what i do, i try to figure out why i feel worry. or anxiety. or pessimism.
don't fret the future at the expense of the moment. that thought came to me this morning like a punch right straight in the mouth from gary floater. my worry about the future makes the moment less meaningful. and aren't moments what we really want in life?
"the moment ends,
though i feel winds
blowing differently than ever before
and they're pushing me further from shore"
- phish the moma dance
you have a moment, but as soon as it ends you are immediately available to an infinite possibility of moments. it may be "far from shore", i.e. out of your comfort zone or maybe not be related in any way to the previous moments.
in future posts i will explore further why i worry about the future, what a moment truly is, and more detail supporting these ideas. but for now i had to get this posted quick so i can go watch the boys play star wars wearing duck boots and pimp hats.
music break with the budos band
a little greatness from the staten island-based, afro-beat, soul-jazz, instrumental-funk ensemble the budos band.
what are some of your favorite instrumentals?
what are some of your favorite instrumentals?
obama haters are racist
woohoo, playin' the race card already! think about it though. it's not the black man they hate, it's what he represents...socialism and the entitlement culture. it's not the black man they fear, it's america becoming a socialist nation. which to them means everyone lives off the teat of the guv'mint and their money gets redistributed to slackers. but, seriously, come on. who do you think you're fooling, angry white republican dude? "i'm not racist, why i just love condoleeza and allen west and that black guy on the fox news..." blame the black man for taking all your tax money and giving it to other lazy, selfish blacks so they don't have to work. come on, white people, it's racism.
religion vs capitalism
how in the world can a christian be a capitalist? if you truly follow and adhere to the teachings of jesus christ, which defines a christian, you cannot be a capitalist. capitalism's sole objective is to obtain as much material stuff as possible, for yourself, at the expense of anyone and anything else. if i remember my catholic upbringing correctly, jesus taught us the exact opposite. so how can you truly be both? you can't as far as i'm concerned. yet this enormous hypocrisy is somehow justified, rationalized and accepted, and is the norm, mostly without question. this idea is at the heart of my misanthropy.
typical christians don't define themselves as i did above (following and adhering to christ's teachings), they like to make it about belief and jesus dying for our sins, etc. To be a christian you must only believe (or say that you believe) that jesus christ was the son of god and died for our sins opening the gates of heaven to all who believe.
as opposed to me, who believes that we should follow christ's actual teachings because they are a pretty good way for us all to be good people. who gives a crap if he was divine or just a dude, or if he really even existed. the basic lessons in the new testament should guide us as human beings existing together, regardless of whether it was written by a omni-being who controls us all or some guys on psychedelics with a flair for drama.
yet the messages coming from the new testament seem to be lost on all these "good" christians. they focus almost entirely on 2 things: my strain of mythology is better than yours and you're evil because you believe differently, and passing laws to benefit them and punish anyone not like them.
organized religion is a cancer. but might capitalism also be? is maximizing personal profit at the expense of other people and our planet a very good system? how much resources, human life and time is wasted or meaningless? a topic i will explore later, along with more on this religion thing, in subsequent posts.
typical christians don't define themselves as i did above (following and adhering to christ's teachings), they like to make it about belief and jesus dying for our sins, etc. To be a christian you must only believe (or say that you believe) that jesus christ was the son of god and died for our sins opening the gates of heaven to all who believe.
as opposed to me, who believes that we should follow christ's actual teachings because they are a pretty good way for us all to be good people. who gives a crap if he was divine or just a dude, or if he really even existed. the basic lessons in the new testament should guide us as human beings existing together, regardless of whether it was written by a omni-being who controls us all or some guys on psychedelics with a flair for drama.
yet the messages coming from the new testament seem to be lost on all these "good" christians. they focus almost entirely on 2 things: my strain of mythology is better than yours and you're evil because you believe differently, and passing laws to benefit them and punish anyone not like them.
organized religion is a cancer. but might capitalism also be? is maximizing personal profit at the expense of other people and our planet a very good system? how much resources, human life and time is wasted or meaningless? a topic i will explore later, along with more on this religion thing, in subsequent posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)