It all started with St. Augustine.
Back in 400 AD, this admitted sexual acrobat reformed. And, like many reformed sinners before and since, demonized his addiction.
And that is why Christianity, and, from that, America, hates sex.
Really hates sex.
Grand Theft Auto. You may have heard of that video game, how it made the news a while back. Do you remember why? Was it the fact that you stole cars, slapped people around and killed them?
Nope. It was because a hidden level let your male picture "do the nasty" with a female picture.
Sure. Stealing and killing are tolerable, but sex? Forget it.
Movies. You can see theft in a kid's movie. Graphic violence will earn you an "R" rating. But, for the real forbidden fruit, the "X" rating, you need . . . well, nudity. Not even sex - nudity!
Educators and law enforcement personnel are continually warning us that our culture is deteriorating. Well, what do they expect? We make love detestable and violence desireable.
James Bond can blast people by the score in his films, but the one time he marries, the poor woman has to die. Can't have him married, can we?
In fact, we can't even show him under the sheets. Bond is the perfect action hero - he only pretends to have sex, he only hints at it. But when he blows something up, you can see bodies go flying.
No wonder we're becoming nihilistic. No wonder the kids are shooting their schoolmates. That's all they know.
Why does the Christian Church have it in for sex, anyway? It tolerates and forgives theft and murder, despite the fact that two of the Ten Commandments expressly forbids these acts. No commandment makes sex forbidden, yet Christianity lashes out against it.
Just about everything Evangelicals are up in arms against these days is sex related. Homosexuality, abortion, . . . both aspects of sexuality.
You don't hear them railing against the violence in Darfur, let alone Bagdad. Violence can be forgiven, in a good cause. Sex can't.
The first command to mankind was to "be fruitful and multiply". If you believe that Da Vinci Code garbage, then even Jesus had sex. But Christians continue to ignore the Bible in favor of the teachings of that 5th Century reformed sex addict.
That needs to change.
It's time we got over our intolerance for intimacy. It's about time that we accepted that real men care about people, that they care for women, and that their lives are not confined to the overcharged automobile and the semi-automatic weapon.
That way lies death. Literally. For America, too.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
Iran - The No Win Situation
For years the anti-war crowd has warned about the possible fallout from the Iraq war.
Well, it would seem that Iran is that fallout.
Iran is a no-win situation for the US.
1) The US cannot just launch an airstrike. Sure, they might take out the nuclear plants, but what happens if Iran decides to strike back? Normally, they would not have a target, America being so far away and all. But, guess what's just a few miles over the border? That's right, it's the United States Army, along with civilian personnel, all trying to rebuild Iraq.
Now, normally, attacking the United States army would be suicidal. But remember - these troops have been tied up by terrorist bombs and activity for some time. The equipment needs maintenance, the troops need rotation.
For once, the outcome is not certain.
Iran could also strike east, into Afghanistan and against the troops stationed there. Any attempt to reinforce or extract those troops would be highly vulnerable.
2) The US cannot invade, either. They might win.
The United States government is going broke trying to put Iraq back together. What happens when it has to put two countries back on their feet?
3) The US cannot do nothing. Iran is inching closer and closer to nuclear capabilities, and statements by the Iranian government do not inspire the feeling that they might refuse to use them. It is already rumored that Iran is preparing a suicide force for a posible counterstrike. If that force is equipped with a nuclear weapon, . . .
4) The diplomatic route is all but closed, due to the actions of the Bush government over the last few years. Nobody will listen to a bully. Nobody wants to listen. Condi will not be able to defuse this problem, I'm afraid.
Most of the world has turned on the Bush government's heavy handed tactics. The US will find no help from anyone other than Great Britain (and, now, maybe Canada), and their military is not that big.
So, what's left?
Not much. No matter what decision America makes, things are going to turn out badly for them.
My worry is, what will happen back home? Will the Bush government try to blame all this on the liberals? Will liberals be herded into prisons, to shore up the neo-conservative position? Will America descend into totalitarianism?
I hope not. Only time will tell.
But it's happened before.
Well, it would seem that Iran is that fallout.
Iran is a no-win situation for the US.
1) The US cannot just launch an airstrike. Sure, they might take out the nuclear plants, but what happens if Iran decides to strike back? Normally, they would not have a target, America being so far away and all. But, guess what's just a few miles over the border? That's right, it's the United States Army, along with civilian personnel, all trying to rebuild Iraq.
Now, normally, attacking the United States army would be suicidal. But remember - these troops have been tied up by terrorist bombs and activity for some time. The equipment needs maintenance, the troops need rotation.
For once, the outcome is not certain.
Iran could also strike east, into Afghanistan and against the troops stationed there. Any attempt to reinforce or extract those troops would be highly vulnerable.
2) The US cannot invade, either. They might win.
The United States government is going broke trying to put Iraq back together. What happens when it has to put two countries back on their feet?
3) The US cannot do nothing. Iran is inching closer and closer to nuclear capabilities, and statements by the Iranian government do not inspire the feeling that they might refuse to use them. It is already rumored that Iran is preparing a suicide force for a posible counterstrike. If that force is equipped with a nuclear weapon, . . .
4) The diplomatic route is all but closed, due to the actions of the Bush government over the last few years. Nobody will listen to a bully. Nobody wants to listen. Condi will not be able to defuse this problem, I'm afraid.
Most of the world has turned on the Bush government's heavy handed tactics. The US will find no help from anyone other than Great Britain (and, now, maybe Canada), and their military is not that big.
So, what's left?
Not much. No matter what decision America makes, things are going to turn out badly for them.
My worry is, what will happen back home? Will the Bush government try to blame all this on the liberals? Will liberals be herded into prisons, to shore up the neo-conservative position? Will America descend into totalitarianism?
I hope not. Only time will tell.
But it's happened before.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Lies.
Our culture is based on lies.
Not on lies per se - not everything you hear is a lie - but on the idea that whatever you hear, no matter who the source, you probably think, or suspect, that what you've been told is a lie.
Advertising. Only a complete innocent believes the fashion ads today. Every one of them, from makeup to swimwear, is floated before you on some model's body with the unstated promise of "Wear this, and you'll look beautiful!" Right. First of all, that model with her 36" bust and airbrushed features would look beautiful if she was dressed like a bag lady and covered in oil. Your perfectly normal figure will never look like that. They lie to you.
From ads to books. Every generation has its Big Research Lie. Velikovski's Worlds in Collision. Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods. And today, The Da Vinci Code.
The book is pseudoscience from start to finish, but that hasn't stopped it from reaching the Top 10 lists. Sure, it's a lie. The people who read it know (I hope) it's a lie. But it's an entertaining lie. And people are fed up with trying to determine the truth anymore in science. Nutritionists tell you meat is bad, meat is good, and meat is unimportant - depending on whether they are paid by the Beef lobby, the Chicken lobby, or the Vegetarians. Scientists tell you global warming is real, and a hoax - again depending on whom they work for. The idea of scientists being idealistic seekers after truth vanished with the mad doctor. Today's scientist is a bottle washer who spends his day putting a drop of solution 55232 onto substrate 11965, recording what happens, and moving on to substrate 11966. The people on the podium are professional lecturers who read prepared statements. Pay them enough, and they will announce the air is fine while choking on each breath. They lie.
From books to news. In the last year or so we have seen no less than six major newsperson frauds. These people have made up facts, published them as truth, and been found out.
No less than six - and these are the ones we know about.
Where am I getting with this?
To today's polarized society, that's where. You see liberals and conservatives holding opposite opinions, neither able to convince the other, compromise, or even agree to disagree. Liberals wonder why conservatives can't see the truth, and conservatives wonder why liberals hate America. With one set of facts, why can't they reach a consensus?
It's because, when you think everything is a lie, you have to rely on faith.
Both sides take it for granted that the media is lying to them, that the scientists and newspeople and spokespeople are all paid shills saying what they're paid to say. With no credibility, there is no way to judge true from false.
So, both sides take sides. The Bush supporters hold that everything pro-Bush is true, and everything anti-Bush is lie. Liberals take the other side. Both sides simply ignore data that would disprove their side, simply assuming it to be a lie.
We now assume that everything we don't believe in is a lie.
And you cannot change a mindset like that.
And that is why liberals and conservatives will never reach an agreement.
Not on lies per se - not everything you hear is a lie - but on the idea that whatever you hear, no matter who the source, you probably think, or suspect, that what you've been told is a lie.
Advertising. Only a complete innocent believes the fashion ads today. Every one of them, from makeup to swimwear, is floated before you on some model's body with the unstated promise of "Wear this, and you'll look beautiful!" Right. First of all, that model with her 36" bust and airbrushed features would look beautiful if she was dressed like a bag lady and covered in oil. Your perfectly normal figure will never look like that. They lie to you.
From ads to books. Every generation has its Big Research Lie. Velikovski's Worlds in Collision. Von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods. And today, The Da Vinci Code.
The book is pseudoscience from start to finish, but that hasn't stopped it from reaching the Top 10 lists. Sure, it's a lie. The people who read it know (I hope) it's a lie. But it's an entertaining lie. And people are fed up with trying to determine the truth anymore in science. Nutritionists tell you meat is bad, meat is good, and meat is unimportant - depending on whether they are paid by the Beef lobby, the Chicken lobby, or the Vegetarians. Scientists tell you global warming is real, and a hoax - again depending on whom they work for. The idea of scientists being idealistic seekers after truth vanished with the mad doctor. Today's scientist is a bottle washer who spends his day putting a drop of solution 55232 onto substrate 11965, recording what happens, and moving on to substrate 11966. The people on the podium are professional lecturers who read prepared statements. Pay them enough, and they will announce the air is fine while choking on each breath. They lie.
From books to news. In the last year or so we have seen no less than six major newsperson frauds. These people have made up facts, published them as truth, and been found out.
No less than six - and these are the ones we know about.
Where am I getting with this?
To today's polarized society, that's where. You see liberals and conservatives holding opposite opinions, neither able to convince the other, compromise, or even agree to disagree. Liberals wonder why conservatives can't see the truth, and conservatives wonder why liberals hate America. With one set of facts, why can't they reach a consensus?
It's because, when you think everything is a lie, you have to rely on faith.
Both sides take it for granted that the media is lying to them, that the scientists and newspeople and spokespeople are all paid shills saying what they're paid to say. With no credibility, there is no way to judge true from false.
So, both sides take sides. The Bush supporters hold that everything pro-Bush is true, and everything anti-Bush is lie. Liberals take the other side. Both sides simply ignore data that would disprove their side, simply assuming it to be a lie.
We now assume that everything we don't believe in is a lie.
And you cannot change a mindset like that.
And that is why liberals and conservatives will never reach an agreement.
Too much blogging is bad for your opinions.
There is a problem with blogging every day.
Unless you are retired, or have made it your life's work - or you don't have a life - you lose perspective. You rush through the daily news and write down your snap opinion of those news stories - or maybe your opinion of another person's opinion - and you don't consider the big picture.
I've taken two weeks off from blogging in order to look at all the opinions, all the news, and all the background. The next few days will be spent, I hope, telling you what I have found.
Starting with the next entry.
Unless you are retired, or have made it your life's work - or you don't have a life - you lose perspective. You rush through the daily news and write down your snap opinion of those news stories - or maybe your opinion of another person's opinion - and you don't consider the big picture.
I've taken two weeks off from blogging in order to look at all the opinions, all the news, and all the background. The next few days will be spent, I hope, telling you what I have found.
Starting with the next entry.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Condi retracts
Yesterday, Condoleezza Rice said the United States made possibly "thousands" of tactical mistakes in the war against Iraq. "I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure," she said.
Today, Condi retracted that statement.
"First of all, I meant it figuratively, not literally," she said. "Let me be very clear about that. I wasn't sitting around counting. The point I was making to the questioner ... is that, of course, if you've ever made decisions, you've undoubtedly made mistakes. The important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right, and that I am confident that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for peace and for democracy is the right decision."
Sad.
Either she's unable to make any statement deviating from the party line without a stern call from Washington telling her to get back out there in front of the cameras and retract,
or
She's unable to understand that the government is able to make literally thousands of tactical errors, and that it's OK to admit it. A more forthright government would have no problem admitting a few faults - it's the desperate and the corrupt ones that must project an image of infallibility.
Today, Condi retracted that statement.
"First of all, I meant it figuratively, not literally," she said. "Let me be very clear about that. I wasn't sitting around counting. The point I was making to the questioner ... is that, of course, if you've ever made decisions, you've undoubtedly made mistakes. The important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right, and that I am confident that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for peace and for democracy is the right decision."
Sad.
Either she's unable to make any statement deviating from the party line without a stern call from Washington telling her to get back out there in front of the cameras and retract,
or
She's unable to understand that the government is able to make literally thousands of tactical errors, and that it's OK to admit it. A more forthright government would have no problem admitting a few faults - it's the desperate and the corrupt ones that must project an image of infallibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)