The Gross National Debt

Friday, December 27, 2019

Pullin' the trigger


Another way of putting this: we ain't responsible for your feelings.

Some folks on social media have dropped, blocked and banned me (Wooooo!) because I hurt their feelings and refused to back up.

This was not intentional. I posted something I found hilarious. These few folks got twisted knickers over the humor.

I am amused.

The offended I know about did give me a warning. "Either change or I am blocking you." They usually gave me a deadline. One person did not, just sent a pm explaining why she was giving me the boot and blocked me. I do regret E. blocking me because she often made me think. I miss that. I do not regret refusing to bow to her ultimatum. Given the opportunity, I'll even double down on what made her block me.

I suspect most of the folks who blocked me just had a splodey head and hit the ban and block so fast they nearly broke their keyboard.

Let's make this clear, m'kay. I don't need a deadline. I don't need a warning. If you tell me change or else, well then, bye Felicia.

Pull the trigger.

Back when I was posting political commentary, I know folks blocked me. Again, a few gave me a warning and a deadline. I've cut the politics back to less than a 10th of what it once was. Did that for me, no one else. I still post an occasional political piece and I am certain it causes splodey heads.

Still don't need a warning.

Pull the trigger.

I shall continue to be sadly amused.

Every time someone blocks me because they are offended, the forces of darkness and oppression advance. Seriously. Think about it.

If you block someone because you can't stand their version or humor or their political leanings, all you do is make your world a little more narrow, a little more closed, a little more insular. Your circle of acceptable concepts constricts.

You lose because you don't get that expression of thought and ideas. You lose because you reject with prejudice that which you disagree with. You lose because you enable repression.

It's a short walk from saying you refuse to listen to someone saying what they believe and say should be banned. It's a walk too many people are taking these days.

Someone is now asking if I have ever banned and blocked someone on social media. Yes, I have and probably will again. I do this to people who engage in ad hominem. I just ain't got time for that.

Thursday, December 19, 2019

Ain't too proud

Many years ago we loaded up and went to Etlanna. We being Ma, Shag and myself. We went to visit her mother, Grandma, also known as Alma C and Grandma Morgan.

As we pulled out of the drive, I looked back to see her standing there crying.

I so get that now.

I read a swords and sorcery novel years ago in which young princesses from various kingdoms were taken to a central meeting place to pair off with young princes. The ladies left, knowing they would never see their childhood home, friends or family ever again.

Ow.

World Lit Only By Fire describes the medieval world in stark, blunt and painfully accurate terms. Men conscripted to fight the wars of their sovereigns left home. Most of them, if they survived the war, never made it back to their families. No maps. Few roads. Getting back home was a major challenge.

Dayum.

Not too long ago, I covered a story for the paper. A young soldier came home from the front, unexpectedly. The police department where he worked tricked his Dad into coming to the PD to "sign some papers" about the young man's police officer training which he could not do as he was overseas.

After the dad got over the shock, he just hugged his taller son crying and saying "You're back" over and over.

Doncha know it.

Tonight, Susan visited.

As we parted company I told her I missed her. Been over a month since I saw her. I added I also knew where she was if I really needed to see her. She lives about 20 minutes away south and works about 20 minutes away north. "It's not like you did what I did and moved to the other side of the country," I said. (I came back.)

As she drove off to go home ... I ain't too proud. The tears nearly came.

If you are a parent, you grok. If you are not a parent, you may think you get it. You don't. You can't. You do not have the frame of reference necessary to grok this. You can't even really understand it.

I am not complaining, merely pointing out a truth.

We raise our kids. We expect them to grow up and leave. Then, they do.

arg.

Sometimes reality sucks.

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Just can't win

Bear with me. I have to get past some opening comments to get to the point. (and what else is new, the readers say sarcastically).

Unless you've lived under a rock for the past few months - if you have I really want to know how that is working out and is there a rock I can live under too? - the name Greta Thunberg rings at least some bells.

For some of you, those bells are as potent as a nuclear explosion.

I am not going to explain the who, what, why, how, when of Greta Thunberg.

What we have here is a case of Just. Can't. Win. especially for policy makers, the rich and the currently most despised demographic on the planet, old guys of recent European descent.

Can't win. It is impossible. Here's why. Let's group 'em.

1) Those who choose to take on Thunberg as a spokesman for that generation. They accord Thunberg the same respect, disrespect and hold Thunberg to the same standards they hold everyone. Well, the same standards they apply to anyone attempting to influence, create or direct policy. In short, this group treats Thunberg like a fellow politician.

This group can't win because Thunberg is "just a kid," say the support squads. The entire argument hinges on the "kid" part.

Group 1 is considered to be the worst of the bully crowd.

Just can't win.

2) Those who dismiss Thunberg as just a kid. They say Thunberg is spouting rhetoric fed by adults. Bring out the adults and have them quit hiding behind a kid.

This group can't win because the support squads say kids can have original ideas, ideas worth listening to. Being dismissive is arrogance and another form of bullying. "Kid" is the basis again.

Just can't win.

3) Those who nod and agree. Whether or not this crowd is serious and agrees with Thunberg is irrelevant.

This group can't win because they are seen as pandering and humoring Thunberg. No matter what is later said or done, the supporters say it is not serious because Group 3 is the problem and can't understand what Thunberg is saying. This is based on demographics.

Just can't win.

4) Other attacks from other quarters are met with the same derision. No matter how Thunberg is refuted, the supporters are going to haul out an emotion-based line of counter-attack and start assailing the character of those opposed or at least questioning Thunberg.

NOT UNIQUE

This is not unique at all. Attacking the person instead of the argument, ad hominem is the order and rule of the day.

It is rare to find an online discussion that does not degenerate into name-calling in a few posts.

I like to think my FB page is a safe haven for debates. I have dropped and blocked people for ad hominem and I will again. When it happens on someone else's page, I leave the discussion. I've even blocked people based on comments on another person's page.

As for Thunberg, whatever the reason she chose to speak, she did. She became a quite public figure. Since then, from what I have seen, she's maintained that public persona. The attacks and defense will continue as long as she does.

Any time Thunberg gets tired of it, all she has to do is walk away.

She just can't win.




Sunday, December 15, 2019

To live is to be violent

To be alive is to be violent.

No way around it. Being alive means you are fighting a war with other living beings that will destroy you unless you destroy them first.

The human body, each and every day, destroys untold numbers of bacteria, microbes and microorganisms that are wholly animals. The act of driving a vehicle kills insects and often bigger and more complex animals.

We shall not get into the habitat destruction and animals that died and die in order to create space for human infrastructure.

Eyeball this.

SOCIETY IS BASED ON VIOLENCE


As the speaker in the vid says, society's fundament, bedrock, founding principle is violence. Society is a group of people who agree to commit violent acts if their will is not carried out.

No? Prove me wrong.

Even the act of banishment or making someone an outcast is violence. Rejection is violence.

Calling it a "social contract" merely wraps the titanium mail glove in a thin veneer of velvet. Having someone else carry out that violence because you are too much of a coward to do it yourself only puts a pretty bow across the knuckles of the fist that breaks the jaw of the nonconformist.

Yes, I said coward and I meant it.


DEDICATION


Your commitment to anything is directly proportional to your willingness to kill another human being to enforce it and to die to protect it. How strong is your dedication?

Suicide bombers certainly must rank at or near the top of dedication.

Some will inject here that some religions eschew violence. Jainism comes to mind. It falls well short of the goal it claims to strive for. See above, RE: the act of living incurs violence. See the STUDY IN VIOLENCE bit below to examine the Jainism principles of only eating leaves and nuts. Further, Jainists today, those living in a modern society, commit violence simply by existing in a place where they must drive vehicles, drink treated water and so forth. Further, as Jainism also bespeaks microorganisms, every Janist's body is waging a constant and continual war against the microbes that would end the Jainist's life.

"Jains accept that keeping a human body alive will necessarily occasion violence to other life-forms on a nearly constant basis, and that the preservation of a complex, conscious life‐form takes precedence over the preservation of a simple one‐sense organism." https://voices.uchicago.edu/religionculture/2017/11/22/attending-to-insects/

Wicca? See above and below as with Jainism.

From a human perspective, the world's Great Religions, most of 'em anyway, have violence as the basis for belief. For that matter, every religion I know of includes some forms of violence. Someone will now loudly decry this statement and tell me I do not know what I am talking about.

M'kay - In the Great Religion of Your Choice, what happens to unbelievers? Again, in most of the Great Religions.

Non-believers and those who reject the Holy Word are sent to that religion's version of hell. Sounds pretty freekin' violent to me. Having a way out, salvation, good deeds, etc, does not erase the violence inherent in the system.

Most Great Religion's saints, even those who will not physically fight back and will die rather than fight back or recant, still guilty of violence against others. They support a system that sends the heretics, pagans and etc to hell. They support a system that says "Do this or violence."

That which you endorse and support, you are also guilty of. Including a degree of separation, see the Jainism essay above, is a human rationalization designed to excuse an inherent flaw in the logic.

Aside: The problem here is attributing human motives to a divine being which is beyond human comprehension. I admit I ain't got a good handle on this one. A human trying to understand the Divinity is like a dog understanding calculus. It doesn't happen. It could be that under the God code, this something different, something we can't understand. Regardless, I only have human understanding and I am applying that. This may be a mistake. Certainly in some of the Great Religions, that line of thinking is a mistake. This is also a topic for another post another day.

A STUDY IN VIOLENCE


Your very existence right now is a study in violence.

Even vegans cannot get around this. No?

Plants learn.

Plants REALLY learn.

Even PETA admits plants can feel. Is this sentience? Damfino, but I tend toward saying yes.

Tearing apart a live plant to consume it is violence against a living entity.

If not, how do you explain the communicated defensive reaction of many plants?

Gonna eat only shed, dead leaves? What about the microorganisms of decay within the leaves? Gonna eat only fruits and nuts? I ask the same question.

THE MINIMUM


Violence is necessary. Just do the minimum needed.

The speaker in the opening video says be true to your tribe and let the rest hang. I'm good with that.

Yes, I am.

My tribe is humanity. My tribe needs that which is necessary for a healthy existence for humanity, Commit the minimum amount of violence to make this happen.

Some people are going to reject my notion of tribe. That's OK too, as long as they do not inflict what I see as unnecessary violence on my tribe. I reserve the right to respond with superior levels of violence in that case.

Some violence is necessary. I, you, we may not like it, but it is reality.

Reality will not conform itself to your expectations.

Understand violence is necessary. Then, commit yourself to the very minimum needed.

Friday, December 13, 2019

License for violence

Agent 007 in the James Bond novels and movies is granted a "license to kill" by the British government.

That is fiction.

Except it is not.

 Government routinely grants people a license to kill other people. Some people accept this. Others do not.

Those who accept it couch it under the phrase "Social Contract" as if murder, theft, rape and other crimes against people suddenly become acceptable when the government approves it.

The people who protected Anne Frank were breaking the law.

The people who killed Anne Frank were obeying the "social contract."

Slavery was and is a "social contract."

"Social contract" is nothing more than an excuse. It is a way to make someone feel good about grinding a fellow human being into dust.

Just because a group of people decide something is legal does not make it right.