Sports as Entertainment
There is enough written about the value of sports to participants, but what about the value to the fans. I reckon every sport is somewhat different even in this respect so I will focus on professional football. This is the most popular sport in America. Why?
Maybe because it is the least predictable, has the best game pace to it, is exceedingly complicated, has so many really varied positions and generates the fiercest emotions. BUT, realistically, does it make sense to be too strong a fan of any team? There are 16 teams and only one can win the Superbowl. Maybe half the teams or more have at least a chance before the season starts since football championships change hands constantly. Since the level of emotion is driven to high levels throughout the game and season, when your team loses the disappointment is equally of a high level. NOW, in what way does the life of a fan change whether his team wins or loses? PRECISELY, it doesn't. There was a time in my life when watching a game where I really, really wanted my team to win might even generate a headache. Not Good. Over time I began to realize how much unpredictable variables enter into a football game. Injuries, when the penalties occur, when passes are dropped, when tackles will be missed, when blown calls will surface, when someone slips, tipped balls, when fumbles occur, the condition of the field, the weather, etc. It is amazing that the best of experts can manage to correctly predict the winners of games a little over 60% of the time.
Foot ball can be entertaining, but it takes, I sense, a certain developed discipline for it to be entertainment rather than torture. Of course some people enjoy the torture just as some people like climbing cliffs or any other dangerous sport. Then there are the football arguments. Listening to pregame shows or ESPN sport news gives one an endless series of 'experts' with definitive and 'for sure' opinions on every player and everything associated with the game. When the game is over most of it turned out to be pure bullshit. Most topics argued about in football are unprovable. Fans aren't arguing about who scored the most touchdowns or anything else that has a factual basis. No, they argue about which players are better, which coaches are better, whether the team should have gone for it or punted, team chemistry, player attitudes, etc. From a distance what is the purpose of all these debates? How often does one side change their mind? It starts off friendly enough with each side manipulating certain observations or stats to fit their case, while others watching the debacle wish the arguers would just let it drop, but it rarely does and can go on for weeks, months, years. What is the prize at the end if one could win any of these arguments? I am trying to think of one case in my own history where one side ever capitulated. I can think of cases where friendships have been weakened, but none where the friendship was strengthened. Most of the times when these arguments are being made, apples and oranges are being compared. Plus, what may work with certain people in certain situations does not work for other people in different situations. How good any player is, for example, depends on the quality of the supporting cast and the quality of the opposition. The other players have to be individually good at their positions for one player to get his own best stats. Nice guys don't get you good stats, guys who play their position well do. Like all those involved state all the time: it is a business, pure and simple. First comes their own survival and if the team should happen to win that is nice too. But the first objective for every player is for them to put up the stats for them to not only survive as a team member but get a top salary.
To enjoy a sport like football one probably needs to see it as pure entertainment. There is a surprise on most every play, sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. You know all these kinds of unpredictable things are going to happen and one must learn not to react emotionally much to their occurrence. The lucky ones forget about all the heartache 5 minutes after the game is over. The smartest ones keep their emotions in check throughout the game. IT IS JUST A GAME. IT HAS NO REAL MEANING TO ANYONE'S LIFE EXCEPT THOSE OUT ON THE FIELD.
Most things in life come at a price----marriage, sport success, job success, friendships, good health, wealth, contentment, justice, etc. Winning and losing in sports as a fan requires no price and comes with no control over the outcome. Any idiot can be a fan, maybe most are. THEN AGAIN, all you have to do as a fan is show up and root. There is no required preparation. Being a fan for some people, actually a lot of people, can become compulsive behavior---like overeating, drugs, sex, whatever. I suppose, those addicted would say it gives them some genuine pleasure in their life. I am not sure pleasure is the right term. There are people who wash their hands 100 times a day; one need be careful calling this pleasure. It is compulsive behavior. Every addict to anything claims a real need for the diversion. Maybe most of us need to be addicted to something so there is something to occupy our spare time.
I stated before that sports is unpredictable. So is gambling at a Casino and look how many people are addicted to casino gambling. Gambling is not only time consuming but it does affect your bank account, marriage, and state of mind. In general, too much of anything can kill you including too much oxygen, food, and a lot of other things so necessary in moderation. I am 70 years old and read a lot. Why? Am I ever going to do anything with the increased knowledge? Of course not. I write a lot---for my own contentment. Yes, contentment is the only basis for a hobby. If one can be a sport fan in a way which brings contentment and doesn't destroy other aspects of your life, then I guess it is a good thing. I have abandoned most sports because following them is too time consuming and winning or losing as a fan, for me, has no lasting effect and contributes about zero to my state of contentment. My life will be as content whether Green Bay wins or loses. I still watch a lot of games because football is, as I say, unpredictable, and thus filled with the unexpected. Iit is good theatre. People enjoy plays for the same reason.
Almost all sports debates cannot be proven----contrary to the certainty with which sports commentators and fans pretend otherwise. Opinions cannot be proved and more often than not the messenger of an opinion becomes the one subjected to character assassination. In one form or another these arguments end by each accusing the other of ignorance, lack of some kind of experience to even know about such things, and all sorts of irrelevant character assassinations---the other guy once predicted team X to win the division, or has been known to lie too much, or what do people in his/her profession know anyway, or someone who would choose such a loser as a spouse can hardly be trusted to be a judge of anyone etc. In other words the debate shifts from the issue at hand to whether or not the other person is even capable of having a valid opinion. Be all this as it may, how is it that one person may claim to know the factual answer?
1. They are smarter (now who could possibly counter that?)
2. They once coached some kind of sport which gives them unique experience or or some such experience by which the truth came by osmosis. Sounds good enough EXCEPT, if it were true then all those with similar experience would all agree on the topic in question. They don't.
3. They once played the sport in question. It seems here they confuse athletic ability with understanding complex issues.
4. Certain other people say so (The Pope complex--a Pope elected by selected people knows the answers because God gives him the answer). Like who is to dare question God? A sport commentator or a group of sport commentators get elevated to Popes on the debate in question.
5. Logic based on reasonable evidence and hypotheses constructed based on that reasonable evidence. This may come closest to the answer BUT also cannot be proven. It still is opinion.
In the end, with sports, DOES IT MATTER? I suppose, somewhere beyond human wisdom, one great athlete is better than another great athlete. Or, again beyond human wisdom, some factor can be precisely determined as to how important it is for team success. Perhaps the only non damaging sport debates can occur when both sides accept the difference between believing one is right and knowing one is right. One cannot know something which is not a provable fact. Fortunately, sport beliefs are harmless, at least on paper, since non of it matters much in any real sense. It only matters when relationships are destroyed or damaged. Not good.
STILL, in the end, sports debates can be stimulating, amusing, entertaining, challenging and all such good stuff PROVIDING both sides keep in mind that no one is going to win these debates. If the debate itself is fun, FINE, if the debate ceases to be fun, then STOP.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Second Chances
Second Chances
The heart rendering story of Chris Henry, the Cincinnati wide-receiver suspended from football for numerous arrests, mostly for violent acts, dismissed from the team, and then when no one else wanted him, was given a second chance by Cincinnati, seemed to have settled down and was doing things right----and then, falling out of the back of a pick-up truck during a domestic dispute with his bride to be, he died at age 26. Those who knew him best, his teammates, the coaches, the owners, all seem genuinely devastated by his death, all claiming he was nothing like the media portrayed him. That of course, is hard to fit with a college coach who once told Henry that he was a total disgrace to his team and school.
Of course those on the other end of his violent, angry, emotional outbursts for most of his life may see it differently. Perspective is everything. Depending on your job in life you may or may not meet and have any meaningful contact with the Chris Henrys of life. I certainly did and you never get over how much empathy they can extract from you in calm conversational situations. In some sense they are con artists. Part of why they do such anti-social acts is that they can invariably use their personal charm to weasel out of any lasting consequences. One always feels, if you know them in any counseling situation, that he/she is mostly misunderstood, a basically good person who foolishly does some bad things. Many parents understand what I mean here.
Henry, it seems had finally turned things around and was settling into a more 'mature' mode and the 'good' Henry was about to have a good and fulfilling life. Maybe so, maybe not----hard to really say. But let's be positive here and assume he was a once 'bad' character who had turned his life around. BUT, how many 'good' people who do bad things ever have a financial fortune as a carrot? I wonder what percentage of ghetto gang members who are basically 'good' persons might shape up if the reward for such personal discipline and altered priorities, was a huge financial fortune? Of course one feels bad that Henry had turned the corner behavior wise and seemed on track to live a productive life as a good citizen when he met his death. It is a legitimate feel good story.
STILL, there are millions more young people out there, equally 'good' people 'at heart', doing bad things, who will never have such a financial carrot out there to force a change in their behavior. If one feels sorry for Henry, then logic demands we feel equally sorry for these millions of other young people, with no such physical talent to be worth huge financial rewards for such a talent, who will never get endless second chances, have no access to support from those who have already succeeded, and----for the most part---are basically walled off or 'gated' from the more successful in life. It is really just a picture from life's other side. Henry's demise is a tragedy, but an even greater tragedy are millions more leading hopeless lives of quiet desperation. There is no sad sudden demise of their lives because they are never high enough in life's success plateau to fall. And if we really knew many of these people as a person we would no doubt say of many, 'they are basically good people, who given the right environment, could turn their lives around. For a zillion reasons, they are never going to get a good environment, they are not strong or smart enough to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps like a Terrell Owens, and even if we all really wanted to share our resources and help them, their numbers are staggeringly high, the task too difficult, and the natural resources are no longer there on the globe for them to live the lifestyle many of us do. If we feel sad for Chris Henry, logic dictates we weep and bawl loudly for this other vast mass of humanity across the globe who pay a ghastly price for human overpopulation on a stressed planet. Henry at least had the athletic talent to be allowed to smell the roses for a brief time. The effort it took on the part of so many to salvage Henry from this other vast mss of humanity who live lives of quiet desperation---this effort was long standing, widespread, and the carrot available huge.
I don't have any answers, I don't really understand most of the questions, maybe there are no answers. God's created evolutionary process is run by laws which use survival of the fittest for evolutionary progress. It works, millions of years attest to that, but this forward progress over millions of years leaves in it's wake tragic personal consequences for individual specie members. There is a cost to most everything worth achieving. The cost for God's evolutionary progress is especially steep for the weak and less fortunate who end up with the wrong cards from the wheel of chance which plays such an important role in the process. The results are overwhelmingly impressive, but the process can be brutal. I personally feel lucky, but not on the basis of any personal intervention by God for this luck. I don't feel singled out, I don't feel I earned all this good fortune, I don't feel God likes me better than others, I just am lucky. This is not to say individuals cannot, via their own good choice, parlay luck into a better life. But it starts with luck.
The heart rendering story of Chris Henry, the Cincinnati wide-receiver suspended from football for numerous arrests, mostly for violent acts, dismissed from the team, and then when no one else wanted him, was given a second chance by Cincinnati, seemed to have settled down and was doing things right----and then, falling out of the back of a pick-up truck during a domestic dispute with his bride to be, he died at age 26. Those who knew him best, his teammates, the coaches, the owners, all seem genuinely devastated by his death, all claiming he was nothing like the media portrayed him. That of course, is hard to fit with a college coach who once told Henry that he was a total disgrace to his team and school.
Of course those on the other end of his violent, angry, emotional outbursts for most of his life may see it differently. Perspective is everything. Depending on your job in life you may or may not meet and have any meaningful contact with the Chris Henrys of life. I certainly did and you never get over how much empathy they can extract from you in calm conversational situations. In some sense they are con artists. Part of why they do such anti-social acts is that they can invariably use their personal charm to weasel out of any lasting consequences. One always feels, if you know them in any counseling situation, that he/she is mostly misunderstood, a basically good person who foolishly does some bad things. Many parents understand what I mean here.
Henry, it seems had finally turned things around and was settling into a more 'mature' mode and the 'good' Henry was about to have a good and fulfilling life. Maybe so, maybe not----hard to really say. But let's be positive here and assume he was a once 'bad' character who had turned his life around. BUT, how many 'good' people who do bad things ever have a financial fortune as a carrot? I wonder what percentage of ghetto gang members who are basically 'good' persons might shape up if the reward for such personal discipline and altered priorities, was a huge financial fortune? Of course one feels bad that Henry had turned the corner behavior wise and seemed on track to live a productive life as a good citizen when he met his death. It is a legitimate feel good story.
STILL, there are millions more young people out there, equally 'good' people 'at heart', doing bad things, who will never have such a financial carrot out there to force a change in their behavior. If one feels sorry for Henry, then logic demands we feel equally sorry for these millions of other young people, with no such physical talent to be worth huge financial rewards for such a talent, who will never get endless second chances, have no access to support from those who have already succeeded, and----for the most part---are basically walled off or 'gated' from the more successful in life. It is really just a picture from life's other side. Henry's demise is a tragedy, but an even greater tragedy are millions more leading hopeless lives of quiet desperation. There is no sad sudden demise of their lives because they are never high enough in life's success plateau to fall. And if we really knew many of these people as a person we would no doubt say of many, 'they are basically good people, who given the right environment, could turn their lives around. For a zillion reasons, they are never going to get a good environment, they are not strong or smart enough to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps like a Terrell Owens, and even if we all really wanted to share our resources and help them, their numbers are staggeringly high, the task too difficult, and the natural resources are no longer there on the globe for them to live the lifestyle many of us do. If we feel sad for Chris Henry, logic dictates we weep and bawl loudly for this other vast mass of humanity across the globe who pay a ghastly price for human overpopulation on a stressed planet. Henry at least had the athletic talent to be allowed to smell the roses for a brief time. The effort it took on the part of so many to salvage Henry from this other vast mss of humanity who live lives of quiet desperation---this effort was long standing, widespread, and the carrot available huge.
I don't have any answers, I don't really understand most of the questions, maybe there are no answers. God's created evolutionary process is run by laws which use survival of the fittest for evolutionary progress. It works, millions of years attest to that, but this forward progress over millions of years leaves in it's wake tragic personal consequences for individual specie members. There is a cost to most everything worth achieving. The cost for God's evolutionary progress is especially steep for the weak and less fortunate who end up with the wrong cards from the wheel of chance which plays such an important role in the process. The results are overwhelmingly impressive, but the process can be brutal. I personally feel lucky, but not on the basis of any personal intervention by God for this luck. I don't feel singled out, I don't feel I earned all this good fortune, I don't feel God likes me better than others, I just am lucky. This is not to say individuals cannot, via their own good choice, parlay luck into a better life. But it starts with luck.
We Don't Need Any Empire
We Don't Need Any Empire
Empires have come and gone throughout history. Every empire that arose also fell. Most of the time empires fall for the same reasons: the expense of controlling distant lands, and at home the growing accumulation of wealth among a few off the backs of first the poor, and then the middle class. For most of history an empire was maintained by imposing rule by occupying armies. The occupying army either directly controlled the occupied country or set up a token figurehead native government.
Americans, for the most part, don't consider ourselves empire builders, but rather peace builders, freedom fighters, Christina soldiers, good neighbors, good samaritans, always the good guys. Many, if not most Americans root for America in the same fashion they root for their favorite sport team---almost blind allegiance. Other citizens of other countries do the same. Most of us inherit our religions and politics and most of us change hardly at all, especially in our religious beliefs.
The acquisition of foreign lands is a natural outgrowth of military and economic power. In the early days of America our empire expanded simply by going further west. Jefferson expressed the opinion that our country was so vast that it would be a rural country for thousands of years and our natural resources inexhaustible for thousands of years. He was off a tad. When the frontier closed Americans had to look elsewhere for acquisitions----not so much for settling there as to gain guaranteed markets for our products. We rapidly rose to become the largest exporter in the world, the largest creditor in the world, and the largest military force in the world. The actual acquisition of foreign lands didn't last all that long---Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Philippines, Guam, etc. We realized that people hated us when we literally occupied their country---of course for the purpose of helping them become as affluent as ourselves. What third world country have we turned around? With the advances in communication and transportation, what Americans realized was that the important thing to us was the ACQUISITION OF WEALTH, NOT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND per se. We were always more than willing to exploit natural resources across the globe for a hefty profit.
Over time we didn't fool too many countries into any belief we were controlling their economic situation for altruistic reasons. When our economic interests were threatened by political events in another weak country, we simply invaded until they got their politics right. We did this more than 50 times in the last 100 years. Unfortunately, time is now running out and increasingly everyone everywhere is beginning to end up in the same boat. As human overpopulation hits the earth with all it's consequences, everything is going topsy turvy. We are no longer the greatest exporter on earth; instead we are the greatest importers on earth, gobbling up goods made by slave wages across the globe. It is a rare American, or rare any nationality, who can turn down a bargain. Buy American is about as effective as Just Say No to drugs. We're almost all guilty.
In those times past when the poor could always live off the land, poor but with enough to eat, the acquisition of wealth by another country from your own natural or labor resources was noted, but not the kind of thing you revolted over. And it was not too long ago when communication was such that you hardly knew much about how foreigners lived. It is all changing so rapidly now that beleaguered has become pretty much a global mind set. Growth and the acquisition of THINGS became the real American religion, not Christianity. Christ himself was not much of a THING person. The most contented people I know personally are not much of THING persons either. It became a cultural tradition for Americians to be first and foremost a THINGSTERITE, myself included.
Such observations as above are considered in many circles to be an attitude of un-patriotism. But it is precisely because one loves his/her country that one has a duty to criticize when its' politics/behavior are wrong. Our country needs to go back to leading by example, not using military might to engage in endless wars.
We don't need an empire; we need to take care of our own less fortunate. We don't need to keep buying products made by slave labor; we need universal minimum wages in any global economy. We don't need to reproduce as mindlessly as rabbits; we need responsible reproduction. We don't need blind allegiance to an inherited religion or blind patriotism; we need allegiance to the universal ethical principle of the Golden Rule. We don't need unlimited and unregulated capitalism; we need competitive capitalism with limits and fair guidelines. We don't need to permit any sectarian religious beliefs to become the law of the land; we need the freedom for everyone to practice their own religious beliefs as long as they meet the guidelines of the Golden Rule. We don't need unrestrained greed which puts our natural resources at risk; we need instead to protect and respect our environment, another gift from God's created evolutionary process. We need a lot these days for all that so much of us treasure in life not to implode.
Empires have come and gone throughout history. Every empire that arose also fell. Most of the time empires fall for the same reasons: the expense of controlling distant lands, and at home the growing accumulation of wealth among a few off the backs of first the poor, and then the middle class. For most of history an empire was maintained by imposing rule by occupying armies. The occupying army either directly controlled the occupied country or set up a token figurehead native government.
Americans, for the most part, don't consider ourselves empire builders, but rather peace builders, freedom fighters, Christina soldiers, good neighbors, good samaritans, always the good guys. Many, if not most Americans root for America in the same fashion they root for their favorite sport team---almost blind allegiance. Other citizens of other countries do the same. Most of us inherit our religions and politics and most of us change hardly at all, especially in our religious beliefs.
The acquisition of foreign lands is a natural outgrowth of military and economic power. In the early days of America our empire expanded simply by going further west. Jefferson expressed the opinion that our country was so vast that it would be a rural country for thousands of years and our natural resources inexhaustible for thousands of years. He was off a tad. When the frontier closed Americans had to look elsewhere for acquisitions----not so much for settling there as to gain guaranteed markets for our products. We rapidly rose to become the largest exporter in the world, the largest creditor in the world, and the largest military force in the world. The actual acquisition of foreign lands didn't last all that long---Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Philippines, Guam, etc. We realized that people hated us when we literally occupied their country---of course for the purpose of helping them become as affluent as ourselves. What third world country have we turned around? With the advances in communication and transportation, what Americans realized was that the important thing to us was the ACQUISITION OF WEALTH, NOT THE ACQUISITION OF LAND per se. We were always more than willing to exploit natural resources across the globe for a hefty profit.
Over time we didn't fool too many countries into any belief we were controlling their economic situation for altruistic reasons. When our economic interests were threatened by political events in another weak country, we simply invaded until they got their politics right. We did this more than 50 times in the last 100 years. Unfortunately, time is now running out and increasingly everyone everywhere is beginning to end up in the same boat. As human overpopulation hits the earth with all it's consequences, everything is going topsy turvy. We are no longer the greatest exporter on earth; instead we are the greatest importers on earth, gobbling up goods made by slave wages across the globe. It is a rare American, or rare any nationality, who can turn down a bargain. Buy American is about as effective as Just Say No to drugs. We're almost all guilty.
In those times past when the poor could always live off the land, poor but with enough to eat, the acquisition of wealth by another country from your own natural or labor resources was noted, but not the kind of thing you revolted over. And it was not too long ago when communication was such that you hardly knew much about how foreigners lived. It is all changing so rapidly now that beleaguered has become pretty much a global mind set. Growth and the acquisition of THINGS became the real American religion, not Christianity. Christ himself was not much of a THING person. The most contented people I know personally are not much of THING persons either. It became a cultural tradition for Americians to be first and foremost a THINGSTERITE, myself included.
Such observations as above are considered in many circles to be an attitude of un-patriotism. But it is precisely because one loves his/her country that one has a duty to criticize when its' politics/behavior are wrong. Our country needs to go back to leading by example, not using military might to engage in endless wars.
We don't need an empire; we need to take care of our own less fortunate. We don't need to keep buying products made by slave labor; we need universal minimum wages in any global economy. We don't need to reproduce as mindlessly as rabbits; we need responsible reproduction. We don't need blind allegiance to an inherited religion or blind patriotism; we need allegiance to the universal ethical principle of the Golden Rule. We don't need unlimited and unregulated capitalism; we need competitive capitalism with limits and fair guidelines. We don't need to permit any sectarian religious beliefs to become the law of the land; we need the freedom for everyone to practice their own religious beliefs as long as they meet the guidelines of the Golden Rule. We don't need unrestrained greed which puts our natural resources at risk; we need instead to protect and respect our environment, another gift from God's created evolutionary process. We need a lot these days for all that so much of us treasure in life not to implode.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Honor
"THIS WAS BACK IN THE DAYS WHEN THERE WAS HONOR IN BEING A WARRIOR...THEY PROUDLY WORE UNIFORMS, AND THEY DIDN'T HIDE IN AMBUSH INSIDE A MOSQUE, OR BEHIND WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOR DID THEY USE MENTALLY RETARDED WOMEN AS SUICIDE BOMBERS TO TARGET AND KILL INNOCENT CIVILIANS...HOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED......"
Things are not as simple or one sided as the above statement pretends. Honor is something individuals have, not 'days' or cultures or one era vs another. And warrior is a useless term when not qualified. All combatants are warriors, drug gangs are warriors, etc. If there is honor in being a warrior it seemingly would be restricted to defending your family or country from being attacked. In modern times the word warrior is less and less meaningful. Is someone who pushes a button to send off a smart bomb to destroy suspected enemies and anyone else in the vicinity really a warrior? Is there honor in this? Maybe some sort of utilitarian necessity but honor? If one side has 'smart bombs', missiles, armored tanks, etc. and the other side has only homemade or crude roadside bombs this alone hardly identifies where any honor is. In both cases innocent people get killed. It was much simpler when wars involved uniformed armies, and citizens in both countries all had to sacrifice to sustain war. People who are willing to give up their lives for this or that cause can not be dismissed as mentally retarded. Wars today are less about territorial gain or politics but acts of desperation by mostly very angry and desperate groups. I am not aware of any desperate groups in history who did not have some legitimate basis for all their anger and desperate acts.
Forget using honor to describe the actions of one side and put down the actions of the other side. The Earth today suffers a massive population explosion which is putting enormous stresses on all the natural resources needed to sustain the kind of lifestyle to which many of us are accustomed. Muslim countries are not putting military bases in nonMuslim countries or putting military bases in nonMuslim countries to prop up desired governments. And of course they don't do this because they can't and we can. There is no honor involved here---just he who can does, he who cannot, doesn't. Perhaps honor should be involved for those who follow the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Things are not as simple or one sided as the above statement pretends. Honor is something individuals have, not 'days' or cultures or one era vs another. And warrior is a useless term when not qualified. All combatants are warriors, drug gangs are warriors, etc. If there is honor in being a warrior it seemingly would be restricted to defending your family or country from being attacked. In modern times the word warrior is less and less meaningful. Is someone who pushes a button to send off a smart bomb to destroy suspected enemies and anyone else in the vicinity really a warrior? Is there honor in this? Maybe some sort of utilitarian necessity but honor? If one side has 'smart bombs', missiles, armored tanks, etc. and the other side has only homemade or crude roadside bombs this alone hardly identifies where any honor is. In both cases innocent people get killed. It was much simpler when wars involved uniformed armies, and citizens in both countries all had to sacrifice to sustain war. People who are willing to give up their lives for this or that cause can not be dismissed as mentally retarded. Wars today are less about territorial gain or politics but acts of desperation by mostly very angry and desperate groups. I am not aware of any desperate groups in history who did not have some legitimate basis for all their anger and desperate acts.
Forget using honor to describe the actions of one side and put down the actions of the other side. The Earth today suffers a massive population explosion which is putting enormous stresses on all the natural resources needed to sustain the kind of lifestyle to which many of us are accustomed. Muslim countries are not putting military bases in nonMuslim countries or putting military bases in nonMuslim countries to prop up desired governments. And of course they don't do this because they can't and we can. There is no honor involved here---just he who can does, he who cannot, doesn't. Perhaps honor should be involved for those who follow the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
THE DATING GAME
The Dating Game
We support this or that person for various reasons, but truthfully the selection is too often not objective. Two people date and marry for reasons that are personal, not objective. Because each 'love' affair is personal, others cannot judge the union.
Some marriages are based mostly on respect, or 'love' (hard to define this), or money, or power, or sex, or prestige, or just companionship. I guess what works, works. Marriage is a legal fact, not any kind of singular description of reality.
There is no judicial system or religious system (outside of gay marriage) which passes any judgment on whether the basis for the marriage is valid. You book the church, you go to a judge---whatever---and the marriage is law. This is the dating game with the rules set by the participants. Fair enough, it is purely personal.
But the dating game extends far beyond marriage. Barack Obama, with the same policies and a different personality, would be a loser at the polls. We 'like' certain athletes because of the 'dating game' mentality. Fair enough except an awful lot of energy then is expended to translate 'like' into why the athlete is better than others, which of course, is needed to seal your case. Stats can often get in the way of our likes and dislikes based on the dating game mentality, so we invent adjectives which present our choice in more favorable terms. Bush, we are told by his supporters, was a good President despite the stats, because he was 'principled', 'tough', didn't yield to public opinion, was a born again Christian willing to push his 'revealed' religious beliefs to become the law of the land, and stood his ground once his foot came down, etc. It's the dating game, that's what it is. Sports is probably the worst area for the dating game. We like who we like because we know what we like and like to like what we like. Again fair enough, but this then gets translated illogically into performance judgments.
Clearly, at least to me, politics should be about policy. If George Bush still had all the personal qualities which I dislike and supported the right policies, his responsibility as a politician would be met. An athlete who trains properly, performs well on the field, and is a good citizen has met all the obligations necessary to be valuable on the team. Kobe Bryant might be the most obnoxious person in the world to some, but he is valuable to any team because he trains right, he performs well on the court and may or may not be a good citizen. Two out of three. The point here is that all of us have a right to like or not like someone, but we need recognize that like has little to do with worth on a team. The dating game is irrelevant in sports and politics. Well, not entirely. Politicians have to get elected so the dating game becomes a prerequisite---sometimes. Some of our greatest Presidents got to become Presidents despite inherent weaknesses in the dating game. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and others got into the White House without excelling at the dating game.
After a Presidential debate (if I can use the term debate loosely), watching those assembled 'undecideds' critique the debate is a sorry affair. It is the dating game, absent policy issues. "I thought so and so was more poised----etc." just as if they were choosing someone to date. I think in sports it is ok, after all these are games, and I too, often like someone in sports for reasons other than just their performance. But I try not to be suckered into the dating game nonsense by claiming they are better than their stats because of Illusionary ephemeral qualities that are claimed to help their teammates play better. These are professional players and know exactly what they need to do in the playing arena to make the team successful. That often is just about all they seem to know. After that they often seem to have the brain of a turtle. These dating game fans may create illusionary factors but the coaches and owners know better. If your stats are there, you stay and maybe get a raise. If the stats are not there you are gone. If the often bastard owners or general managers know anything, they know the bottom line. If team chemistry, with rare exceptions, was much of a factor, you wouldn't find massive migration of players from team to team. Terrell Owens is a good case in point. Those who hate Terrell Owens have for years been claiming he is a poison pill, disruptive to the point of incapacitating the performance of others on the team----popular sport commentators have insisted he be banned from the sport and on and on it goes. He is 36 years old, in 2nd place in general stats for wide receivers in the NFL record book, every team he has been on has had a winning record, every team he has left has done worse after he left, and he remains one of the top paid receivers in football. So from the record, on what basis is he a poison pill let alone be banned from the sport? Banned for what? Asking to be paid for his level of performance? Demanding the ball be thrown to him a lot? Not letting others interfere with his own conditioning and training program? Expressing his own opinion about a position he knows better than most anyone in football and has the stats to prove it? No, it all boils down to the dating game. His focus on himself, regardless of the results he gets from it, annoys the hell out of some people, angers them to the point of rage, and if his team doesn't win the Super Bowl the solution, to them, is to get rid of Terrell Owens. It is hard to remember the last season Owens has not gotten at least 1000 yards and been in the top five in number of touchdowns, regardless of the quarterback. Strange, but there are a lot of great football players who have never won a Superbowl ring---the Hall of Fame is cluttered with them. There are 32 teams in the league. One person, if not a quarterback, cannot, by themselves put any team in the Superbowl. Even Donovan couldn't do it without T.O. With T.O. he did.
Thus, the dating game, outside of romance, is bad way to select the best politicians, the best athletes, the best administrators, etc. Results matter. They really do. NEVERTHELESS, all of us are entitled to like who we like. I think I excel here and have no prejudices. I hate everyone. That levels the playing field and is the ultimate in fairness.
We support this or that person for various reasons, but truthfully the selection is too often not objective. Two people date and marry for reasons that are personal, not objective. Because each 'love' affair is personal, others cannot judge the union.
Some marriages are based mostly on respect, or 'love' (hard to define this), or money, or power, or sex, or prestige, or just companionship. I guess what works, works. Marriage is a legal fact, not any kind of singular description of reality.
There is no judicial system or religious system (outside of gay marriage) which passes any judgment on whether the basis for the marriage is valid. You book the church, you go to a judge---whatever---and the marriage is law. This is the dating game with the rules set by the participants. Fair enough, it is purely personal.
But the dating game extends far beyond marriage. Barack Obama, with the same policies and a different personality, would be a loser at the polls. We 'like' certain athletes because of the 'dating game' mentality. Fair enough except an awful lot of energy then is expended to translate 'like' into why the athlete is better than others, which of course, is needed to seal your case. Stats can often get in the way of our likes and dislikes based on the dating game mentality, so we invent adjectives which present our choice in more favorable terms. Bush, we are told by his supporters, was a good President despite the stats, because he was 'principled', 'tough', didn't yield to public opinion, was a born again Christian willing to push his 'revealed' religious beliefs to become the law of the land, and stood his ground once his foot came down, etc. It's the dating game, that's what it is. Sports is probably the worst area for the dating game. We like who we like because we know what we like and like to like what we like. Again fair enough, but this then gets translated illogically into performance judgments.
Clearly, at least to me, politics should be about policy. If George Bush still had all the personal qualities which I dislike and supported the right policies, his responsibility as a politician would be met. An athlete who trains properly, performs well on the field, and is a good citizen has met all the obligations necessary to be valuable on the team. Kobe Bryant might be the most obnoxious person in the world to some, but he is valuable to any team because he trains right, he performs well on the court and may or may not be a good citizen. Two out of three. The point here is that all of us have a right to like or not like someone, but we need recognize that like has little to do with worth on a team. The dating game is irrelevant in sports and politics. Well, not entirely. Politicians have to get elected so the dating game becomes a prerequisite---sometimes. Some of our greatest Presidents got to become Presidents despite inherent weaknesses in the dating game. Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and others got into the White House without excelling at the dating game.
After a Presidential debate (if I can use the term debate loosely), watching those assembled 'undecideds' critique the debate is a sorry affair. It is the dating game, absent policy issues. "I thought so and so was more poised----etc." just as if they were choosing someone to date. I think in sports it is ok, after all these are games, and I too, often like someone in sports for reasons other than just their performance. But I try not to be suckered into the dating game nonsense by claiming they are better than their stats because of Illusionary ephemeral qualities that are claimed to help their teammates play better. These are professional players and know exactly what they need to do in the playing arena to make the team successful. That often is just about all they seem to know. After that they often seem to have the brain of a turtle. These dating game fans may create illusionary factors but the coaches and owners know better. If your stats are there, you stay and maybe get a raise. If the stats are not there you are gone. If the often bastard owners or general managers know anything, they know the bottom line. If team chemistry, with rare exceptions, was much of a factor, you wouldn't find massive migration of players from team to team. Terrell Owens is a good case in point. Those who hate Terrell Owens have for years been claiming he is a poison pill, disruptive to the point of incapacitating the performance of others on the team----popular sport commentators have insisted he be banned from the sport and on and on it goes. He is 36 years old, in 2nd place in general stats for wide receivers in the NFL record book, every team he has been on has had a winning record, every team he has left has done worse after he left, and he remains one of the top paid receivers in football. So from the record, on what basis is he a poison pill let alone be banned from the sport? Banned for what? Asking to be paid for his level of performance? Demanding the ball be thrown to him a lot? Not letting others interfere with his own conditioning and training program? Expressing his own opinion about a position he knows better than most anyone in football and has the stats to prove it? No, it all boils down to the dating game. His focus on himself, regardless of the results he gets from it, annoys the hell out of some people, angers them to the point of rage, and if his team doesn't win the Super Bowl the solution, to them, is to get rid of Terrell Owens. It is hard to remember the last season Owens has not gotten at least 1000 yards and been in the top five in number of touchdowns, regardless of the quarterback. Strange, but there are a lot of great football players who have never won a Superbowl ring---the Hall of Fame is cluttered with them. There are 32 teams in the league. One person, if not a quarterback, cannot, by themselves put any team in the Superbowl. Even Donovan couldn't do it without T.O. With T.O. he did.
Thus, the dating game, outside of romance, is bad way to select the best politicians, the best athletes, the best administrators, etc. Results matter. They really do. NEVERTHELESS, all of us are entitled to like who we like. I think I excel here and have no prejudices. I hate everyone. That levels the playing field and is the ultimate in fairness.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Misdirected Anger
Misdirected Anger
The email forwarded here was sent to me. I have a different take on the meaning of it all. (Now I can't locate the email. It was a video of Muslims in Britain screaming death threats to non Muslims and demanding all sorts of things).
The last time I saw these kind of hate signs and rhetoric goes back to the 60's and the Black Panthers. I felt then, the way this email is supposed to make Americans or Canadians feel today----really angry.
I guess I start with the belief that human qualities of kindness, justice, cooperation, tolerance, etc. are qualities existent to about the same degree in all humans of all ethnic ilk. I also have learned to regret that religious extremists of all ilk tend to bring out the worst in human nature.
Back in the 60's my anger at the Black Panthers and black demonstrations in general was coupled with my first exposure to teaching in a University with a large component of blacks. In fact the first two years the University was located in the worst section of Chicago in buildings that duplicated the movie Blackboard Jungle. To say I was on edge was an understatement. To say the students were on edge was an understatement.
I suspect all the turmoil came to a head in the 60's because Television made it possible for all people everywhere in the country to become aware of how others lived. When I was growing up there was a sizable black population in my town but they may as well have lived on Mars. I knew they existed but that is about the sum of it. And it was probably vice-versa. Much of the angry conflict prevalent across the globe is probably of the same nature---as modern communication makes more and more people aware of how others live, more and more anger and conflict becomes generated.
At any rate the Black Panthers may have forced everyone's attention, but the average blacks I faced in the classroom were good persons---reasonable, fair, and honest---BUT, now they had a more hardened sense of hope and expectations. And I, well aware of the tension, had a heightened sense of pressure to evaluate everything I did in terms of fairness and opportunity. In other words, the extremism and hatred of the Black Panther demonstrations and speeches forced all sides to recognize a problem existed and forced the more reasonable people to address legitimate issues.
These Muslim extremists are the Black Panthers of the Muslim world. It is no more logical to claim all Muslims are extremists than to say all blacks are Black Panthers. It is as necessary to realize the Muslim extremists are not without legitimate issues as it was to realize the Black Panthers brought to the surface legitimate issues. These screaming hate filled Muslims are no more the solution than the Black Panthers were the solution. The solution, as always, is to be found among the less radical, less emotional, fair minded, more tolerant population on both sides---those with no braces on their brains.
As a general rule when sizable groups of people gather with such a level of anger and threats of death to others, beneath it all there are invariably legitimate grievances. Another general rule is that solutions can only be arrived at by attempting to view the issues at hand through the eyes of the protesters. Finally, one must distinguish between conflicts based on beliefs and conflicts based on injustice. People who are just trying to shove their beliefs down someone else's throat will be the most difficult population with which to deal. We already know that with issues like abortion, gay rights, prayers in schools, etc. To this day I can't really claim any simple way to instill in all citizens the importance of leaving religious beliefs out of politics. No one should be forced to follow the religious beliefs of another.
The basis for resolving the kind of conflict evidenced in such hostile and threatening demonstrations is always to get the root problems on the table and each side apply the golden rule. When each side is prepared to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, justice and peace can be achieved. The Golden Rule is why slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, schools were desegregated, job opportunities were made a more level field, etc.
In the case of Muslim anger it probably starts with Non-Muslim interference in Muslim countries. After all it is only non Muslim countries invading Muslim countries. I am trying to think of any Muslim country which has invaded a Non Muslim country in this modern Age. I think there are cases in Africa where Muslim populations within a country have been genocidal toward non-Muslim populations as well as vice-versa. There is, of course, the Muslim attack on the World Trade Center Towers. But this gets a bit complicated in that Al Queda was formed originally to oppose American Military bases in Saudi Arabia. Almost all the hijackers were Arabians and most of the money to sustain Al Queda-like groups across the world has come from wealthy Arabians. Arabia has always played both sides of the turmoil. I suppose, if I were a Muslim, I would feel that non-Muslims are the ones interfering in Muslim countries and that Muslim countries have not invaded non-Muslim countries or established military bases in non-Muslim countries, etc.
After this the picture gets quite complicated. There is little individual freedom in Muslim countries and they spend an inordinate amount of energy killing each other, persecuting each other, while corrupt deadly religious gangs vie endlessly for control and power over others. As a result many Muslims move abroad for safety and economic reasons. The Iraq War, for example, has produced over a million Iraqi refugees who are homeless and have fled the country for their own safety. Who wants these refugees in their country? No one. When you are not welcomed any place---for legitimate or non legitimate reasons----you will have a hard time getting employment, getting a good education, and will end up living in ghettoes. And who do they blame for their misery? If the refugees are from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, etc, then the the blame most often is directed at the non-Muslim invading country. After all, they used to have a home, schools, a job, a community---now they have nothing. We, of course, prefer to talk about individual freedom, despotic rulers, democracy, and our own economic necessities.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly when this country decided to get so involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Certainly the founding fathers, almost to a man, warned us against getting involved in the affairs of other countries. Part of our misdirected mentality was the 'wild west', a long period in our history when guns and violence ruled local law enforcement. We have a long history of being 'gun nuts'. Then the youth of our democracy and our sparsely populated country rich in natural resources generated a notion of manifest destiny----the idea that we had all these riches and opportunities for success because God favored our nation over others. With such rapid success came, as always comes with such rapid success, a certain amount of arrogance, feelings of superiority, bullying, and exploitation. Human nature is human nature and were the roles reversed it would all go down the same way.
Of course if everybody followed the Golden Rule it really would make little difference what kind of religion or form of government reigned anywhere. Unfortunately, reality reigns and a lot of ifs serve merely as an exercise in pipe dreaming. The big picture in evolutionary history demonstrates endless upward progress in complexity of life and living, but evolutionary history has shown no mercy to any species unable to cope with the environment of it's time and place. Humans have always invented Gods of some sort, always a God who thinks like us and, with the proper worship, will intervene in our lives to make our own individual lives better. History and observation refutes this mentality. All advanced human civilizations have self destructed. It has always been some sort of combination of environmental abuse or catastrophe, an extended military empire too expensive to maintain, and an amassment of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.
The difference today is human overpopulation of the globe. Adding this to the mix and it really seems evident that this is our Achilles Heel. We may in some sense be brighter than rabbits, but like rabbits we produce in the same fashion, and this irresponsible reproduction is destroying our environment, creating terrorism all over the globe as people compete for dwindling resources including land, food, water, shelter, health care, etc. Our impact on other species is so devastating now that species extinction rates are at a level unseen in millions of years. These pictures of enraged Muslims can easily be interchanged with enraged groups of people of different ilks all over the globe. Our anger is pretty much always directed at victims these days. And these victims of human overpopulation are all over the place. Ours is a relatively new country and is not yet in the dire straits of overpopulation seen in other parts of the globe. Even with dwindling natural resources we have the power, for now, to simply take what we need by force. But the limits of our power to do this are becoming increasingly evident. With all our sophisticated and deadly weapons we can't conquer and control the weakest of countries anymore---like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, etc. We can conquer, but we can't make their lives better and in fact, our attempts to do so is so expensive that our own domestic needs are coming up short on cash to help the unfortunate in our own country.
Most people know, at some level, that we are overrunning the planet. But we simply cannot seriously talk about it. We have Presidential debates ad-nausea and no one---no one---talks about it. Up until recently our policies were such that we could not even give foreign aid to help any country with birth control measures. And controlled family planning is an automatic no-no.
At any rate, I don't look at hate-filled mobs screaming hate filled comments toward those who they blame for their fates, and feel hatred toward them. Rather, I feel saddened that we live in a world where so many are trapped in lives of desperation and injustice. I can't recall, off-hand, any time when an ethnic or religious group ever displayed such hate and anger when some sort of injustice was not taking place toward them. Fate has been kind to me and I live in the best available circumstances for these times. It is not a question of 'there but for the grace of God goes I". I am not one who sees God as One Who chooses who gets what fate or a God meddling in such a way as to make life better for selected deserving followers of some inherited religion. God created the evolutionary process---a process which gave me the chance, by luck, not divine intervention, to be a part of this process. The sanctity of life is defined by this evolutionary process, not individual fates in the process. Humans were not the first species nor is there any reason to conclude we will be the last species. There is not even any assurance we as a species will survive. LIfe is a continuum and changes over time spans beyond our real comprehension---millions of years. I would genuinely like to be more self important to the process, and not myself become extinct through death. Life after death seems a real stretch, but then so does evolutionary history. In the end, whatever will be, will be, and the result be controlled by the God created laws of evolution. I think when one sees the bigger picture it is hard to hate those whose lives are such, that were I to mingle with them in their environment, they would do me harm.
As always, as the real solution to conflict, lies the Golden Rule coupled with Live and Let Live. We have the tools, but not always the will power. The question is not "how dare them express such hate" but what injustices exist in their lives to bring them to such a state of anger?
The email forwarded here was sent to me. I have a different take on the meaning of it all. (Now I can't locate the email. It was a video of Muslims in Britain screaming death threats to non Muslims and demanding all sorts of things).
The last time I saw these kind of hate signs and rhetoric goes back to the 60's and the Black Panthers. I felt then, the way this email is supposed to make Americans or Canadians feel today----really angry.
I guess I start with the belief that human qualities of kindness, justice, cooperation, tolerance, etc. are qualities existent to about the same degree in all humans of all ethnic ilk. I also have learned to regret that religious extremists of all ilk tend to bring out the worst in human nature.
Back in the 60's my anger at the Black Panthers and black demonstrations in general was coupled with my first exposure to teaching in a University with a large component of blacks. In fact the first two years the University was located in the worst section of Chicago in buildings that duplicated the movie Blackboard Jungle. To say I was on edge was an understatement. To say the students were on edge was an understatement.
I suspect all the turmoil came to a head in the 60's because Television made it possible for all people everywhere in the country to become aware of how others lived. When I was growing up there was a sizable black population in my town but they may as well have lived on Mars. I knew they existed but that is about the sum of it. And it was probably vice-versa. Much of the angry conflict prevalent across the globe is probably of the same nature---as modern communication makes more and more people aware of how others live, more and more anger and conflict becomes generated.
At any rate the Black Panthers may have forced everyone's attention, but the average blacks I faced in the classroom were good persons---reasonable, fair, and honest---BUT, now they had a more hardened sense of hope and expectations. And I, well aware of the tension, had a heightened sense of pressure to evaluate everything I did in terms of fairness and opportunity. In other words, the extremism and hatred of the Black Panther demonstrations and speeches forced all sides to recognize a problem existed and forced the more reasonable people to address legitimate issues.
These Muslim extremists are the Black Panthers of the Muslim world. It is no more logical to claim all Muslims are extremists than to say all blacks are Black Panthers. It is as necessary to realize the Muslim extremists are not without legitimate issues as it was to realize the Black Panthers brought to the surface legitimate issues. These screaming hate filled Muslims are no more the solution than the Black Panthers were the solution. The solution, as always, is to be found among the less radical, less emotional, fair minded, more tolerant population on both sides---those with no braces on their brains.
As a general rule when sizable groups of people gather with such a level of anger and threats of death to others, beneath it all there are invariably legitimate grievances. Another general rule is that solutions can only be arrived at by attempting to view the issues at hand through the eyes of the protesters. Finally, one must distinguish between conflicts based on beliefs and conflicts based on injustice. People who are just trying to shove their beliefs down someone else's throat will be the most difficult population with which to deal. We already know that with issues like abortion, gay rights, prayers in schools, etc. To this day I can't really claim any simple way to instill in all citizens the importance of leaving religious beliefs out of politics. No one should be forced to follow the religious beliefs of another.
The basis for resolving the kind of conflict evidenced in such hostile and threatening demonstrations is always to get the root problems on the table and each side apply the golden rule. When each side is prepared to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, justice and peace can be achieved. The Golden Rule is why slavery was abolished, women got the right to vote, schools were desegregated, job opportunities were made a more level field, etc.
In the case of Muslim anger it probably starts with Non-Muslim interference in Muslim countries. After all it is only non Muslim countries invading Muslim countries. I am trying to think of any Muslim country which has invaded a Non Muslim country in this modern Age. I think there are cases in Africa where Muslim populations within a country have been genocidal toward non-Muslim populations as well as vice-versa. There is, of course, the Muslim attack on the World Trade Center Towers. But this gets a bit complicated in that Al Queda was formed originally to oppose American Military bases in Saudi Arabia. Almost all the hijackers were Arabians and most of the money to sustain Al Queda-like groups across the world has come from wealthy Arabians. Arabia has always played both sides of the turmoil. I suppose, if I were a Muslim, I would feel that non-Muslims are the ones interfering in Muslim countries and that Muslim countries have not invaded non-Muslim countries or established military bases in non-Muslim countries, etc.
After this the picture gets quite complicated. There is little individual freedom in Muslim countries and they spend an inordinate amount of energy killing each other, persecuting each other, while corrupt deadly religious gangs vie endlessly for control and power over others. As a result many Muslims move abroad for safety and economic reasons. The Iraq War, for example, has produced over a million Iraqi refugees who are homeless and have fled the country for their own safety. Who wants these refugees in their country? No one. When you are not welcomed any place---for legitimate or non legitimate reasons----you will have a hard time getting employment, getting a good education, and will end up living in ghettoes. And who do they blame for their misery? If the refugees are from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, etc, then the the blame most often is directed at the non-Muslim invading country. After all, they used to have a home, schools, a job, a community---now they have nothing. We, of course, prefer to talk about individual freedom, despotic rulers, democracy, and our own economic necessities.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly when this country decided to get so involved in the internal affairs of other countries. Certainly the founding fathers, almost to a man, warned us against getting involved in the affairs of other countries. Part of our misdirected mentality was the 'wild west', a long period in our history when guns and violence ruled local law enforcement. We have a long history of being 'gun nuts'. Then the youth of our democracy and our sparsely populated country rich in natural resources generated a notion of manifest destiny----the idea that we had all these riches and opportunities for success because God favored our nation over others. With such rapid success came, as always comes with such rapid success, a certain amount of arrogance, feelings of superiority, bullying, and exploitation. Human nature is human nature and were the roles reversed it would all go down the same way.
Of course if everybody followed the Golden Rule it really would make little difference what kind of religion or form of government reigned anywhere. Unfortunately, reality reigns and a lot of ifs serve merely as an exercise in pipe dreaming. The big picture in evolutionary history demonstrates endless upward progress in complexity of life and living, but evolutionary history has shown no mercy to any species unable to cope with the environment of it's time and place. Humans have always invented Gods of some sort, always a God who thinks like us and, with the proper worship, will intervene in our lives to make our own individual lives better. History and observation refutes this mentality. All advanced human civilizations have self destructed. It has always been some sort of combination of environmental abuse or catastrophe, an extended military empire too expensive to maintain, and an amassment of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.
The difference today is human overpopulation of the globe. Adding this to the mix and it really seems evident that this is our Achilles Heel. We may in some sense be brighter than rabbits, but like rabbits we produce in the same fashion, and this irresponsible reproduction is destroying our environment, creating terrorism all over the globe as people compete for dwindling resources including land, food, water, shelter, health care, etc. Our impact on other species is so devastating now that species extinction rates are at a level unseen in millions of years. These pictures of enraged Muslims can easily be interchanged with enraged groups of people of different ilks all over the globe. Our anger is pretty much always directed at victims these days. And these victims of human overpopulation are all over the place. Ours is a relatively new country and is not yet in the dire straits of overpopulation seen in other parts of the globe. Even with dwindling natural resources we have the power, for now, to simply take what we need by force. But the limits of our power to do this are becoming increasingly evident. With all our sophisticated and deadly weapons we can't conquer and control the weakest of countries anymore---like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, etc. We can conquer, but we can't make their lives better and in fact, our attempts to do so is so expensive that our own domestic needs are coming up short on cash to help the unfortunate in our own country.
Most people know, at some level, that we are overrunning the planet. But we simply cannot seriously talk about it. We have Presidential debates ad-nausea and no one---no one---talks about it. Up until recently our policies were such that we could not even give foreign aid to help any country with birth control measures. And controlled family planning is an automatic no-no.
At any rate, I don't look at hate-filled mobs screaming hate filled comments toward those who they blame for their fates, and feel hatred toward them. Rather, I feel saddened that we live in a world where so many are trapped in lives of desperation and injustice. I can't recall, off-hand, any time when an ethnic or religious group ever displayed such hate and anger when some sort of injustice was not taking place toward them. Fate has been kind to me and I live in the best available circumstances for these times. It is not a question of 'there but for the grace of God goes I". I am not one who sees God as One Who chooses who gets what fate or a God meddling in such a way as to make life better for selected deserving followers of some inherited religion. God created the evolutionary process---a process which gave me the chance, by luck, not divine intervention, to be a part of this process. The sanctity of life is defined by this evolutionary process, not individual fates in the process. Humans were not the first species nor is there any reason to conclude we will be the last species. There is not even any assurance we as a species will survive. LIfe is a continuum and changes over time spans beyond our real comprehension---millions of years. I would genuinely like to be more self important to the process, and not myself become extinct through death. Life after death seems a real stretch, but then so does evolutionary history. In the end, whatever will be, will be, and the result be controlled by the God created laws of evolution. I think when one sees the bigger picture it is hard to hate those whose lives are such, that were I to mingle with them in their environment, they would do me harm.
As always, as the real solution to conflict, lies the Golden Rule coupled with Live and Let Live. We have the tools, but not always the will power. The question is not "how dare them express such hate" but what injustices exist in their lives to bring them to such a state of anger?
Clear the Air
Clear the Air
President Obama met with his Russian counterpart in Lisbon in a spontaneous attempt to clear up issues of contention. It was touted as quite successful. That's good. The meeting lasted 15-20 minutes. Well, world leaders are busy. That's probably 2 weeks in our own time. BUT---important issues can get cleared up in 15 minutes? Wow. When world leaders meet with the Pope those meetings are usually 15 minutes too. Given the speed at which aging Popes communicate, this seems more like a 5 minute meeting. But afterwards the press release always reports that they discussed world peace, world hunger, the economy, refugees, all the wars going on, terrorism, etc. Really now, isn't this a bit of a stretch? I am trying to think when any of these issues took a positive turn after any such a meeting. On NEw Year's Eve the Pope always prays for world peace. I kind of want someone else to pray for this next year, God doesn't seem to be listening too much to the Pope. I think maybe the Pope should switch his communication carrier.
In my life it often took hours for the simplest issues to be resolved at a meeting. Of course these weren't meetings between Heads of State, more a meeting of Air Heads. I think maybe we need one of these time express meetings between the leader of North Korea and the President of the U.S. Maybe add an extra minute, make it a 16 minute meeting. I would take the minutes: "You know, my good friend, if you stopped your program to have nuclear weapons, the world would be a more peaceful place and we could be best of friends." " I know, my friend, but Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons and look what happened to him. It seems he kind of needed them." "Well, the past is past, and you are so old and sickly that you get a pass. Let's make a deal, you stop trying to build weapons of mass destruction and we will stop invading sovereign foreign countries. We kind of need that money now for other things at home". "I see your point. Well if a huge statue of ME and MY SON soon to be President, can be erected in countries across the globe and the US build military bases in this country to ensure he cannot be overthrown, we have a deal." "Perfect my friend, we have that kind of deal with Saudi Arabia, the issue is done with. Our time is up, let's get the photo opp. and press release over with."
Ladies and Gentlemean: The leaders of North Korea and the U.S. met today to resolve important issues between the two countries. The issue of nuclear weapons programs in North Korea has been resolved. The meeting commenced at 1:00 PM and finished at 1:16 P.M.
President Obama met with his Russian counterpart in Lisbon in a spontaneous attempt to clear up issues of contention. It was touted as quite successful. That's good. The meeting lasted 15-20 minutes. Well, world leaders are busy. That's probably 2 weeks in our own time. BUT---important issues can get cleared up in 15 minutes? Wow. When world leaders meet with the Pope those meetings are usually 15 minutes too. Given the speed at which aging Popes communicate, this seems more like a 5 minute meeting. But afterwards the press release always reports that they discussed world peace, world hunger, the economy, refugees, all the wars going on, terrorism, etc. Really now, isn't this a bit of a stretch? I am trying to think when any of these issues took a positive turn after any such a meeting. On NEw Year's Eve the Pope always prays for world peace. I kind of want someone else to pray for this next year, God doesn't seem to be listening too much to the Pope. I think maybe the Pope should switch his communication carrier.
In my life it often took hours for the simplest issues to be resolved at a meeting. Of course these weren't meetings between Heads of State, more a meeting of Air Heads. I think maybe we need one of these time express meetings between the leader of North Korea and the President of the U.S. Maybe add an extra minute, make it a 16 minute meeting. I would take the minutes: "You know, my good friend, if you stopped your program to have nuclear weapons, the world would be a more peaceful place and we could be best of friends." " I know, my friend, but Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons and look what happened to him. It seems he kind of needed them." "Well, the past is past, and you are so old and sickly that you get a pass. Let's make a deal, you stop trying to build weapons of mass destruction and we will stop invading sovereign foreign countries. We kind of need that money now for other things at home". "I see your point. Well if a huge statue of ME and MY SON soon to be President, can be erected in countries across the globe and the US build military bases in this country to ensure he cannot be overthrown, we have a deal." "Perfect my friend, we have that kind of deal with Saudi Arabia, the issue is done with. Our time is up, let's get the photo opp. and press release over with."
Ladies and Gentlemean: The leaders of North Korea and the U.S. met today to resolve important issues between the two countries. The issue of nuclear weapons programs in North Korea has been resolved. The meeting commenced at 1:00 PM and finished at 1:16 P.M.
Kill the Messenger
Kill the Messenger
Why do some of the best amongst us get assassinated or persecuted? There must be a profound answer. Profound might be an illusionary word. What can the word possibly mean? Can anything be profound if the intelligence for it is absent? Where did God come from? Don't even think about being profound on this one. Why does God allow so much tragedy and cruelty to exist? Preachers try hard to be profound on this one but sound mostly silly and air-headed with their explanations. Try to be profound about sexual behavior and make a fool out of yourself. And so it goes on and on.
Beliefs I reckon are necessary for human hope and mental strength. If we can't have beliefs we lose the will to struggle for improving ourselves. The more emotional attachment to a belief the harder to let go. The religious right of any religion always dig in out of fear----fear that if all their beliefs are not true, who is to then say any of their beliefs are true? Civil rights and justice of most any kind has to overcome human beliefs which see no injustice. It is the leaders of such crusades for human rights and justice who run the risk of being assassinated or persecuted. We know full well why Lincoln was shot, why Martin Luther King was shot, why Harvey Milk was shot, etc. Others less famous were just ostracized, fined, defrocked, or jailed. In most cases of ethical advancement in search of 'justice for all' some individuals pay for their part in such advancement with their lives. There is no profound answer. That's why this musing is so short.
Why do some of the best amongst us get assassinated or persecuted? There must be a profound answer. Profound might be an illusionary word. What can the word possibly mean? Can anything be profound if the intelligence for it is absent? Where did God come from? Don't even think about being profound on this one. Why does God allow so much tragedy and cruelty to exist? Preachers try hard to be profound on this one but sound mostly silly and air-headed with their explanations. Try to be profound about sexual behavior and make a fool out of yourself. And so it goes on and on.
Beliefs I reckon are necessary for human hope and mental strength. If we can't have beliefs we lose the will to struggle for improving ourselves. The more emotional attachment to a belief the harder to let go. The religious right of any religion always dig in out of fear----fear that if all their beliefs are not true, who is to then say any of their beliefs are true? Civil rights and justice of most any kind has to overcome human beliefs which see no injustice. It is the leaders of such crusades for human rights and justice who run the risk of being assassinated or persecuted. We know full well why Lincoln was shot, why Martin Luther King was shot, why Harvey Milk was shot, etc. Others less famous were just ostracized, fined, defrocked, or jailed. In most cases of ethical advancement in search of 'justice for all' some individuals pay for their part in such advancement with their lives. There is no profound answer. That's why this musing is so short.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
MORAL CONSEQUENCES
Moral Consequences:
Morality has been a subject much on my mind most of my life. Of course right and wrong are front and center, but what always follows are the consequences of immoral behavior. Like most people I inherited a religion and believed in it when young much as a child believes in Santa Claus. For me, the more I got exposed to a wider world, a world so much more diverse and expansive than my own tunnel visioned existence, organized inherited religions began to fit in less and less. The questions which arose were rather basic. Why would God pass on his directions for moral living through inheritance? Why are some people born with so many more advantages than others? If God is personally involved in our lives why can such awful tragedies happen to some who are so good and moral? If one steps back and looks at the whole world as we can perceive it, one realizes human understanding is hopelessly limited. Why are we always trying to create a God that is on our level of comprehension, Who thinks like us, Who is constantly judging and either punishing or rewarding us? Why do we create so many silly ass rituals to prove our devotion to the Creator? Why do we feel a need to be so rigid about our religious beliefs? And the questions go on and on. For me, when the questions piled up past a certain critical level, it became time to rethink what morality and ethics really is, and what the consequences of doing wrong really are.
Whatever ethics really is, for it to be universal it can't be complicated, it can't require some sort of college degree, and it has to be universally applicable everywhere humans exist. Does God exist? If someone gives you a gift anonymously, the existence of the gift proves the existence of giver. So God exists or at least did exist. I suppose one could postulate he has since died. We know enough about the evolution of life on our planet to understand a good deal about the laws of evolution, how life is a continuum and has evolved over eons of time into more and more complicated organisms. Who created this evolutionary process? It certainly is no human creation and this non human creator I call God. It certainly is an awe inspiring process. There is no evidence God is ever tinkering with the process by negating the very laws which drive the process. On this basis I find it a bit irrational to think I can, through any kind of altered behavior on my part, get God to exempt me here and there from the laws of evolution. If I have terminal cancer I am going to die and God is not going to interfere. If I am plain looking, I am plain looking and God is not going to physically alter my appearance no matter how many rituals I go through or how often I praise God, etc. And it seems a bit egotistic to feel God guided a particular sperm to a particular egg so I could exist. The evolutionary process enabled me to exist, not by divine intervention, but by the laws of God's created evolutionary process. My whole life is governed by these laws, not by Divine intervention for me to pass a school test, score a touchdown on a team, fall in love with the right person, etc. I don't appreciate God less because he doesn't tinker with the laws he created to drive the evolutionary process.
Assuming the above is true, where does this leave ethics and morality in God's evolutionary process? Does this leave hedonism and selfishness as a behavior as good as any other? Is there really and right and wrong, or just immutable evolutionary laws which are always the deciding forces? Why should others count at all, we are all dead in the long run. The fault in this thinking lies in viewing evolution as a purely physical process. As this process evolved mental capacities also evolved. Of course an amoeba or frog doesn't have any concept of right and wrong. That does not mean humans do not have such a concept. And of course we do because we talk about right and wrong and lot. Right and wrong is a mental function which logically continues to evolve with the evolutionary process. Why would we postulate this particular mental function not be an evolving function? Right and wrong today may not be at the same level as right and wrong in earlier times. Slavery may have been considered right in the past, but today it is more universally considered wrong. There are myriad examples of things that were considered right in the past which are generally considered wrong today---child labor abuses, women's rights, ethnic rights, sexual rights, etc. Because of the nature of evolution, right and wrong is not an absolute, but an evolving concept.
Next we have to understand the nature of this mental process which determines right from wrong. It seems humans have an innate sense of right and wrong which is depicted in the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Perhaps it started off rather simply, a kind of "if you are kind to me I won't kill you". And then over time, it just keeps expanding. At some point you get: "Okay I am male and you are female but you can vote too."Or. "You are black and I am white but you can sit next to me on the bus". Today it may be reflected in "Okay, I can marry any adult of my choice so you can too". Right and wrong is evolving just like other aspects of evolution keep evolving.
But wait, what is the reward for doing right instead of doing wrong? Many religions have invented a Heaven, a reward after death. I say invented because this is not something for which we have any proof or even a logical basis. Neither can we dismiss it. After all, we can't conceive how life exists so how can be deny the possibility of some sort of life after death. But, one might say, "If there is no Heaven why should anyone make any effort to do right rather than wrong? " I suppose one could do right instead of wrong just to cover one's ass in case there is a Heaven. But it is also possible that doing right instead of wrong has it's own immediate reward in terms of personal contentment.
Personal contentment is the goal of any individual's life. I find (which does not make it a fact) that real personal contentment is achieved via living the Golden Rule. It seems to me that those who follow the Golden Rule end up contented----up to a point. If you are homeless, without food, without a safe environment, etc. then of course you cannot be contented. HOWEVER, the responsibility for this condition resides with others. In the evolutionary process there is no level playing field. For humans, bestowed genetically with mental acumen and a sense of ethics, it is ethical duty which is needed to level the playing field. OF COURSE we cannot level the playing field, but we can make it more level. There is no real reason why anyone on earth should go without food, have no home, and not live in a safe environment. It is the actions of some who make this impossible. These are the people who believe (they really do) that they have 'earned' their blessings and those without can do so the old fashioned way---"earn it". It makes little logical sense for the fastest runner in a race to tell those finishing way back in the pack, that they too could win races if they would just train like he/she does. Clearly being able to win races is a non essential part of life, but having food to eat, a home to live in, and a secure environment is another story.
I don't think one can really be content until others count as much as we ourselves do. Jesus and most other prophets from diverse religious sects all put sharing on the front burner. Those who have more need share with those who have less. Unfortunately, many people reduce this to simply those who have more need give a small portion of their excess to others. Sometimes the other is the Church itself which is notoriously an inefficient way to get any real help to those in need. The overhead for any particular church is very high. NO, the Golden Rule does not mean give a little of your excess. Arbitrarily, in my own mind, it means that you give until you are giving as much to others as you give to yourself. Every penny that you spend on yourself that is not a basic need ought to be matched by a penny given to others in need---in the most direct way possible. Since I have started doing this my level of contentment has risen in my life. Duty done is the genesis of contentment. Of course, the question arises----what about in your younger years when you are trying so hard to make a career work and need any excess to invest in building for your future? This seems a valid question. I think an early concept to master is that enough is as good as a feast. For example, one can spend $20,000 to get a decent car to get you from place to place, or one may really want a $40,000 car because well, because you just want the $40,000 car for one reason or another. And that extra $20,000 is all the extra money you really have to spend. Fine, so you buy a $30,000/yr car this time around and give $10,000 to charity. As your career progresses you may be able to afford the $40,000 car and give $20,000 to charity. It really boils down to contentment versus the 'rat race'. Have you ever known anyone competing in the 'rat race' to really be happy? I haven't.
I think the above principle is valid, but the specific application will vary from individual to individual. The next problem is what to do about building a nest egg in case you need it in the future? That is perfectly fine providing one accepts literally what the purpose of a nest egg is. It is okay to say one is not going to give every excess to the poor and not put some in a nest egg for health emergencies etc. in the future. BUT, the intent can't switch down the road. That is, when one dies that entire nest egg goes to charity, not to your kids or relatives etc. NOWHERE, in any religion of which I am aware, is it written that your obligation is not to those in need but to pass on wealth to your kids. The same principle applies: others mean as much as your own kids. If one thinks God finds their family a special favorite of God, this to me, is simply irrational and self serving. I cannot imagine on what basis God would single out ME and designate me special for any reason. This would really be a stretch and some sort or crazy perception on my part, or anyone else's part who would think that way about themselves.
We all know what invariably happens with these nest eggs. As the parent gets older the siblings all start considering how much of that nest egg they might get. I thought the American way for for individuals was to earn their own way in life, if they have the ability to do so. Of course if one of your children is handicapped, retarded or a cripple of some sort, they then become one of those 'others' in need. Most kids are not handicapped. Somehow, we have created a culture in which siblings think they have a right to any nest egg at the end. I have a nest egg, and I generate contentment from it knowing that it will go to those in need at the end. Modern day 'family values' is nothing more than self serving notions about genetic relationships, an excuse to let those in real need be left to suffer. More families end up not speaking to each other over inheritance matters than probably any other aspect of family life. GREED, writ large, shows---writ large---it's ugly head in these cases. The world is full of people who inherit large sums of money and then act like they 'earned it'. The wealth that one is fortunate enough, for whatever reason, to accumulate during one's life must, via the Golden Rule, be put back into the society from which it came.
At any rate, there are moral consequences here on earth, and they relate to our degree of contentment. One can be expansive in their outlook towards others or one can circle the wagons, and live their lives as one long 'us vs them', the us being some sort of genetic cabal. And many actually believe God, whatever they envision Him to be, is going to reward them for such behavior. That seems a stretch to me. To paraphrase Lincoln, "Let us have faith that doing right generates contentment, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."
Morality has been a subject much on my mind most of my life. Of course right and wrong are front and center, but what always follows are the consequences of immoral behavior. Like most people I inherited a religion and believed in it when young much as a child believes in Santa Claus. For me, the more I got exposed to a wider world, a world so much more diverse and expansive than my own tunnel visioned existence, organized inherited religions began to fit in less and less. The questions which arose were rather basic. Why would God pass on his directions for moral living through inheritance? Why are some people born with so many more advantages than others? If God is personally involved in our lives why can such awful tragedies happen to some who are so good and moral? If one steps back and looks at the whole world as we can perceive it, one realizes human understanding is hopelessly limited. Why are we always trying to create a God that is on our level of comprehension, Who thinks like us, Who is constantly judging and either punishing or rewarding us? Why do we create so many silly ass rituals to prove our devotion to the Creator? Why do we feel a need to be so rigid about our religious beliefs? And the questions go on and on. For me, when the questions piled up past a certain critical level, it became time to rethink what morality and ethics really is, and what the consequences of doing wrong really are.
Whatever ethics really is, for it to be universal it can't be complicated, it can't require some sort of college degree, and it has to be universally applicable everywhere humans exist. Does God exist? If someone gives you a gift anonymously, the existence of the gift proves the existence of giver. So God exists or at least did exist. I suppose one could postulate he has since died. We know enough about the evolution of life on our planet to understand a good deal about the laws of evolution, how life is a continuum and has evolved over eons of time into more and more complicated organisms. Who created this evolutionary process? It certainly is no human creation and this non human creator I call God. It certainly is an awe inspiring process. There is no evidence God is ever tinkering with the process by negating the very laws which drive the process. On this basis I find it a bit irrational to think I can, through any kind of altered behavior on my part, get God to exempt me here and there from the laws of evolution. If I have terminal cancer I am going to die and God is not going to interfere. If I am plain looking, I am plain looking and God is not going to physically alter my appearance no matter how many rituals I go through or how often I praise God, etc. And it seems a bit egotistic to feel God guided a particular sperm to a particular egg so I could exist. The evolutionary process enabled me to exist, not by divine intervention, but by the laws of God's created evolutionary process. My whole life is governed by these laws, not by Divine intervention for me to pass a school test, score a touchdown on a team, fall in love with the right person, etc. I don't appreciate God less because he doesn't tinker with the laws he created to drive the evolutionary process.
Assuming the above is true, where does this leave ethics and morality in God's evolutionary process? Does this leave hedonism and selfishness as a behavior as good as any other? Is there really and right and wrong, or just immutable evolutionary laws which are always the deciding forces? Why should others count at all, we are all dead in the long run. The fault in this thinking lies in viewing evolution as a purely physical process. As this process evolved mental capacities also evolved. Of course an amoeba or frog doesn't have any concept of right and wrong. That does not mean humans do not have such a concept. And of course we do because we talk about right and wrong and lot. Right and wrong is a mental function which logically continues to evolve with the evolutionary process. Why would we postulate this particular mental function not be an evolving function? Right and wrong today may not be at the same level as right and wrong in earlier times. Slavery may have been considered right in the past, but today it is more universally considered wrong. There are myriad examples of things that were considered right in the past which are generally considered wrong today---child labor abuses, women's rights, ethnic rights, sexual rights, etc. Because of the nature of evolution, right and wrong is not an absolute, but an evolving concept.
Next we have to understand the nature of this mental process which determines right from wrong. It seems humans have an innate sense of right and wrong which is depicted in the Golden Rule---do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Perhaps it started off rather simply, a kind of "if you are kind to me I won't kill you". And then over time, it just keeps expanding. At some point you get: "Okay I am male and you are female but you can vote too."Or. "You are black and I am white but you can sit next to me on the bus". Today it may be reflected in "Okay, I can marry any adult of my choice so you can too". Right and wrong is evolving just like other aspects of evolution keep evolving.
But wait, what is the reward for doing right instead of doing wrong? Many religions have invented a Heaven, a reward after death. I say invented because this is not something for which we have any proof or even a logical basis. Neither can we dismiss it. After all, we can't conceive how life exists so how can be deny the possibility of some sort of life after death. But, one might say, "If there is no Heaven why should anyone make any effort to do right rather than wrong? " I suppose one could do right instead of wrong just to cover one's ass in case there is a Heaven. But it is also possible that doing right instead of wrong has it's own immediate reward in terms of personal contentment.
Personal contentment is the goal of any individual's life. I find (which does not make it a fact) that real personal contentment is achieved via living the Golden Rule. It seems to me that those who follow the Golden Rule end up contented----up to a point. If you are homeless, without food, without a safe environment, etc. then of course you cannot be contented. HOWEVER, the responsibility for this condition resides with others. In the evolutionary process there is no level playing field. For humans, bestowed genetically with mental acumen and a sense of ethics, it is ethical duty which is needed to level the playing field. OF COURSE we cannot level the playing field, but we can make it more level. There is no real reason why anyone on earth should go without food, have no home, and not live in a safe environment. It is the actions of some who make this impossible. These are the people who believe (they really do) that they have 'earned' their blessings and those without can do so the old fashioned way---"earn it". It makes little logical sense for the fastest runner in a race to tell those finishing way back in the pack, that they too could win races if they would just train like he/she does. Clearly being able to win races is a non essential part of life, but having food to eat, a home to live in, and a secure environment is another story.
I don't think one can really be content until others count as much as we ourselves do. Jesus and most other prophets from diverse religious sects all put sharing on the front burner. Those who have more need share with those who have less. Unfortunately, many people reduce this to simply those who have more need give a small portion of their excess to others. Sometimes the other is the Church itself which is notoriously an inefficient way to get any real help to those in need. The overhead for any particular church is very high. NO, the Golden Rule does not mean give a little of your excess. Arbitrarily, in my own mind, it means that you give until you are giving as much to others as you give to yourself. Every penny that you spend on yourself that is not a basic need ought to be matched by a penny given to others in need---in the most direct way possible. Since I have started doing this my level of contentment has risen in my life. Duty done is the genesis of contentment. Of course, the question arises----what about in your younger years when you are trying so hard to make a career work and need any excess to invest in building for your future? This seems a valid question. I think an early concept to master is that enough is as good as a feast. For example, one can spend $20,000 to get a decent car to get you from place to place, or one may really want a $40,000 car because well, because you just want the $40,000 car for one reason or another. And that extra $20,000 is all the extra money you really have to spend. Fine, so you buy a $30,000/yr car this time around and give $10,000 to charity. As your career progresses you may be able to afford the $40,000 car and give $20,000 to charity. It really boils down to contentment versus the 'rat race'. Have you ever known anyone competing in the 'rat race' to really be happy? I haven't.
I think the above principle is valid, but the specific application will vary from individual to individual. The next problem is what to do about building a nest egg in case you need it in the future? That is perfectly fine providing one accepts literally what the purpose of a nest egg is. It is okay to say one is not going to give every excess to the poor and not put some in a nest egg for health emergencies etc. in the future. BUT, the intent can't switch down the road. That is, when one dies that entire nest egg goes to charity, not to your kids or relatives etc. NOWHERE, in any religion of which I am aware, is it written that your obligation is not to those in need but to pass on wealth to your kids. The same principle applies: others mean as much as your own kids. If one thinks God finds their family a special favorite of God, this to me, is simply irrational and self serving. I cannot imagine on what basis God would single out ME and designate me special for any reason. This would really be a stretch and some sort or crazy perception on my part, or anyone else's part who would think that way about themselves.
We all know what invariably happens with these nest eggs. As the parent gets older the siblings all start considering how much of that nest egg they might get. I thought the American way for for individuals was to earn their own way in life, if they have the ability to do so. Of course if one of your children is handicapped, retarded or a cripple of some sort, they then become one of those 'others' in need. Most kids are not handicapped. Somehow, we have created a culture in which siblings think they have a right to any nest egg at the end. I have a nest egg, and I generate contentment from it knowing that it will go to those in need at the end. Modern day 'family values' is nothing more than self serving notions about genetic relationships, an excuse to let those in real need be left to suffer. More families end up not speaking to each other over inheritance matters than probably any other aspect of family life. GREED, writ large, shows---writ large---it's ugly head in these cases. The world is full of people who inherit large sums of money and then act like they 'earned it'. The wealth that one is fortunate enough, for whatever reason, to accumulate during one's life must, via the Golden Rule, be put back into the society from which it came.
At any rate, there are moral consequences here on earth, and they relate to our degree of contentment. One can be expansive in their outlook towards others or one can circle the wagons, and live their lives as one long 'us vs them', the us being some sort of genetic cabal. And many actually believe God, whatever they envision Him to be, is going to reward them for such behavior. That seems a stretch to me. To paraphrase Lincoln, "Let us have faith that doing right generates contentment, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."
Friday, November 19, 2010
Patriotism
Patriotism
I have never considered criticism to be lack of patriotism. Neither do right wing religious groups---for they criticize the loudest with the usual threats of hell, jail, or denial of human rights for their opposition. Then they charge anyone who refuses to cheer on their beliefs as being unpatriotic. Interesting. James Baldwin had it right: "I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
If "my country, right or wrong" is a requirement for patriotism than I am not much of a patriot. If believing my country has a special connection with God, then I am not much of a patriot. If believing God is on our side is a requirement for patriotism then I am not much of a patriot. If believing God gave America some sort of "manifest destiny' is a requirement for patriotism than I am not much of a patriot. I did not choose this country. Rather, I was lucky enough to be born and raised here. It is nothing I earned. I don't really view world politics as a contest to do God's will. I doubt God needs us to accomplish His will. Why we flatter ourselves with these notions escapes my credibility. My own belief is that God created the evolutionary process, a process which proceeds according to evolutionary laws and these laws run the show. All the praying in the world doesn't seem to ever alter any of these laws or the consequences of these laws.
I have an allegiance to my country much as I develop an allegiance to my parents or friends or any other entity of which I am voluntarily a part. The most admirable allegiance is to moral principles, in particular the Golden Rule. This ancient rule has permeated every moral system everywhere simply because it is an inherent quality of human thought. One has no need to argue the morality of the Golden Rule because it is logically self evident. It is indeed safe to judge most every hap-pence on the Golden Rule. It is not hard to admire and support those people and those countries which adhere closest to the Golden Rule. I would like my own country to be a leader in this regard. I would like my own behavior to be driven by the Golden Rule as the measure of right vs wrong.
This country has risen to be a powerful and successful country not so much because "we earned it", but because all the ingredients needed to be successful were right before us. Many of those who first populated our country did so because they were seeking more freedom and more justice, and they incorporated these desires into a Constitution. Not a perfect constitution but a good start, one which pointed us in the right direction. Early on white landowners had more rights than others---with time other groups began to get 'equal' rights and even today there are groups still seeking 'equal' rights.
I think patriotism is best applied to the Golden Rule. Duty towards one's country implies supporting those policies which enable your own country to adhere to the Golden Rule.
I have never considered criticism to be lack of patriotism. Neither do right wing religious groups---for they criticize the loudest with the usual threats of hell, jail, or denial of human rights for their opposition. Then they charge anyone who refuses to cheer on their beliefs as being unpatriotic. Interesting. James Baldwin had it right: "I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
If "my country, right or wrong" is a requirement for patriotism than I am not much of a patriot. If believing my country has a special connection with God, then I am not much of a patriot. If believing God is on our side is a requirement for patriotism then I am not much of a patriot. If believing God gave America some sort of "manifest destiny' is a requirement for patriotism than I am not much of a patriot. I did not choose this country. Rather, I was lucky enough to be born and raised here. It is nothing I earned. I don't really view world politics as a contest to do God's will. I doubt God needs us to accomplish His will. Why we flatter ourselves with these notions escapes my credibility. My own belief is that God created the evolutionary process, a process which proceeds according to evolutionary laws and these laws run the show. All the praying in the world doesn't seem to ever alter any of these laws or the consequences of these laws.
I have an allegiance to my country much as I develop an allegiance to my parents or friends or any other entity of which I am voluntarily a part. The most admirable allegiance is to moral principles, in particular the Golden Rule. This ancient rule has permeated every moral system everywhere simply because it is an inherent quality of human thought. One has no need to argue the morality of the Golden Rule because it is logically self evident. It is indeed safe to judge most every hap-pence on the Golden Rule. It is not hard to admire and support those people and those countries which adhere closest to the Golden Rule. I would like my own country to be a leader in this regard. I would like my own behavior to be driven by the Golden Rule as the measure of right vs wrong.
This country has risen to be a powerful and successful country not so much because "we earned it", but because all the ingredients needed to be successful were right before us. Many of those who first populated our country did so because they were seeking more freedom and more justice, and they incorporated these desires into a Constitution. Not a perfect constitution but a good start, one which pointed us in the right direction. Early on white landowners had more rights than others---with time other groups began to get 'equal' rights and even today there are groups still seeking 'equal' rights.
I think patriotism is best applied to the Golden Rule. Duty towards one's country implies supporting those policies which enable your own country to adhere to the Golden Rule.
NEVER
NEVER:
Never side with the greedy over those who would share
Never side with those who never know when enough is as good as a feast
Never side with Deceit over the Truth
Never side with the Cruel Over the Kind
Never side with injustice over justice
Never side with religious intolerance
Never side with any religion, any race, any country, any culture, any form of government, any ritual, any dogma over the Golden Rule
Never side with those who would make war for national pride, economic gain, religious intolerance, territorial gain, or political theory----in the end it is really about greed and intolerance.
Never side with the rich over the poor
Never support any policy which allows the wealthy to sequester wealth along genetic lines via tax loop holes, tax breaks, inheritance, tax shelters, and any other such legal thievery. In any just society each person is expected to earn their own way, and in the end to return such wealth extracted from society back into the society from which it came.
Never support any policy which enables the affluent to abuse workers via unlivable wages, poor schools, poor health care, poor pensions, poor vacation days, poor working conditions.
Never support the right of anyone anywhere to purchase goods made by slave labor.
Never support any law or any practice which pollutes or degrades the environment upon which all species depend for existence.
Never treat opinion as fact, either your own or someone else's.
Never accept inherited religion as the basis for your ethical behavior. Never create a God in your own image, never assume you or humans in general are the end point of God's created evolutionary process
Never chase wealth as the basis of contentment or you will be disappointed. Modest wealth is enough. It is as good as a feast.
Never view romantic love or friendship as a permanent state of mind. Times change, people change, circumstances change---interactions between people will always be in a state of flux with time. What tends to last, does; what does not is not binding on any of the parties. Live and let live is the duty which we all have toward relationships.
Never take for granted health, friendship, or Mother Nature. Each requires protection, foresight, and an active ongoing analysis.
Never leave no time for contemplation. A mind cluttered with daily 'noise' is a mind preoccupied with inconsequential and useless matters that breed unhappiness and discontent.
Never disrespect other species. They are our past, our forbearers, the link between the present and the past, while the basis for the future.
Never sweat the small stuff, in the end it is all small stuff.
Never side with the greedy over those who would share
Never side with those who never know when enough is as good as a feast
Never side with Deceit over the Truth
Never side with the Cruel Over the Kind
Never side with injustice over justice
Never side with religious intolerance
Never side with any religion, any race, any country, any culture, any form of government, any ritual, any dogma over the Golden Rule
Never side with those who would make war for national pride, economic gain, religious intolerance, territorial gain, or political theory----in the end it is really about greed and intolerance.
Never side with the rich over the poor
Never support any policy which allows the wealthy to sequester wealth along genetic lines via tax loop holes, tax breaks, inheritance, tax shelters, and any other such legal thievery. In any just society each person is expected to earn their own way, and in the end to return such wealth extracted from society back into the society from which it came.
Never support any policy which enables the affluent to abuse workers via unlivable wages, poor schools, poor health care, poor pensions, poor vacation days, poor working conditions.
Never support the right of anyone anywhere to purchase goods made by slave labor.
Never support any law or any practice which pollutes or degrades the environment upon which all species depend for existence.
Never treat opinion as fact, either your own or someone else's.
Never accept inherited religion as the basis for your ethical behavior. Never create a God in your own image, never assume you or humans in general are the end point of God's created evolutionary process
Never chase wealth as the basis of contentment or you will be disappointed. Modest wealth is enough. It is as good as a feast.
Never view romantic love or friendship as a permanent state of mind. Times change, people change, circumstances change---interactions between people will always be in a state of flux with time. What tends to last, does; what does not is not binding on any of the parties. Live and let live is the duty which we all have toward relationships.
Never take for granted health, friendship, or Mother Nature. Each requires protection, foresight, and an active ongoing analysis.
Never leave no time for contemplation. A mind cluttered with daily 'noise' is a mind preoccupied with inconsequential and useless matters that breed unhappiness and discontent.
Never disrespect other species. They are our past, our forbearers, the link between the present and the past, while the basis for the future.
Never sweat the small stuff, in the end it is all small stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)