Why doesn't Jesus like M&M's?
They keep falling through the holes in his hands. Happy Easter!
Sunday, April 12, 2009
The True Meaning of Easter
As we celebrate another Easter, let us stop for a minute to consider the true meaning of the holiday. It isn't about silly things like chocolate, eggs, rabbits, or Jesus. It's about Eastre, Germanic goddess of the dawn (though her name has many alternate spellings, such as Ostara).
What is essentially the month of April was called Eastre's month (Eoster-monath) by early Germanic people. April was a time of rebirth, when winter was overcome by spring. The rabbits had mad amounts of bunny-sex, and eggs would begin to appear in nests throughout the woods. Eastre symbolized not only the coming of spring, but the light of morning. She symbolized, above all, new beginnings.
Beyond this, we know little of this goddess or the worship associated with her. We know chocolate was a late addition, as this is a gift of the New World. It was not available to Europe until long after Christianity had wiped away nearly all memory of Eastre.
I like to celebrate the holiday by considering how important it is to tolerate the ideas of others. We could have been left with a rich collection of Germanic mythology to compliment what we have now (largely Greek, Roman, and Semitic). Instead, the need to suppress that which is different has left us with a holiday whose name provides more questions than answers.
I wish I could be around in a few hundred years when little Scientologists ask, "What's Christmas named for?"
What is essentially the month of April was called Eastre's month (Eoster-monath) by early Germanic people. April was a time of rebirth, when winter was overcome by spring. The rabbits had mad amounts of bunny-sex, and eggs would begin to appear in nests throughout the woods. Eastre symbolized not only the coming of spring, but the light of morning. She symbolized, above all, new beginnings.
Beyond this, we know little of this goddess or the worship associated with her. We know chocolate was a late addition, as this is a gift of the New World. It was not available to Europe until long after Christianity had wiped away nearly all memory of Eastre.
I like to celebrate the holiday by considering how important it is to tolerate the ideas of others. We could have been left with a rich collection of Germanic mythology to compliment what we have now (largely Greek, Roman, and Semitic). Instead, the need to suppress that which is different has left us with a holiday whose name provides more questions than answers.
I wish I could be around in a few hundred years when little Scientologists ask, "What's Christmas named for?"
Friday, April 10, 2009
Open Letter to American Schools
Dear School Administrator,
I realize the debate between creationism/intelligent design and evolution has gotten a lot of press, but I would like to call attention to a matter of equal, or perhaps greater, importance.
You see, I am not a Christian, but I believe faith should be favored over science. Religion is the the glue of society: it holds us together and gets us high.
I myself worship the Norse Gods, including Odin and Thor. It has come to my attention that schools across the country are teaching something called "plate tectonic theory." It erroneously states that earthquakes are the result of "plates" in the Earth's crust shifting.
This is most certainly not the case. You see, the truth has been known by my religion for centuries. Loki, the trickster god of fire, is tied up with the intestines of his son under the ground. There is a snake over him dripping venom, and Loki's wife holds a cup over his head. When the cup fills and she goes to empty it, the venom hits Loki in the face and he writhes in pain, causing earthquakes.
I would be most appreciative if equal time might be provided for my culture's teachings to be presented in science classes. Plate tectonics is only a theory, after all. Because it is not proven fact, any competing idea I come up with is equally valid (as is my understanding of the American education system).
In case you do not believe my religion is important to Americans, ask yourself what day of the week it is. Every business day is named after a god in our pantheon:
- Monday: Mani, the moon
- Tuesday: Tyr, the one-armed god of duelling
- Wednesday: Odin, the All-Father
- Thursday: Thor, god of thunder
- Friday: Frey, god of good weather
Thank you for your time, and may valkyries carry you on winged steed to Valhalla upon your death in glorious battle.
- Weirdbeard
I realize the debate between creationism/intelligent design and evolution has gotten a lot of press, but I would like to call attention to a matter of equal, or perhaps greater, importance.
You see, I am not a Christian, but I believe faith should be favored over science. Religion is the the glue of society: it holds us together and gets us high.
I myself worship the Norse Gods, including Odin and Thor. It has come to my attention that schools across the country are teaching something called "plate tectonic theory." It erroneously states that earthquakes are the result of "plates" in the Earth's crust shifting.
This is most certainly not the case. You see, the truth has been known by my religion for centuries. Loki, the trickster god of fire, is tied up with the intestines of his son under the ground. There is a snake over him dripping venom, and Loki's wife holds a cup over his head. When the cup fills and she goes to empty it, the venom hits Loki in the face and he writhes in pain, causing earthquakes.
I would be most appreciative if equal time might be provided for my culture's teachings to be presented in science classes. Plate tectonics is only a theory, after all. Because it is not proven fact, any competing idea I come up with is equally valid (as is my understanding of the American education system).
In case you do not believe my religion is important to Americans, ask yourself what day of the week it is. Every business day is named after a god in our pantheon:
- Monday: Mani, the moon
- Tuesday: Tyr, the one-armed god of duelling
- Wednesday: Odin, the All-Father
- Thursday: Thor, god of thunder
- Friday: Frey, god of good weather
Thank you for your time, and may valkyries carry you on winged steed to Valhalla upon your death in glorious battle.
- Weirdbeard
Liberals and Language
If you can't tell by my posts, I find language to be very interesting. I think it is important to carefully choose every word one uses. I also think understanding the origin of words can help shed light on how humanity thinks. While these actions can add new colors to the palette of language, some believe altering the way other people speak can change the way they think.
Conservatives do this effectively with euphemism. They aren’t “prisoners of war,” they’re “enemy combatants” (pesky Geneva Conventions). It’s not that consumer goods are less safe, there’s just “less government” thanks to “deregulation.” The private sector can treat you any way it wants, because only the government has to follow the constitution (and “big government” is scary to uneducated retards clutching guns in the night).
Liberals fail miserably at manipulating language. Many feel that if people would stop using offensive language, we'd all get along. Instead of controlling people’s minds, this forces people to use even more euphemistic language in order to communicate in a manner acceptable for liberals.
In short, liberal censorship (aka political correctness) has pushed conservative thought into the realm of the abstract. Meanwhile, liberals are stuck in the literal world fighting crusades against the use of masculine pronouns. Words like retard and fag are written about passionately as degrading our society.
This is all rubbish. The answer is not to censor, but to provide better alternatives. Rather than say a stupid film you just saw was retarded, say: “That movie was so christian.” Of course, most liberals are religious. So let’s try another one. If you see something really flamboyant (like a pink VW Beetle with a rainbow bumper sticker driven by a guy sporting a faux-hawk), remark how it’s conservative, or republican. Someone may point out these groups are against gays, but that shouldn’t stop you. Republicans have successfully convinced people that the word “elite” is a bad thing. Just trust me, you can get Americans to do anything if they see cool people do it first.
Of course, you could just use the neutral adjectives like “stupid” or “flamboyant.” However, if you do this, you won’t be adding anything to the language. Languages evolve over time, and if you do not help leave a mark on it, other people will. And no, asking the Pet Shop Boys to change their name is not helping. Damn liberals, their naïveté knows no bounds.
Conservatives do this effectively with euphemism. They aren’t “prisoners of war,” they’re “enemy combatants” (pesky Geneva Conventions). It’s not that consumer goods are less safe, there’s just “less government” thanks to “deregulation.” The private sector can treat you any way it wants, because only the government has to follow the constitution (and “big government” is scary to uneducated retards clutching guns in the night).
Liberals fail miserably at manipulating language. Many feel that if people would stop using offensive language, we'd all get along. Instead of controlling people’s minds, this forces people to use even more euphemistic language in order to communicate in a manner acceptable for liberals.
In short, liberal censorship (aka political correctness) has pushed conservative thought into the realm of the abstract. Meanwhile, liberals are stuck in the literal world fighting crusades against the use of masculine pronouns. Words like retard and fag are written about passionately as degrading our society.
This is all rubbish. The answer is not to censor, but to provide better alternatives. Rather than say a stupid film you just saw was retarded, say: “That movie was so christian.” Of course, most liberals are religious. So let’s try another one. If you see something really flamboyant (like a pink VW Beetle with a rainbow bumper sticker driven by a guy sporting a faux-hawk), remark how it’s conservative, or republican. Someone may point out these groups are against gays, but that shouldn’t stop you. Republicans have successfully convinced people that the word “elite” is a bad thing. Just trust me, you can get Americans to do anything if they see cool people do it first.
Of course, you could just use the neutral adjectives like “stupid” or “flamboyant.” However, if you do this, you won’t be adding anything to the language. Languages evolve over time, and if you do not help leave a mark on it, other people will. And no, asking the Pet Shop Boys to change their name is not helping. Damn liberals, their naïveté knows no bounds.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Happy Passover!
Let us all celebrate that God killed Egyptian children, and may His wrath be forever appeased by our continued practice of meaningless sacrifice and prejudice.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Virtues - Passion
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
- H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Passion embodies a strange set of dualities: ecstasy and misery. Perhaps it is this fluctuation between joy and fury that makes it both popular and despised. There are innumerable objects of passion. Any person, place, thing, or idea can be venerated. The manner in which passion is expressed is even more diverse.
If this weren't confusing enough, the results of each passion and method of devotion can also vary, based on the person. Nothing definite can be said about whether passion has a positive or negative impact. Sometimes there is a positive impact for others and a negative impact for the individual. Many are the reverse, and provide comfort to the devotee at the expense of others. What's more, passion defies control, so perhaps understanding it can never help the passionate person.
The word passion derives from the Latin passio, meaning “suffering.” This in turn is a Latinization of the Greek word πάθος (pathos), which means “arousing sympathy, pity or compassion.” This derivation helps illustrate the Christian use of the word, which is applied to Jesus' crucifixion (and the crude obsession with the gory details leading up to it).
A common theme among most definitions is that passion compels. Passion bridges the gap between words and deeds. It is fervor, the urge to act. It provides the drive for nearly every change in human history. Passion is inspiring, if not inspiration itself. However, passion has a way of causing fixation, preventing one from seeing the big picture.
Passion has been described as both a virtue and a vice. In fact, the Stoics based their entire philosophy on removing passion from one's life in order to attain a feeling of apatheia. This is not the same as the modern term “apathy.” Instead, they sought total self-control, to the point of not even desiring to do wrong.
On the other hand, many religions are “enthusiastic.” Enthusiasm is an outburst of passion, sometimes abstract in nature, other times directed by ritual. This term also originates in ancient Greek: ἐνθουσιασμός (enthousiasmos): to be filled with, or possessed by, a god. This is done in various ways by many different groups, both ancient and modern. From the rituals of the bacchanal to Pentecostals speaking in tongues, it is a common component of religion to encourage a constructive outlet for the frantic emotions pent up in humanity.
Perhaps passion does more harm than good, but I certainly don’t see it that way. Passion can also be the need for human beings to connect to others, seek approval, and enjoy similar interests. It is our passions which bind us, just as strongly as they divide us. One person’s crazed fanatic is another person’s soul mate. What if the trick was not controlling our passions, but just giving each other enough space?
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Guns
As most level-headed people predicted back in 2004, including police, the lapsed assault weapon ban has spawned a slew of attacks.
Everyone knows violence is going to happen, regardless of whether or not there are guns. The latest is a case involving an AK-47. Another incident in March also involved an AK-47.
I could go through a laundry list of cases and bore you with sob stories of the families. The bottom line is this: the violence is getting worse because we have encouraged an arms race among our own citizenry. We have convinced millions of Americans that owning a gun will make them safer. In reality, owning a gun just increases the likelihood of this.
Whatever happened to beating our swords into plowshares? Why are we flooding our country with the tools of war? Some cry that guns are one of our last industries. If this is true, why do we buy Russian AK-47's to kill fellow Americans? We've outsourced the production of our own misery. End the bullshit, outlaw assault rifles.
Everyone knows violence is going to happen, regardless of whether or not there are guns. The latest is a case involving an AK-47. Another incident in March also involved an AK-47.
I could go through a laundry list of cases and bore you with sob stories of the families. The bottom line is this: the violence is getting worse because we have encouraged an arms race among our own citizenry. We have convinced millions of Americans that owning a gun will make them safer. In reality, owning a gun just increases the likelihood of this.
Whatever happened to beating our swords into plowshares? Why are we flooding our country with the tools of war? Some cry that guns are one of our last industries. If this is true, why do we buy Russian AK-47's to kill fellow Americans? We've outsourced the production of our own misery. End the bullshit, outlaw assault rifles.
Virtues - Moderation
There are a few distinct ways of applying the term “moderation.” The primary context I want to focus on is its association with “temperance” or “lacking excess.” This is most often applied to consumptive acts like eating and drinking (alcoholic or otherwise). However, it is equally applied to other human endeavors, usually enjoyable leisure activities.
Moderation is often applied in the maxim, “Moderation in all things,” which is a contradiction in terms. One must be careful not to practice excessive moderation. Someone moderate in all things risks being an extreme bore. There will inevitably be some things each individual does more than is “normal.”
Normalcy is a strong component of moderation. Moderation relies upon social or cultural norms in order to determine the definition of “extreme.” However, one culture’s extreme is another’s norm, and vice versa. In a culture where no one drinks alcohol, even a sip is intemperate. In fact, the American “temperance movement” opposed all alcoholic beverage consumption, even going so far as to enact Prohibition. This seems like an extreme to me.
The preaching of moderation is sometimes thinly veiled opposition to indulgence. Moderation that calls for sacrifice and self-deprivation is not moderation at all. Moderation should allow room for enjoyment. Moderation should not call for self-denial, but self-control. Restraint and discipline, not avoidance and austerity, are the hallmarks of proper moderation.
Moderation is not a struggle; the term for the struggle is addiction. Addiction is an interesting phenomenon, with a fairly modern emergence (in name, not existence). I hesitate to apply it to anything beyond chemical dependency. However, all emotional responses to activity are chemical reactions, and are not that dissimilar from those of drug use. Add to this that humans are driven by habits, and one can see that addiction could a perfectly common human behavioral disorder.
Everything can be done in moderation by someone. William S. Burroughs was a “heroin addict” for over 50 years, and lived to be 83. He did it by staying gainfully employed, something most people can’t accomplish as a heroin user. Evel Knieval broke a record 37 bones and risked his life several times for attention, but he died at 69 of pulmonary fibrosis, completely unrelated to his daredevil profession. If moderation is a struggle, you’re doing something wrong. Hopefully, your standards are set too high. Worst case scenario, you found something you’re too weak to moderate.
Picture right now the person you respect most. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Einstein, Mohammed, the Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Kurt Cobain, whoever: they’re all “immoderate” in some way. They’re all radicals. They all opposed something and sought to redefine norms. And all of them had weird personal lives. Moderation sounds great, but the results don’t lie: the world remembers weird people.
Moderation would be a wonderful teaching if everyone was the same. If we were all born as clones living in the same environment and we all had the same preferences, tolerances, opinions, and life experiences, then there would probably be a set of guidelines that applied to everyone. Instead, we determine what we think works “best” for people, and we marginalize or criminalize those who disagree. We censor our actions as well as our words. I wonder how far we’ll go to appear moderate when what we need is an extreme correction.
Moderation is often applied in the maxim, “Moderation in all things,” which is a contradiction in terms. One must be careful not to practice excessive moderation. Someone moderate in all things risks being an extreme bore. There will inevitably be some things each individual does more than is “normal.”
Normalcy is a strong component of moderation. Moderation relies upon social or cultural norms in order to determine the definition of “extreme.” However, one culture’s extreme is another’s norm, and vice versa. In a culture where no one drinks alcohol, even a sip is intemperate. In fact, the American “temperance movement” opposed all alcoholic beverage consumption, even going so far as to enact Prohibition. This seems like an extreme to me.
The preaching of moderation is sometimes thinly veiled opposition to indulgence. Moderation that calls for sacrifice and self-deprivation is not moderation at all. Moderation should allow room for enjoyment. Moderation should not call for self-denial, but self-control. Restraint and discipline, not avoidance and austerity, are the hallmarks of proper moderation.
Moderation is not a struggle; the term for the struggle is addiction. Addiction is an interesting phenomenon, with a fairly modern emergence (in name, not existence). I hesitate to apply it to anything beyond chemical dependency. However, all emotional responses to activity are chemical reactions, and are not that dissimilar from those of drug use. Add to this that humans are driven by habits, and one can see that addiction could a perfectly common human behavioral disorder.
Everything can be done in moderation by someone. William S. Burroughs was a “heroin addict” for over 50 years, and lived to be 83. He did it by staying gainfully employed, something most people can’t accomplish as a heroin user. Evel Knieval broke a record 37 bones and risked his life several times for attention, but he died at 69 of pulmonary fibrosis, completely unrelated to his daredevil profession. If moderation is a struggle, you’re doing something wrong. Hopefully, your standards are set too high. Worst case scenario, you found something you’re too weak to moderate.
Picture right now the person you respect most. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Socrates, Einstein, Mohammed, the Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Kurt Cobain, whoever: they’re all “immoderate” in some way. They’re all radicals. They all opposed something and sought to redefine norms. And all of them had weird personal lives. Moderation sounds great, but the results don’t lie: the world remembers weird people.
Moderation would be a wonderful teaching if everyone was the same. If we were all born as clones living in the same environment and we all had the same preferences, tolerances, opinions, and life experiences, then there would probably be a set of guidelines that applied to everyone. Instead, we determine what we think works “best” for people, and we marginalize or criminalize those who disagree. We censor our actions as well as our words. I wonder how far we’ll go to appear moderate when what we need is an extreme correction.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Virtues - Honesty
Honesty is quite a complex concept. Nearly every ethical system forbids lying in some manner, though there are numerous exceptions.
First, what is honesty? Intent is at the very heart of honesty (and dishonesty). An honest person may say something untrue, but if they believe what they say, it is not a lie; it is a mistake. So while honesty may seem to be related to truth, it is not. Whether a statement is a lie depends not upon the objective truth of the statement, but in the intent of the speaker. In fact, a true statement may be made by someone lying.
Suppose a used car dealer sells you a car which he says is in great shape and was only driven by a little old lady to church on Sundays. It runs great for 15 years, with no major problems. You think he is an honest salesman. What you don’t know is that the salesman knew the car had recently been in a major accident, was repaired for a bargain, and he believed the car would fall apart in a year or two. In this case, the salesman is still dishonest, even though the results (luckily) did not victimize someone.
The most interesting lies are not the lies we tell others, but the lies we tell ourselves. It becomes stranger still if we begin to believe those lies. Our very perception of reality may be altered by the lies we tell ourselves. No woman I know can look in a mirror and see how beautiful she is, and no man I know says he has a small penis, but I assume most think it… which is why we buy nice cars.
One cannot discuss honesty without dealing with “the white lie,” or as I like to call it, the polite lie. The polite lie is a statement made by a speaker who knows it is not true when telling the truth would insult or upset others. The classic example is:
A wife asks her husband if she looks fat in something. The husband replies “no,” either without even looking or without any consideration for whether it is a true statement.
I don’t particularly like this example, as it seems to imply wives always look fat, but I assure the reader this is not what I mean (everyone knows they only look fat around when they’re getting their period). In this scenario, the husband knows the “right” answer before making any observation. The woman does the same thing when she tells her husband she enjoys sex.
I try not to do this. You may not believe me, but ask my friends (or lack thereof) and you’ll see I’m telling the truth. Truth is all I am ever concerned with. I openly criticize everything and everyone, even those I love. It does not make one popular among fools, but it can earn respect among the intelligent. Some people want friends who will tell them the honest truth.
What if the wife in question is in fact wearing something that makes her appear fat? Perhaps the pants are too tight, and as a result she has developed a muffin top. Wearing something that bears the midriff would not be very flattering. An honest comment and simple change of clothes (baggy sweater) would be all that is necessary to rectify the situation. For guy problem, see also: cars.
This is innocent enough, but the board rooms of America are filled with opportunities for an even more dangerous, though equally infantile, game of denial. Perhaps our current economic situation might have been avoided if less “yes men” had encouraged the activities of the ignorant few at the top. There are many endeavors which have failed solely because no one had the guts to correct the boss.
We call these people whistleblowers, which isn’t too flattering. It reminds me of hallway monitors or something equally irritating and shrill. These people are more than whistleblowers. Anyone can nod their head in agreement and go with the flow. It takes a hero to stand against the stream, and even divert it elsewhere.
Honesty is something the world could use more of. Sometimes it appears that there is less integrity, reliability and authenticity in the world today. I attribute this to advertising, which is the industry of bullshit. America has perfected the fine art of deception. In a nation obsessed with appearance, honesty is in short supply. I sometimes wonder if it’s also in short demand as well. Better to just jack ourselves off as everything burns, right?
There simply isn’t enough candor anymore. People are afraid to speak up. This is a form of dishonesty: the lie of omission. This is not a lie in the traditional sense, because a lie is a knowingly false statement made by the speaker with the intent of deception. The lie of omission is deception, as the “liar” in this case knows something and purposely does not divulge it.
Worse yet, some people will not only omit the truth, they will inundate the us with meaningless drivel in an attempt to divert all attention away from the deception. Bush was a master at this. Some say he was a fool. I think he was a tactical genius. He achieved far more of his goals during his eight years than Obama or any liberal ever would.
It’s just truly unfortunate Bush felt it was more important to avenge his daddy, funnel money to the wealthy, deregulate our markets to the point of major recalls on a monthly basis, and let’s not forget assault weapons galore. All he had to do was rile up the liberal base on meaningless issues that affect almost no one, and while the liberals flooded talks shows with snide remarks about Bush not being about to complete a sentence, he was off cutting brush at home while his people did all the work in Washington. Bush got what he wanted, and he got it while staying home; that is the American dream, right there.
But I digress…
Honesty, while important, is only the tip of the ethical iceberg. It is superficial. Actions are the true measure of one’s morality. Words would have no power to them if they did not inspire, or incite, action.
First, what is honesty? Intent is at the very heart of honesty (and dishonesty). An honest person may say something untrue, but if they believe what they say, it is not a lie; it is a mistake. So while honesty may seem to be related to truth, it is not. Whether a statement is a lie depends not upon the objective truth of the statement, but in the intent of the speaker. In fact, a true statement may be made by someone lying.
Suppose a used car dealer sells you a car which he says is in great shape and was only driven by a little old lady to church on Sundays. It runs great for 15 years, with no major problems. You think he is an honest salesman. What you don’t know is that the salesman knew the car had recently been in a major accident, was repaired for a bargain, and he believed the car would fall apart in a year or two. In this case, the salesman is still dishonest, even though the results (luckily) did not victimize someone.
The most interesting lies are not the lies we tell others, but the lies we tell ourselves. It becomes stranger still if we begin to believe those lies. Our very perception of reality may be altered by the lies we tell ourselves. No woman I know can look in a mirror and see how beautiful she is, and no man I know says he has a small penis, but I assume most think it… which is why we buy nice cars.
One cannot discuss honesty without dealing with “the white lie,” or as I like to call it, the polite lie. The polite lie is a statement made by a speaker who knows it is not true when telling the truth would insult or upset others. The classic example is:
A wife asks her husband if she looks fat in something. The husband replies “no,” either without even looking or without any consideration for whether it is a true statement.
I don’t particularly like this example, as it seems to imply wives always look fat, but I assure the reader this is not what I mean (everyone knows they only look fat around when they’re getting their period). In this scenario, the husband knows the “right” answer before making any observation. The woman does the same thing when she tells her husband she enjoys sex.
I try not to do this. You may not believe me, but ask my friends (or lack thereof) and you’ll see I’m telling the truth. Truth is all I am ever concerned with. I openly criticize everything and everyone, even those I love. It does not make one popular among fools, but it can earn respect among the intelligent. Some people want friends who will tell them the honest truth.
What if the wife in question is in fact wearing something that makes her appear fat? Perhaps the pants are too tight, and as a result she has developed a muffin top. Wearing something that bears the midriff would not be very flattering. An honest comment and simple change of clothes (baggy sweater) would be all that is necessary to rectify the situation. For guy problem, see also: cars.
This is innocent enough, but the board rooms of America are filled with opportunities for an even more dangerous, though equally infantile, game of denial. Perhaps our current economic situation might have been avoided if less “yes men” had encouraged the activities of the ignorant few at the top. There are many endeavors which have failed solely because no one had the guts to correct the boss.
We call these people whistleblowers, which isn’t too flattering. It reminds me of hallway monitors or something equally irritating and shrill. These people are more than whistleblowers. Anyone can nod their head in agreement and go with the flow. It takes a hero to stand against the stream, and even divert it elsewhere.
Honesty is something the world could use more of. Sometimes it appears that there is less integrity, reliability and authenticity in the world today. I attribute this to advertising, which is the industry of bullshit. America has perfected the fine art of deception. In a nation obsessed with appearance, honesty is in short supply. I sometimes wonder if it’s also in short demand as well. Better to just jack ourselves off as everything burns, right?
There simply isn’t enough candor anymore. People are afraid to speak up. This is a form of dishonesty: the lie of omission. This is not a lie in the traditional sense, because a lie is a knowingly false statement made by the speaker with the intent of deception. The lie of omission is deception, as the “liar” in this case knows something and purposely does not divulge it.
Worse yet, some people will not only omit the truth, they will inundate the us with meaningless drivel in an attempt to divert all attention away from the deception. Bush was a master at this. Some say he was a fool. I think he was a tactical genius. He achieved far more of his goals during his eight years than Obama or any liberal ever would.
It’s just truly unfortunate Bush felt it was more important to avenge his daddy, funnel money to the wealthy, deregulate our markets to the point of major recalls on a monthly basis, and let’s not forget assault weapons galore. All he had to do was rile up the liberal base on meaningless issues that affect almost no one, and while the liberals flooded talks shows with snide remarks about Bush not being about to complete a sentence, he was off cutting brush at home while his people did all the work in Washington. Bush got what he wanted, and he got it while staying home; that is the American dream, right there.
But I digress…
Honesty, while important, is only the tip of the ethical iceberg. It is superficial. Actions are the true measure of one’s morality. Words would have no power to them if they did not inspire, or incite, action.
Atheist April & A New Theme
For my first post of the month, I want to announce that April will be Atheist month. I picked it because of a post by Uruk which I found amusing.
The story goes: a judge dismissed a case by an Atheist (obviously a big A) who was suing to institute an Atheist holiday. The judge quotes Psalm 14:1 (The fool says in his heart there is no God), and it is declared that April first is the Atheist holiday, since it is April Fool's Day. The judge's logic is flawless, because as we all know, the bible is American law.
So even though I will be going in to work today, I will be celebrating Atheist April by kicking it off with a nice April Fool's Day. While Uruk is quick to distance himself from the name-calling, I like it. There's nothing more natural and cathartic than honestly telling someone what you really think of them. For one thing, it quickly clears up misconceptions. If I call someone something and it doesn't actually apply to them, they're quick to point it out. If I had kept it to myself, who knows how long I would have believed them to be something they weren't.
However, the original word translated, according to my fiancé, is more closely degraded, evil or wicked. She had quite a bit of commentary on this passage alone. The commentary seems to say that the man overcome by passion says there is no god. This may imply the original intent was that believers undergoing anguish would question their beliefs.
There are far worse things than being a fool. While often associated with stupidity, this would be an incomplete definition. It can easily mean a trickster or joker, especially in its use for the holiday. This is its second listed definition on dictionary.com, and entering "fool" into Wikipedia will take you to the entry on "Jester." Its use as a pejorative dates back to late Latin, when the word follis (which meant bags of air or bellows) was used to refer to talkative people as "hot sacs of air," or the more familiar "windbags." It further changed over time to refer to entertainers, often comedians or court jesters. As far as I know, all of these apply to me.
So in light of this, I plan to work "fool" and the verse from Psalms into my blog's title. I will also be starting a brief series on virtues, where I will analyze various traits like honesty (my first subject) in my own view. This will serve to direct my posting in a logical manner AND help me to focus on not bashing religion, which I think is a topic I have exhausted.
The story goes: a judge dismissed a case by an Atheist (obviously a big A) who was suing to institute an Atheist holiday. The judge quotes Psalm 14:1 (The fool says in his heart there is no God), and it is declared that April first is the Atheist holiday, since it is April Fool's Day. The judge's logic is flawless, because as we all know, the bible is American law.
So even though I will be going in to work today, I will be celebrating Atheist April by kicking it off with a nice April Fool's Day. While Uruk is quick to distance himself from the name-calling, I like it. There's nothing more natural and cathartic than honestly telling someone what you really think of them. For one thing, it quickly clears up misconceptions. If I call someone something and it doesn't actually apply to them, they're quick to point it out. If I had kept it to myself, who knows how long I would have believed them to be something they weren't.
However, the original word translated, according to my fiancé, is more closely degraded, evil or wicked. She had quite a bit of commentary on this passage alone. The commentary seems to say that the man overcome by passion says there is no god. This may imply the original intent was that believers undergoing anguish would question their beliefs.
There are far worse things than being a fool. While often associated with stupidity, this would be an incomplete definition. It can easily mean a trickster or joker, especially in its use for the holiday. This is its second listed definition on dictionary.com, and entering "fool" into Wikipedia will take you to the entry on "Jester." Its use as a pejorative dates back to late Latin, when the word follis (which meant bags of air or bellows) was used to refer to talkative people as "hot sacs of air," or the more familiar "windbags." It further changed over time to refer to entertainers, often comedians or court jesters. As far as I know, all of these apply to me.
So in light of this, I plan to work "fool" and the verse from Psalms into my blog's title. I will also be starting a brief series on virtues, where I will analyze various traits like honesty (my first subject) in my own view. This will serve to direct my posting in a logical manner AND help me to focus on not bashing religion, which I think is a topic I have exhausted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
