Ennui . . . I'm bored with it.

Man, boredom is just so . . . boring.  Or maybe I don't mean boredom, but vapidity.  The inability to exert the energy required to actually experience the world and to attempt to interpret the experiences, if only to oneself.

I'm not talking about me, of course. I'm here doing what little I can to at least think and talk about something. Let's take, oh I don't know, Paris Hilton, for instance.

There's the old saw about money not buying happiness, but in Paris's case it apparently can't buy intelligence either, or at least intelligence that actually gets used. Not only is the woman vapid, but she seems to think that everybody should be that way.  She actually made a sex video, but I think I'd rather watch someone with an inflatable sex doll than with Paris - more personality.

If you watch the Jay-Walking segments on the Tonight show, you'll see people who are almost unimaginably uninformed.  I don't think they're all stupid, but no matter what one's native ability might be, ignorance at some point equals stupidity. If you're stupid, you have no choice. If you're ignorant, at some point you're just too lazy, or bored, or vapid, to do anything about it.

But, like Paris, these people have this attitude of cool, that there must be something wrong with you if you happen to know who the first president of the U.S. was, especially if you un-cool enough to ask them about it. Like, they should know?

Maybe I've just turned into an old fogey. Dude, who cares anyway?

I'm Back . . . I Think

Hey there.  I haven't posted to this blog since 2003. Met my wife, got married, got fired, found a new job, had that for awhile, quit, started playing music again full-time.  You know, the usual.

Anyway, here I am again and let's see if I can do a better job of continuing to post here than I did for the last four years. Not that anyone reads this stuff, of course, but it's therapy for me at any rate.

So, gentle reader. I'm back. I think.

- DR

Be Careful What You Wish For . . .

A few posts ago I wished for someone to reply to one of my posts. I guess I still do, but the dickhead (Really! - he signed his post "Richard Cranium") who sent this is either funnin' me, or Jerry Springer's about to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. Here's what ol' Rich writes in reply to my "Say What You Mean . . . Mean What You Say" post:

your words make you seem like a closed minded moron...prosecuting the murderers of animals would only really happen if animal rights were actually laws...which they clearly are not..."murder" as you refer to it(having a law against it usually resulting in death or permanent incarceration upon conviction) refers to the murder of another human being, not an animal...killing or injuring an animal falls under the animal cruelty section in "the law of man" us humans are governed by...so just because killing animals for food, fun, clothing, experimentation, and profit is not a crime in this sick world, dosent mean that it shouldnt be...and it definetly doesnt mean its not murder...it is...and its murder out of laziness, ignorance and greed...maybe you should look into why humans "need" to eat the flesh of other living beings, instead of pondering a bumper sticker or a conversation/arguement you! think youd win only because the whole thing takes place in your feeble closed mind... then decide if you think meat is murder.........................sincerely...............................richard cranium

Although I was mercifully brief in replying to Mr. Cranium, I'm afraid I wasn't too kind, as I did wish him a good life at the end of my reply, but suggested that he "keep it short, ok?" I think the problems with ol' Dick's reasoning - and I use the term loosely - are self-evident, so I won't go into them here. It always amazes me that those who seem to seek perfection in humankind are the most brutally judgemental of their fellow humans, somehow failing to notice what a sadly imperfect trait that is.

Oh, yeah, I remember what I was going to follow up that "Meat is Murder" post with. A few months back I heard an article on one of those network "news" magazines describing how a judge had decided that some poor schlub in Houston had to pay child support for two kids who were not his - even though his wife had conceived them with some other guy and lied to him about they're being his. He apparently raised them and loved them as his own, and still loved them from all appearances, but thought that maybe the guy who'd knocked up his wife while they were still married might join in the payment for raising his biological offspring. The judge said that, even though he'd been misled, since he'd treated them as his, they were his.

So, a judge can order you to pay to raise another guy's kids . . . And I thought indentured servitude was illegal in the U.S. Something's wrong - very wrong - with this.

Well, that's it for now . . .

Don't have a cow, gentle reader.

Say What You Mean . . . Mean What You Say

This morning on the way to work a small, black car passed me up on the freeway. On the rear bumper of the car was a sticker that read, simply, "Meat Is Murder."

Uh, huh. The pretty young woman driving the car was obviously intent upon getting somewhere, probably school, judging from her age and the several other bumper stickers she'd affixed to the back of her car. I wished that I could pull her over and ask her about meat being murder. This is what I would have asked: "Do you really believe meat is murder?" If she said no - discussion over. But somehow I doubt that she would say no. Rather, I think she would have felt compelled to defend the inane statement made on the bumper sticker. So, let's just assume she says "Yeah, of course it is. It's killing another living creature," or some such drivel as that.

So, now that we've set the scene, what would you say to her? Would you agree? Would you try and explain why it's ok to kill other living creatures? For my part, I would just ask her this: "So, you believe that the police should march into that McDonalds down the street and arrest everyone in there eating meat as accessories to murder, and maybe the owner, manager and crew as pre-meditated murderers? Is that what you believe?"

You know, she might say, "Yeah, that's what I believe," but somehow I don't think that she'd really mean it, if push came to shove and, say, her 18-year-old brother happened to be in there among the accessories. Nor do I believe that most of the people who will tell you that "Abortion is murder," or "Fur is murder" would want their sisters or daughters or sons actually prosecuted for murder for having an abortion or for wearing fur. Some crazies would, of course, but I think even the people out there spouting these poorly conceived arguments would, for the most part, be up in arms about that - as well they should.

If you truly believe that abortion is murder, you should be willing to allow your daughter to be arrested, tried, and either imprisoned or executed for having one. If you're just willing to have her jailed for, say, five years, then abortion must be somewhere on a par with burglary. If you're only willing that she pay a fine, then abortion has fallen from murder to a misdemeanor.

I won't get into the scientific defenses of abortion here, because they always form a slippery slope as to when the act is moral and acceptable and when it isn't. Abortion is a moral choice. I do not mean by that that it is always moral to choose abortion, but that is a choice based in one's personal morality. In my mind, one may choose the first abortion and have made a morally defensible choice, but by the third - absent extraordinary circumstances - that choice should begin looking much less defensible, if only because one should avoid placing oneself in morally compromising positions. Everyone is entitled to a few mistakes on the road to maturity, but a few is a few, and they shouldn't be a few of the same one over and over again, either.

So, is meat murder? If you think so and you've ever eaten a hamburger, better turn yourself in and throw yourself upon the mercy of the court. I won't hold my breath.

More on a corrollary topic next time . . .

Hot dog! gentle reader

Why Do This?

Why would anyone anonymously publish their thoughts where just anybody can see them? I've been asking myself that for the past couple of weeks. Maybe that's the reason I haven't posted anything here in about that long. Or maybe it's just that I've been busy.

But, seriously, what's in it for me - or for any online journalist? (in the original sense of that word)

I've read some online journals that read like the babblings of a six-year-old. One wonders if the writers are somehow being satirical. I've read others that read like an extended singles ad - for someone who's not single. I've begun to think that this blogging stuff is kind of like fishing, except you're mind (or lack of same) is the bait. The question then becomes, who are you trying to catch?

I've thought about that, and I've wished that I would get replies to some of these things (no luck so far.) As long as they were intelligent, I wouldn't much care if the replies agreed with me. I suppose one just wishes for a conversation with someone other than oneself. In fact, a good fight would be quite a bit more interesting than a lovefest.

Have you noticed how the anonymity of the Internet has bred a certain kind of boor? The anonymous kind? The kind who, protected by their anonymity, will "say" things they would never have the courage to say in person? I'm not talking about expressing opinions. That might be cowardly, but it's not necessarily boorish. I mean the kind who will call perfectly polite fellow humans insulting names, or act as though they wish to fight when fighting (other than with words) is an impossibility.

Case in point: I've played a few computer games online with anonymous others. In one game, Close Combat, the community of people who play it have a rigorous standard of etiquette. Persons who violate that standard pretty quickly become pariahs, and can no longer get a game. Oddly enough, sometimes a real jerk - because he/she enjoys the game so much - will rejoin the community under a different handle and behave perfectly well after that. If I had to generalize, I would say that strategists tend to be more polite than real-time (read: fighting) gamers, but I've seen all varieties of behavior in both communities. The interesting thing is that the community really does have some power, if a person has no other outlet to enjoy the competition the community provides.

I suppose the pseudonym I've chosen here says quite a bit about why I bother to post these things that hardly anyone else will read. If I locate just one honest person - preferably with a bit of character to accompany the honesty - who knows what might happen after that?

In vino veritas, gentle reader.

What Will Work In Israel?

It seems as though most of the world has given up hope for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems to me that we've seen, over and over, in the last ten years or so that sitting on the sidelines (in Rwanda, in the former Yugoslavia, etc.) produces more death. Are we hoping that we won't lose allies by only interfering a little bit in this conflict? We continue to pressure Israel to respect Palestinian human rights (and for the vast majority of Palestinians this is precisely the posture we should take) while groups like Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade continue to send young Palestinians into Israel to kill Israelis (and whoever else might be standing around) indiscriminately.

Have their been wrongs and overreactions committed on both sides? Certainly, but Israel does make an attempt to respond militarily, and they do continue to set out reasonable (ie: stop the suicide attacks) conditions for continuing peace talks. Is Ariel Sharon more of a hawk than previous Israeli prime ministers? Most certainly. If there had been more peace and stability within the borders of Israel prior to his election would he have been elected? Probably not.

So, it really has gone past the idea of what should we do, or what can we do that will protect our political influence. We have reached the point of considering: What will work?

Station one quarter of the U.S.'s military in Israel; establish a de-militarized zone between Israel and the newly-created Palestinian state; enforce the peace in said state with U.S. military; create a viable infrastructure (schools, utilities, non-aligned government offices, industry, etc.) in Palestine; enforce separation while promoting trade; be prepared to sustain casualties; tell the other Arab states to butt out.

Yes, I'm aware of all of the flack we'll take if we do this. On the other hand, I think we'd probably take at least 75% of that flack no matter what we do.

Argument: We need Middle-Eastern oil.
Response: Who else are they going to sell it to?

Argument: We'll increase the likelihood of terror attacks.
Response: We're told daily that the likelihood of future terror attacks is 100%. Let's get something for the risk we run, and a peaceable Israel and Palestine will eventually lessen the likelihood of terror attacks.

Argument: We would be violating both the Israelis and the Palestinians human rights.
Response: In the short run, probably, In the long run, the right not to be suddenly killed probably trumps other rights, since without that right there is no long run.

I've told a couple of friends about this idea, with varying responses. Generally, I'm told how either the Israelis, the Palestinians, or the rest of the Middle Eastern countries won't stand for it. Yes, they will. They won't like it. They'll rattle their sabers. There will be more terror attacks, but as long as we keep the peace in Palestine those attacks will end up eventually being unsponsored. Terror is here to stay, unfortunately. It is the only method of war that favors the undeveloped over the developed. It's (relatively) cheap, and although its casualties are enormous percentage-wise, they're trivial in actual numbers. That's the whole point of terrorism.

What we need right now in the Middle East is to force the combatants into neutral corners, and make them stay there until they both feel safe enough to trust each other just a little bit. Did you notice how nice everybody was the week after September 11th? Christ, the Pakistanis just flat-out switched sides and disavowed the Taliban, because of their support of Al Quaeda. Do you think they did that because they all of a sudden started liking us? They did it because they were scared that Pakistan would become the annex to the big, all-new Afghanistan parking lot.

There is grave danger in using the kind of political and military power that the U.S. now possesses. Unfortunately, there is also grave danger in not using it. Me? I prefer to be the instigator and creator of my own fate.

Shalom, gentle reader

Query: Is the existence of a supreme being necessary for morality?

If you read much, you've probably read somewhere (and I'm paraphrasing) "In a universe without God, all things are allowable." Why is that so? It doesn't seem to make sense, when you think about it. Is it allowable to cancel the law of gravity? Is it allowable for mammals to breathe Malt-O-Meal instead of oxygen? I mean, in the most ridiculous sense of the word "possible" it is possible for those things to occur, but the existence or non-existence of a supreme being doesn't seem to make much difference.

Some of the most moral - and rational - people ever to live have been non-believers. I hasten to point out the distinction between a non-believer and an atheist. A non-believer (agnostic, if you will) hears a religious person say "I firmly believe in the existence of God," to which a non-believer would say "I'm not sure I believe that," or "I really don't see sufficient evidence either to confirm or deny the existence of God, therefore I have formed no belief either way." An atheist would say, "You're wrong. There is no God." For believers this has become a distinction without a difference. An agnostic is an atheist is an agnostic, ad infinitum.

Now, of these three possible attitudes, which is the most honest? Well, the agnostic of course. Believers in God readily admit that there is no proof of God's existence. Same deal with atheists. Well, if there's no proof there's no reason to form a belief. Yeah, yeah, I've heard all the sophistry from both sides. Do you have to go visit your money in the bank to believe it's there? No, but neither am I betting the entire future of the universe and everything in it on whether or not my money's in the bank. Also, if I kept going to the bank and asking for my money and they kept telling me "You just have to have faith that your money's here," I would have some serious doubts and a demand for proof - probably in the form of total withdrawal and relocation of all my money - would ensue shortly. Atheists have an easier row to hoe, in that it is impossible to prove a negative, but the belief formed from a total lack of evidence is a pretty flimsy belief. Imagine your watching Law & Order: Sam Waterston's questioning Jerry Orbach: "Detective, what led you to believe that the accused committed this heinous crime?" "Why, that would have to have been the complete lack of evidence as to who committed the crime, sir. Based upon that, it could only have been the accused. Thank God we caught him."

Ok, that argument may have itself been sophistry, but that's only because this question invites it more than any other. The point I'm trying to make is that, if honesty is to be considered a moral value, and it is more honest to say "I am not able, based upon the available evidence, to form a belief one way or the other regarding the existence of God," then morality must be possible absent the existence of God. That statement - just because it contains the word absent - does not pre-suppose that God does not exist, it merely admits the possibility that God does not exist. Whether believers understand it or not, any admission that there is no proof of God's existence is, in and of itself, an admission of the possibility that God does not exist.

'Bet you wish I go back to talking about "the Last Waltz," huh?

Adios, gentle reader