Stonehead

Ok, can we rely on the men who hold the lanterns to pursue the inquiry into and make public the distortions of intelligence that led to a rush to war? I mean, these are the same Republicans who pushed for an inquisition into the suicide of Vince Foster. Can we rely on them to put the same vigor into an investigation of this grievous affair?

Humor has a way of slipping beneath the radar. Your conscious censor gives the go ahead to something, an idea, that normally wouldn't get through. "Yeah, come on through, you're a harmless joke." (uh, not you Yoda)

I love humor. Sometimes it's the only response, though anemic at times, to a situation out of your hands. And, religion is often a target. Point out the absurdities inherent in all religions. Maybe that approximates the truth better than all the literal readings you can muster. This blogster is using humor to critique Islam, not necessarily Islamists. Is there a difference? Yes. Ok, I'm not taking sides but this website smacks of all those generalizations such as "Zionism is inherent in Judaism" or, let's see, what's similar in Fundamentalist Christianity--"Kill'em all, let God sort them out!" The goal of these generalizations is to 'poison the well' so to speak. Yes, there are sects within major religions and often it is these sects that grab the headlines. But yeah, I love humor.

How much of your favorite caffeinated drink would it take to kill you? Take this quick test and find out:

We know that our past governments have distorted intelligence to support the rush to war. Somehow our government thought there was motive enough to take the step of sacrifice of men and money and future. I think it's when it's dressed up as a noble cause that bothers me. To paraphrase someone, "You can put makeup on a pig but it's still a pig." So, as the opposing evidence begins to pour in when do we reach the 'tipping point'? Are we naive to think that a Republican-controlled Congress will step up to the task of admonishing their own party? Will the Democrats who hastily voted for war see the light also? I don't see this as a failure of a particular party but of our elected representatives in Congress. This should really signal that a change needs to take place, shouldn't it? Or, is this just a moot point to argue as the bullets continue to fly, that the harsh reality is that this has boiled down to partisan politics and the real losers are not in government but on the front lines.

The faithful should listen to Napoleon Dynamite.

No, it will not change the fact. Don't listen to Nietzsche though: "There are no facts, only interpretations." I found it odd that Francis Fukuyama would seemingly ally himself with theologians in response to the perceived threat of the Transhumanism Movement.

Wasn't it Oppenheimer who said, "I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds."? The Destroyer refers to Shiva of the Vedic pantheon?

How many chucks could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

The Vatican concedes that ignoring today's science may lead it as a religion to regress into fundamentalism. Yet, is it only discoveries revealed by scientific inquiry and its associated developments from applied science that cause societal change? Regardless of the causes of societal change, it seems it is only when religion becomes a static entity rather than an evolving one that problems occur, in which case, there is a reactionary backlash against the forces of change and which is usually expressed as anti-modernism. I am skeptical though. Seems in Germany the Church colluded with the Nazis at the beginning to lend that latter movement a legitimacy which allowed it to become rooted and flourish. Isn’t that what can happen when the established church allies itself with government in the pursuit of power to effect its intended changes upon society? In other words, religious belief in itself will not prevent future tragedies. Religion has such power to produce and/or enhance mass movements but can it be controlled? Also, the Church is based on tenets of faith. Fundamentally, isn’t that counter to the operating principle of science, i.e., the scientific method? Or, is this just ‘pick and choose’ what aspects of science will support the faith? What about the following statement by one scientist (Gert Eilenberger) who says, “…the rationality of science, expanded properly, is the sole and all-embracing source of cognition for mankind, the only religion of an enlightened future.” That statement refers only to unveiling the nature of the universe or to make the unconscious conscious to the mind of man. That statement made no mention of morality or ethics, that science is beyond good and evil. It is rather the business of each individual participant and that greater entity that they are a part of, the corporation, who provides their funding source as to the final meaning.

The caption in this photo gets me. But seriously, you'd have to chalk up this mayhem under the anarchy category rather than coordinated Islamic insurrection or related rubric.

Oh man I am so addicted. What was that number for sprayers anonymous again? BTW, George Bush has a message for y'all:

I'm so outta here! Bah-bye.

Yeah, don't they actually believe in 'the Powers and Principalities', that unseen world of forces, good and evil?

Is 'Rush' a Joe Strummer song? I remember that from the early Nineties on college radio but can't seem to find the lyrics. Nevermind. It's Big Audio Dynamite (Mick Jones)

Free association? Looks like a combo snowboard/pussy, the best of two worlds?

Yeah, they're stuck in bombed out London in the Blitzkreig during the colossal European struggle and the subtext (the imaginary mirror world) is brought to the foreground. Sounds like a good one.

I don’t believe it’s necessarily a right or wrong about economic models as much as it is a story about the future. Do you think it’s a fluke that China has embarked on a space program with a proposed mission to the moon with their stated goal to assess the helium-3 reserves? Oddly enough, I heard some Chinese entrepreneur interviewed on NPR who actually praised Mao for setting the country back 20 years or so in their economic-industrial development. Their delayed development is a factor that may allow them to take prime advantage of the economic model advanced by the West to leap ahead as a technological power. It’s not necessarily the innovators that reap the full advantage of developments as it is the adopters. Maybe the Chinese will be the only ones with the capital to smoothly make the massive transition in energy and related goods, a transition that could potentially produce economic convulsions in our society. Maybe there’s a rough ride ahead? Then, of course, I could be speaking out my ass.

Yes, the future is the north shore. Ice-free Arctic and all.

Is this another grand scale Good vs. Evil episode?

Maybe in reality, an unified and realigned Europe is more a threat to our economic hegemony. Yeah, it's a long shot but this terrorism thing appears at times to be a tool to tighten up the domestic arena in potential response to the precursor of war, increased competition for resources. Just seems that this terrorism thing appear to be swatting at flies. Or, maybe this terrorism really is war by proxy?

Makes me realize how little I know. Yet... "If a fool would persist in his folly he would become wise" --William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell (1790-93). Proverbs of Hell

Let's see...I'm trying to parse an answer right now. Political expendiency. Isn't it true that the vast majority of people have to be led along by the pioneers and other fringe elements? And if the cause were noble, then would the means be irrelevant?

Ok, maybe nothing that follows logically leads from what you say. I don’t know. It’s weird to think though that people on different sides are actually coming from the basis of good intentions and I mean in reference to those actually thinking individuals, not your Skinner's subjects. It seems merely a factor of upbringing whether you are one or the other. There is no inherent right or wrong. Otherwise, why would these two almost diametrically opposed viewpoints persist? I realize that a truer picture is one where there is a mixture of varying amounts of political beliefs yet yielding a dominant identification with one party or the other. Ok. Why not try this on for size. Maybe the people have something there. Maybe there is a fragment of truth in what they are saying. They’re wrong about their conclusion but isn’t it important that they recognize that something is wrong? Isn’t something wrong? But I think you have something there. Let’s see…Rowdy Rody Piper, Sonny Bono, Gopher, Arnold, that wrestler dude in Michigan (?). Seems we’re filling the void left by the absence of men or women of substance and substituting it with fluff. Ok, maybe these are reasonably intelligent people but where are their convictions? Do they strive to grapple with issues or are they simply resigned to instant policy positions based on prepackaged condensations of the issues? Has it always been like this? Then again, maybe the world has become too difficult to deal with? I'm looking for a third way or an alternative that is a resolution of the two.

If you look in a dictionary, utopia literally means ‘no place’. But doesn’t the real meaning of utopia refer to the future, not the here and now? In actuality, what is really important is that striving towards that ideal because the attainment of it never comes. If it were to come that would truly be the ‘End of History’. But it’s an asymptotic progression. There’s simply no real culmination. So, what is the matter with this striving? Isn’t that our history? Social experiment after social experiment… Are you saying that class division and its inherent inequalities are permanent? And that one should accept his fate as it is provided for in the ‘system’? The people most afraid are not those at the bottom, they are ignorant, but those at the top that have the most to lose. Because that sense of loss is greater for them and they will go to any lengths to preserve their advantage even if it means progression towards a surveillance state. And, their reassurances will be: “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.” Remember though, you’ll never be able to stifle the need of some individuals to upset the apple cart. This need to upset the order of things is the oldest story in history. France or the United States are not the answers. They only point towards that ideal which is yet to come. Francis Fukuyama’s End of History is premature.