The Goon Squad

 

"Goon Squad" was an appellation used to refer to groups engaged in pro-union or anti-union violence. Since those days, it has come to be used to refer to any group of enforcers or thugs hired to use violence for most any purpose.

It has occasionally been used to refer to excessively violent police.  I assume some have used it to refer to those employed by ICE to capture and detain illegal immigrants, though I'm not sure.

I think enforcing the immigration laws is appropriate. I don't think those who have violated those laws should be protected from their enforcement.

But "Goon Squad" seems an appropriate moniker for the armed, masked ICE agents we've seen unnecessarily pummeling and even killing those who protest against ICE's presence in their cities.  It's also been reported that they obtain personal information regarding protesters, presumably to more easily punish them somehow in the future.

According to the Cato Institute, only 5% of the illegal immigrants detained and deported by ICE have a history of criminal violence.  The claims made that the violent and clandestine conduct of ICE agents justifies extreme measures therefore lacks credibility.  So does the claim that those who protest such measures are aiding violent criminals.

One must wonder why the regime now in power decided to use armed, masked men wearing paramilitary outfits to enforce the immigration laws.  It's difficult for me to believe that those who oppose the conduct of these agents do so to protect violent criminals, or that a majority of them are champions of illegal immigration. I think it's more likely that their opposition is motivated by the fact that the tactics employed purportedly to enforce immigration law more and more begin to resemble the tactics of Ernst Rohm's Brownshirts.

The fact that this regime automatically claims that protesters are "domestic terrorists" and are responsible for their own deaths is contemptible, but is characteristic of fanatics generally and so is to be expected in these unfortunate times.

Whom the Gods Would Destroy

 

It's hard not to think that something will be destroyed.  For that matter, it's hard not to hope that something will be destroyed, and soon. What that something is isn't clear, and is a matter of debate.What's all too clear, though, is that consistent with the saying which begins with the words making up the title of this post, the gods are making many of us mad. 

For some of us the madness takes the form of a smug, insistent ignorance combined with what seems a kind of reflex of falsity.  Deceit or denial has become an automatic response to any criticism or inconvenient event or information.

What's remarkable about this--what suggests it is a form of madness--is (1) the extent of the ignorance and the flaunting of it though it would be a simple matter to remedy it; and (2) the fact that the deceit is obvious and blatant, and the denial so easily refuted.  But none of this matters to the ignorant, the deceitful and deniers.  They don't seem to care that what they say and do is preposterous and even laughable, or would be laughable in other circumstances.

I think they would care if their intent was fraud or malfeasance. A rational person with such intentions wouldn't pursue them so stupidly.  As that's the case, the likelihood is that those acting so stupidly are irrational or so colossally stupid as to be irrational.  They still may have malicious intent.  But they may not be intelligent or sensible enough to realize they look ridiculous.

For others the madness made by the gods consists of facilitating the madness just described, either actively or by ignoring it.  It's mad to join in or encourage madness, particularly when what's caused by the madness is reprehensible and despicable.  That's the case here and now.

If those the gods destroy are those they've driven mad described in this post, then it's probable that the world will be safer, the sadly disminished reputation of this nation, once hopefully called a city on a hill or beacon, and now an ugly wreck run by entitled brats and their self-satisfied, brown-nosed lackeys will be restored.  But who's to say the gods haven't given up on our Glorious Union, and think it so irredeemably corrupt as to merit destruction?

God Loves Winners

 

Judging from what one sees when certain athletes are interviewed at the conclusion of a contest, God is peculiarly concerned with sports.  I should qualify that statement. I refer to what winning athletes or members of winning sports teams say when given the chance after a game or event they or their team has won. They praise or thank God for allowing them to win, or arranging that, or assisting them in winning.  Unsuccessful athletes or members of sports teams aren't seen praising or thanking God for their loss or failure to play well.

What explains these statements?  There's nothing objectionable about believing in God in and of itself.  It seems odd, though, to note that in such circumstances.  And indeed, those who make such statements don't merely say they're believers.  They instead say that they won because God wanted them to win, or was responsible for their success.

If that's true, though, it follows that God wanted their opponent or opponents to lose, or caused them to lose.  Shouldn't the losers be begging God's forgiveness in that case, or asking why God made them lose?  Do the winners think they're more worthy than the losers in the eyes of God?  Is that what they feel those who watch them give thanks should believe?

Perhaps they feel that their faith somehow inspired them.  That would be a kinder interpretation of such a public display.  But that's not what is said, normally.  What's said instead is something to this effect:  Thank you, God, or I praise you because I (or we) triumphed and the other person or team lost; that wouldn't have happened but for you.

What this assumes is that God favors some of us more than others, or loves some of us more than others; or punishes some of us while rewarding others; or makes some of us happy while making others sad.  And all of this in connection with a football game or other game.

God loves winners, then, and not losers.  Winners are better than losers.

Why is that the case?  Clearly, it can't be because they're winners. They're winners because God wanted them to be winners.  Just as God wanted losers to lose, necessarily.

So, why did God so decree? What manner of God intervenes in football and other sports?

Yet another great mystery--the problem of sports, to match the problem of evil.

Just Like Old Times

 

The Venezuela adventure is hardly the first time our Great (quasi) Republic has used its military in foreign lands for purposes of exploitation. 

It's clear enough, I think, that this is why the incursion took place.  The recent pardon of the former president of Honduras for convictions of crimes related to drug trafficking and weapons, similar to charges being made against the Maduros, makes the claim that the incursion was for such crimes less than credible.

In fact, part of the current regime acknowledges that this was all for obtaining access to and control of Venezuela's oil resources, and the country itself if necessary.  Another part is somewhat more circumspect, and for the time being denies that control of Venezuela is sought.

But considering our history, exploitation of lands and people has often been our modus operandi.  Perhaps the most brazen and long lasting exploitation involved indigenous peoples.

As to our exploitation of other nations, the Mexican-American War, which U.S. Grant, who fought in it, called "one of the most unjust wars ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation" resulted in the acquisition of territory including California, New Mexico and Arizona. Commodore Perry led a fleet to Japan, forcing it to trade with the U.S.  

The Spanish-American War, which it seems was fought for no reason except to gain territory in the Caribbean and the Pacific, including the Philippines, prompted Rudyard Kipling to write a poem urging Americans to "take up the white man's burden."

Imperialism probably wasn't the primary reason behind our involvement in WWI and WW2, and the later conflicts in the 20th century, though there's little question that America sought to profit from them when it could.

There's something disturbing, albeit curiously refreshing, in the fact that there has been in this case little effort to disguise the fact greed is behind this incursion.  From statements being made by those in power it seems that this greed for territory and resourced motivates the threats being made regarding Greenland and now Columbia.

It remains to be seen whether and to what extent this greed will be satisfied or will result in undesirable deaths and oppression.  It also remains to be seen whether Congress or the courts will do anything to stir themselves to challenge unilateral action of the Executive Branch in conquest in the pursuit of economic gain and pursuit of imperial ambitions. 

 American politics is so corrupt that it's unlikely members of the House or Senate will exert themselves to staunch the flow of money to themselves or those whose money they depend on.  As to the courts, the Supreme Court, at least, seems content to let the chips fall where they may.

So...bombs away?

, 

Dreaming of Apatheia

Apatheia, in ancient Stoic philosophy, is a mental state free from emotional disturbance caused often by fears and desires, and therefore capable of reason and clear judgment.  It isn't apathy or indifference, with which the word "Stoic" is too often associated.  It is rather characteristic of an ideal mental condition in which decisions are intelligently made, according to nature.  Care and concern therefore are typical of apatheia-- one is concerned to make the appropriate decision and takes care to do so.

The ancients knew apatheia was difficult to achieve, and so recommended that the aspiring Stoic engage in what Pierre Hadot called "spiritual exercises."  He believed that what are known as the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius are examples of the Emperor performing such exercises, calling to mind Stoic maxims and applying them to day to day life.

I think it's clear that obtaining apatheia requires considerable discipline and effort. I also think we'd benefit enormously if most of us, or even some of us in positions of power and influence, obtained it.  I wonder, though, if it can be achieved in today's world.

It seems to me we're perpetually disturbed in these sad times, and that our society and technology fosters disturbance.  We thrive on outrage.  Traditional and social media encourage it and spread it.  Our so-called leaders seem incapable of rational thought, though it's possible they've simply abandoned it, or no longer believe it's of any use in persuading or leading a populace which itself appears unable to exercise judgment, merely want to be told what to do, and are incensed if what they're told to do doesn't work.

Is it possible that AI may turn out to be our salvation?  We seemingly no longer want to take the time to think; perhaps we no longer can think, not in any real sense--not as needed to resolve problems.   I suspect we'd be more than happy to let AI do it for us. 

 Perhaps we've reached the point where only AI is capable of achieving apatheia, as it would be less subject to emotional dusturbance.