Regarding the Obviously Untrue

 

Lying is something at which politicians have always excelled.  But the falsehoods now generated by the political class of the nation (especially those of the current regime, its lackeys and its facilitators) have a special quality. They're so obviously untrue that it's unclear whether they should be considered lies, properly speaking.

Typically, a lie is intended to deceive.  But when a statement is clearly false, and no thinking person--including the person making the statement--could think otherwise, how could deceit even be expected?

There's something else involved in the making of such statements.  Otherwise they would not be made by any self-respecting individual.

It may be that the person making the obviously untrue statement simply doesn't think; not really.  No thinking person would maintain, for example, that a tornado devastated a town when no such thing took place--there was no tornado, nor did the town exist.  Such a person may be unable to think for one reason or another (insanity, developmental disability, etc.).  Or, such a person, conceivably, may refuse to think.

Alternatively, a person making an obviously untrue statement may make it assuming that those learning of the statement themselves don't think, as they are unable or unwilling to do so.  Thus, no shame or blame would accrue to the claimant.  In that case the obvious untruth may even be believed. 

Possibly, the clearly false claim may be made with no expectation that it will be believed.  As a kind of joke, perhaps. 

Another possibility is that the falsehood in that case would be an article or expression of faith.  In that event it wouldn't be expected that there would be any factual basis for the statement.  Instead, the expectation would be that the claim is completely unfounded.  If one's faith or religion provides that a tornado devastated a town, the absence of any evidence of the tornado or the town isn't a consideration or concern.  The fervent believer would make the untrue claims and repeat them gladly no matter how baseless they are in fact.

I doubt that the obviously untrue claims being made (e.g. those regarding such things as crowd size, assassination of Democrats by Marxists, the need for use of the military in U.S. cities) are intended as jokes, if only because those making them are so evidently devoid of wit.  I'm willing to believe that they've not certifiably insane.  

I don't doubt they feel that those they hope learn of their misstatements are unable or unwilling to think, as their contempt for most of humanity is apparent as is their juvenile cruelty.  But I'm inclined to think that their assertions that what is obviously untrue is true nonetheless are expressions of something similar to religious beliefs which they believe need not have any basis in fact. That's always been a source of comfort to those who find thinking difficult or inconvenient.

What is Truth?

 

This is supposedly the question of the man we call Pontius Pilate:  Quid est Veritas?  According to Francis Bacon "jesting Pilate" asked this question but "did not stay for an answer."  According to the Gospel of John, Pilate was responding to Jesus' claim that he (Jesus) was a witness to the truth.  

If Pilate asked this question, I doubt he was jesting.  I think it's more likely that that he was noting that Jesus was brought before him because there clearly was a disagreement regarding what the truth was, and whether he was witness to it.  Truth is disputed all the time, particularly when it's believed that what is true neither has been nor should be determined through intelligent investigation and inquiry, but is instead revealed or is as claimed by an authority figure.

Those with such a narrow, limited conception of "truth" are inclined to be irrationally sensitive to criticism and can even be enraged if contradicted.  They can't tolerate being challenged or worse yet expected to explain or justify what they believe.  Resentment or outrage is characteristic of the true believer when questioned. The more preposterous the "truth" believed, the greater the resentment and outrage.

As a result, they can react violently to dissent.  Their response is excessive. They're blind to the consequences of their outrage.  In fact, consequences aren't significant according to their peculiar logic.  Those who disagree deserve to suffer because they disagree.

If Pilate asked what it's claimed he asked and did so in the circumstances it's claimed took place, then perhaps the question wasn't a quip or an expression of futile relativism in the face of what is absolutely true.  It may instead have been an acknowledgement of the fact that when there is a dispute judgment is required.  We must ask what is true, and make a determination.

We make no judgment, certainly not an informed or intelligent one, when we fail to ask what is true in attempting to define let alone resolve a dispute.

The High and Mighty and Moralism

 

We live, if we continue living, in a time when all those we encounter in politics, in the arts, in the media (including social media) are arrogant, excessively and vigorously proud of themselves, and relentlessly self-important. Those we must listen to, if we choose to listen, or see if we choose to see, or whose words we read if we wish to read, are spectacularly full of themselves.  I say "if" in the hope that we may ignore these creatures if we try very hard to do so, with some success.

Regrettably the high and mighty who torment us generally lack any knowledge or wit or intelligence which would justify their vast self-regard, nor do they think any justification is needed for it. It's even more regrettable, though, that such remarkable and even delusional belief in their own significance is combined with a tendency to moralize.

With respect to politicians and their minions, their corruption and cupidity is such that it's absurd for them to make any moral judgments or claims.  But given the extent of their self-love it may be inevitable that they do just that.  Still, their moralizing is insufferable.

Generally, they moralize in an effort to retain their place and position and to facilitate their quest for infinite money.  They also do so to render those they rule over docile and willing to accept their exploitation.

The high and mighty in the media and the arts, on the other hand, seem to moralize primarily to instruct those of us they think are unelightened but nonetheless able to be educated, or if unable or unwilling to be educated may be compelled to be enlightened.  

As I've remarked before regarding what I've called the "Missionary Media" its moralizing often takes the form of insertions into narratives of plot and expositive devices.   These devices exemplify relationships and characters which are contrary to traditional norms but are considered by the inserters to be appropriate and even desirable.

Unfortunately, this kind of moralizing has in many cases taken place by in effect rewriting existing works to suit the purposes of the enlightened.  New characters may be introduced; known characters may be strangely changed. Some part of an existing portion of a story may be altered ; some events may be added.  In this fashion claims are made contrary to the various "isms" the enlightened maintain plague humanity and they are displayed to be condemned, all for the good of the unenlighted.

This procedure is often clumsy and heavy-handed, and can anger those who are fans of the original works despite their flaws, which too often are the result of the fact that they were made in the past by people insufficiently enlightened and ignorant.  Moralizing by refurbishing past works is annoying and condescending.

Media and art have always been used as propaganda, but moralizing is especially disturbing and offensive when it involves the deliberate alteration of beloved stories, or of history, or by defying common sense and through contrivance which lacks all credibility.  The movie Conclave, which I've seen, and the book on which it's based, which I haven't read, are examples of moralizing which fails and is unsatisfactory because the narrative and plot devices employed to make the desired moral points lack credibility.

The film was interesting and well made but ended with election to the papacy of an unknown man suddenly made Cardinal just before the death of the pontiff to be replaced, who it is discovered has both male and female sexual organs.  That discovery was made after his election, and is known only to a few.  As far as I can see, the election of this unknown takes place only because he makes what is in the movie an unremarkable and rather trite speech about the horrors of war and conflict (he was archbishop of Kabul--I don't know whether such a diocese actually exists). He had the opportunity, apparently, to have surgery to become entirely male (biologically) but decided not to go under the knife. 

I don't know if more of the Cardinals become aware of this, but he duly becomes Pope and all is well.  Which just goes to show that it doesn't matter what sexual organs one has ...etc. 

Thus the moral point is made, but through a rather bewildering and incredible plot twist.  I have no real problem with this point, but think that the election of an unknown person to the papacy in such circumstances just wouldn't occur, no matter what sexual organs he/she/they had. Moralizing by use of an absurd contrivance has no effect. It just seems silly. Indeed, I think it insults the intelligence of the viewers

The moralists in this case tried much too hard.

Quo Vadimus?

To a certain extent, where we as a nation are going can be determined by the goals of our putative leaders.

Watching accounts of the Mideast trip was like watching a child accompanied by a host of attendants on his first trip to Disney World.  Exclamations of wonder at the (opulent) sights and expectation of gifts from those displaying them to his admiring eyes.  The expectation was satisfied.

Each day brings something unexpected.  We're fated to live in interesting times.  A person who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution says he doesn't know if he must uphold it.   The Director of Homeland Security doesn't know what habeas corpus means; indeed, she thinks it means something quite different--deportation without due process.

Such an absurdity would be amusing in other circumstances, but in these circumstances can only be indicative of a stunning level of ignorance.  The carefully planned humiliation of a head of state by the increasingly haggard-looking head of our own through use of contrived props does nothing more than induce distrust of us, already at a high level given the contempt being shown for former friends and allies. Who will be willing to accept an invitation to the White House, knowing that they may be ambushed as part of a self-serving stunt?

The nation's air traffic control system is failing.  It has been all but admitted that the tariffs being imposed will cost Americans and American businesses as businesses are being told to eat the resulting costs, reducing their profits rather than increasing prices. The efforts being made to return our economy to what it was 70 years ago continue.  Threats and litigation aimed at chilling First Amendment rights across the board proliferate. The Secretary of Defense has commenced holding monthly Christian prayer services at the Pentagon--what better place is there for those calling themselves Christian to pray?

Sometimes I wonder if this cavalcade of grotesqueries is brought not according to a plan but due to a tendency to react on mere whimsy, without thought but in eager pursuit of vaguely defined goals disregarding all consequences. That would explain the errors made in culling agencies of staff and cutting benefits, and the ad hoc grants of exceptions to tariffs and economic policies. Those in thrall to those setting the goals vie with each other in pursuit of them, seeking the favor of their master. Who is best at chest- pounding displays and sychophancy? The fact that most of those appointed to positions of power in the regime are unqualified may also explain errors made in implementing draconian measures.

But it seems that the ends in view are fairly clear.  The ultimate goal seems to be to benefit the very wealthy at the expense of others, and that has been at least one of the goals of our government for many years.  Now, though, the benefit sought isn't merely monetary.  The desires of the very wealthy for a docile, largely ignorant, unambitious, predictable, easily-led populace are to be satisfied as well.

Regarding "Practical Atheism"

 

The new Pontifex Maximus mentioned something called "practical atheism" in the first homily he delivered in that capacity.  Practical atheism is usually defined as an acceptance of God's existence but disregard of it in daily life.

Leo XIV, however, perhaps unsurprisingly, put a peculiarly Christian spin on the concept.  According to the pontiff a practical atheist believes Jesus to be a charismatic leader or superman, not God.

I don't think that makes much sense.  A theist need not be a Christian for one thing, and so need not even believe Jesus existed.  The pontiff displays the haughty exclusivity of Christianity, i.e. the belief that there is no other God but Christ or rather the triune deity of Nicean orthodoxy.  That makes anyone who isn't Christian an atheist.

Also, a practical atheist as usually defined need not substitute technology or science or pleasure or anything else for God in daily life as it seems Leo thinks must be the case.  In fact, a highly moral life is the goal of adherents of ancient pagan philosophy in the West and others in the East such as Buddhists and Taoists. 

Simply put, belief in the personal God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam isn't a necessary condition of a virtuous life.  So, what are called "Judeo-Christian values" for example, while they may be characteristic of Judaism and Christianity, aren't exclusive to them.  They arose in other philosophical traditions and some were even borrowed from them.

The Pope is an Augustinian, and Augustine the Bishop of Hippo was adamant that those who weren't Christian weren't entitled to salvation even though they couldn't know of Jesus, having lived and died before he appeared on Earth.  So, for example, Plato, Aristotle and others who extolled virtue centuries before the birth of Jesus is said to have taken place are condemned in the harsh judgment of the man to whom we owe the harsh concept of Original Sin.

So, the new Pope may be said to be a follower of the man for whom his order is named based on this homily. But his apparent devotion to social justice and relief of the poor may serve to make him an admirable pontiff nonetheless.

Worker Drones of America Unite!

 

We hear from members of the bizarre coterie appointed to implement the schemes of our plutocracy that they have a vision of our future. Our Glorious Union is to be transformed into what it's believed to have been like during the Eisenhower administration, in the sense that the great majority of adults will be employed in factories. Eventually, their children and grandchildren will take their jobs in the same factories. Thus our future will be our past, ideally. And it's believed that the worker drones we'll become will relish our narrow, unvarying lives.

I think only those who never worked in factories could believe that we all should do so--that living our lives as factory workers is what's appropriate for us and what we should desire.  I've worked in factories, if only during summers while a student, and while there's nothing degrading about such work, which is good and honest, it can be dull and predictable, physically demanding and sometimes dirty; sometimes even dangerous.  

What kind of person would think that most of us should be employed in relatively menial jobs and expect that our children and grandchildren will do the same?  Who would maintain that we should hope for nothing more for ourselves and our descendants?

It's a kind of romantic fantasy of the rich.  It's at once condescending and self-serving on their part. Nothing would better serve their interests than to have a nation of drones working on assembly lines manufacturing products for their enjoyment and use.  It must be comforting to imagine that the drones will be better off for their exploitation.

Does the fantasy include more than this, though? I suspect it includes the belief that the drones would be docile, socially and politically.  They would be as characters in the sitcoms popular in the 1950s and early to mid 1960s.  Adults would work hard at their unchanging jobs and live their unchanging lives, without ambition or hope for more. They would have no unsettling expectations.  Kids would be concerned with harmless (and orthodox) sex and sports and food and consumer goods.

This is the American dream of the plutocrats; it's what they dream for us.

Wishing for Wish Fulfillment

 

When I was a wee lad, a youngster, I was tremendously fond of comic books. I'm not sure they still exist, except perhaps as collectors' items.  They were in paper form, you see. I suspect that if they do still exist as something not treasured by collectors, they're referred to by the more dignified name "graphic novels."

Superheroes abounded in comic books. They were good for the most part, and did good works, unless they were induced to be evil by some ingenious villian or cosmic event. Most of the comic book heroes are with us still, but now appear on movie or television screens or computer monitors, etc. However, they're revealed sometimes to be, or are joined by, anti-heroes who are just as super but less good, or are tormented or sad or depressed, times being what they are.

The comic books of my younger days were read by kids; children and perhaps teenagers. Few if any adults could be found perusing them.  Normally, one "grew out of them."  Now, though, adults flock to movies featuring a variety of superheroes or watch them on streaming services or otherwise.

There's something peculiar about adults indulging in juvenile fantasies of possessing super strength or other super powers, performing heroic acts while demolishing buildings or cities, vanquishing evildoers or enemies. Something disturbing, in fact. Imagine adults eagerly reading comic books about the exploits of Superman, Batman, Flash, Thor, Ironman, etc.  Then imagine they're your friends, coworkers, neighbors, police officers, doctors, soldiers...anyone.

It doesn't inspire confidence in them.  It's understandable to seek entertainment and escapism is a form of it.  But I think it's a cause for concern when our entertainment drastically departs from reality. The more it does so, the more it reflects a dissatisfaction with the world and frustration at being unable to change it.

It's also a cause for concern that the entertainment we cherish is essentially childish.  We won't become superheroes and they won't come to save us. We know this, but it pleases us to pretend.  We even have regular gatherings where we dress up as our heroes, and those who pretend to be them professionally appear to be admired. It's a kind of moveable Halloween party.

Harmless fun, perhaps.  But dreaming of them is a kind of admission of our inability to cope without the benefit of dreams.  It's an implied acceptance of our place.  We seem to, and probably wish to, prolong our childhood.

In past years of war and economic depression we enjoyed fantasies of being rich or heroic played out in movie theaters or on TV, but we didn't dress up as the characters in those fantasies and attend conventions at which they're celebrated. 

Perhaps we've always been inclined to fantasy and masquerade, and now merely have more opportunity to indulge that inclination.  But there may be something dangerously inherent in our society or nation that causes us to be particularly eager to live in an imagined world and ignore the all-to-real one that we encounter on a daily basis.

Intimations of Mortality

 

I'm not a great fan of Wordsworth or any of the Romantic poets. His work strikes me as sappy. Whenever I think of him, I think of Bullwinkle reciting his poem about daffodils, wandering lonely as a cloud. Nevertheless I base the title of this post on the title of his poem Intimations of Immortality, substituting "mortality" for "immortality" as the former, not the latter, is on my mind.

You'd think it wouldn't be a difficult thing for us to understand that we're mortal, i.e. that we will die.  It should be obvious, and intimations therefore inappropriate or unnecessary. But we contrive to avoid thinking of it, at least, most of the time and sometimes for years. The intimations arise with age, though.  Your body gives you little reminders; sometimes big ones. Arthritis, for example; problems with eyesight, weight,  balance. Innumerable weaknesses as the organism gradually dissipates.

But we should think of it and not only when we're reminded of it's approach or are suddenly confronted with it one way or another, through the death of someone we know, for example.  So we're told by the ancient philosophers, especially the Stoics, and by their subsequent imitators.

Memento mori: remember you are mortal, and will die.  Supposedly these words or others like them were spoken in the ear of a Roman general granted a triumph by a slave riding with him in a chariot as the spoils of his victory were paraded before him.  Glory is fleeting, fame and prosperity ephemeral. In short, live as if you'll die tomorrow. Understand that those you love or value will die, leaving you alone. This is a form of Stoic practice as we see in the Roman Stoics in particular.

Such thoughts necessarily quash our self-regard and self-importance. They do the same with other "selfs" as well, like self-righteousness and self-love and selfishness in general. As Horace told us, we are but dust and shadows, no matter how much we believe we're important, significant, powerful and worthy.  It's absurd for us to expect or demand loyalty or love or obedience from others.

Sadly, past and present meglomaniacs disregard their insignificance and fail or fear to recognize their mortality.  They don't think they will die. Perhaps we may take comfort in knowing that they will, eventually.

The Misery Of The Sycophant

 

If we are to believe Suetonius, Gaius Caesar, better known as Caligua, was responsible for various atrocities and absurdities but was lavishly praised by those who served him and were under his dominion, including Senators, though they were fully aware of his malice, cruelty, and even madness.  They knew he was ruining the Roman state but extravagantly praised him and facilitated his sometimes deadly caprices for self- serving reasons--sometimes to curry favor, sometimes to remain alive and unmolested.

They were sycophants, in other words.  Eventually, certain Praetoreans assassinated Caligula, saving the wealthy nobility of Rome from further humiliation (which they accepted and even celebrated) at his hands.

Sycophants flourish whenever and wherever there are persons of great wealth or who have great power.  History is full of them.  More recently, sycophants abounded during the reigns of Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and abound now in North Korea where Kim Jon Un has his worshipers, willing or unwilling.

We have our sycophants today, of course. They fall over each other in their eagerness to acclaim the person they serve.

As a rule, sycophants know those they praise and flatter so assiduously are unworthy of adulation. They may even hold them in contempt.  They may be aware that those they call a genius, or claim to be a savior, or contend are the finest (insert title) ever, are in fact fools or maniacs or the worst (insert title) in history. This doesn't matter, however.  Whether due to fear or in pursuit of personal wealth or power, they will laugh at jokes made, compete in efforts at adoration, though all the time loathing those they hail as gifts God has granted the human race.

Sycophants therefore are contemptible themselves.  But do they deserve pity as well? Imagine the shame today's sychophants must feel for debasing themselves, what little self-esteem they must have. Their excessive accolades are embarrassing. Will they eventually acknowledge their degradation? Or will they, in an unconscious effort to to avoid self-loathing, come to convince themselves that their ridiculous, shameless pandering was right and proper?  We must wait and see.

No Sense of Decency

 

"Decency" is a word which seems to have a fairly broad definition.  It seems associated for the most part with propriety; conduct which conforms to what is considered proper, generally in a moral sense.  Those without decency act in such a manner as to call into question their worth or quality as acceptable members of society.  Someone with no sense of decency acts dishonorably, and fails to conform to standards people are expected to meet in their dealings with others.

A famous example of the use of the word is what took place in the course of hearings involving the infamous Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin, known as the Army-McCarthy hearings.  These addressed McCarthy's claims that the army was filled with Communists.

Joseph Welch was the lawyer for the army.  During one of the hearings McCarthy revealed that a young member of Welch's staff once signed a petition supportive of the Communist Party.  There was apparently no claim he joined the party at any time, but McCarthy made the statement in an effort to assert that the staffer and others defending the army, including Welch himself, had Communist sympathies.

Being associated with the Communist Party in those times could ruin a career or even life. Welch famously chastised McCarthy in response, accusing him of character assassination of the staffer for no good reason and asking "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" It was a dramatic moment, and it's considered that this response triggered the decline in McCarthy's popularity and influence.

As a result of this moment, which was made during a televised hearing and was widely replayed, McCarthy was thought by many to have acted improperly, in a dishonorable manner; to have been unjust and cruel in an effort to score a trivial point. He acted indecently. 

I'm uncertain whether something similar could take place now. Certainly if it did now all would know of it and would see it almost instantly, but I don't think it would have the same impact.  That's because I feel many of us, and most and perhaps all of those who currently dominate and influence our plutocracy, have no sense of decency.  As a consequence, they can't be shamed as others were in the past.

What we see enacted now is being done not merely without thought but as if considerations of justice and honesty are no longer of any importance.  There are no standards which apply, or at least no standards which those in power believe people think should be met.  Moral conduct, and in particular honorable conduct, is neither expected nor thought to be admirable in these sad times.  It is only important that a policy or agenda is advanced, or what is desired is acquired, without incurring a loss.

We may have become an indecent society, or nation, or civilization.

Some Unexpected Uses Of AI

 

There's much concern over the potential of Artificial Intelligence. To a certain extent this is understandable. But one possible benefit which hasn't been recognized, to my knowledge, would result from the use of AI in our news media to replace the humans who relate and interpret the news of the day, endlessly.

I think that ideally, news would consist merely of statements describing events that take place, with explanation as needed, but without comment or interpretation. For example, we would be informed that certain legislation is pending, was voted on and the result of the voting.  Instead of being shown the tiresome entirety of a speech or press conference, the bulk of which would consist of self-serving and predictable rhetoric, we would be advised that they took place and the subjects addressed.  Our technology is such that those few who want to hear and see the speech or press conference itself would have the option to do so.

As it is, comment and interpretation are virtually all that is provided. People appear who are asked questions about what takes place and opine on them. What they opine may be anticipated with considerable accuracy based on what network is being watched. 

Each network has its own stable of experts who expound talking points and opinions which mirror those of the owners and watchers of the networks and those politicians they support. The display of experts and pundits to recite predictable opinions or speculate along particular lines seems to be a universal practice.

As an option for those who wouldn't be satisfied by a simple description of events, generated figures could be used which would, by generated audio, pontificate or speculate regarding events as would be expected given the idealogy accepted by the network and its typical viewers. I suspect it would be a relatively simple matter to provide AI with information regarding most politicians and their interests and activities and the types of actions and occurrences taking or to take place which would result in the kind of opinions, interpretations and speculations viewers would expect  and accept which would be at least as enlightening as those now being provided by the people used for this purpose.

It's true that jobs may be lost, but I doubt anything else will be.  Since these news networks seem to thrive in their current form, it appears people won't stop watching them as I've tried to do.  As we must bear with them let's at least acknowledge their inanity in this manner

"The Horror! The Horror!"

 

These are the words of Kurtz, the hugely successful, mysterious and and seemingly evil ivory trader that is the central figure in Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, spoken on his deathbed. They're overheard by Marlowe, the narrator, who has spent much time and effort on behalf of a Belgian company traversing part of Africa to find Kurtz, who is said to have "gone native."

The story was not very subtly transplanted to Southeast Asia at the time of the Vietnam War in the movie Apocalypse Now.  In the movie, the character of  Kurtz becomes a very large American Colonel, played by Marlon Brando, who has gone rogue.

Just what the words "the horror" refers to is a matter of some dispute. In the novella, the reference to a Belgian company indicates that Kurtz has set up his kingdom of sorts in the Belgian Congo. The Belgians were notoriously brutal in their treatment of the people inhabiting their colony. "The horror" may refer to that brutality and the death and destruction it caused; it may refer to Africa and Africans, and their allegedly evil  effect on Europeans; it may refer to the lives and conduct of Europeans in their colonies as they raped and plundered Africans and the land of Africa.

Generally, though, it's thought to refer to imperialism's corruption of both imperialists and their subjects/victims.

It's a corruption to be expected in those who desire things not in their control, as the Stoics would put it.  In this case the desire is for other places and people.  More specifically the desire is to exploit other places and people, and do whatever is necessary to do so.  Those with those desires who pursue them are incapable of virtue.  They're instead cruel and brutal, and have no concern for or interest in those they harm.

This has a familiar ring.  The 21st century is not that different from the 19th century; at least, people who have such desires and act on them are much the same in any period.

One of the things I find admirable about Stoicism is that its prescription for happiness and standard for ethical conduct is simple and persuasive.  Most all our problems result from the pursuit of or aversion to things beyond our control.  This causes anger, envy, hatred, lust, conflict, fear-- essentially every cause of misconduct.

Non Mea Culpa

 

Catholics of a certain age (like me) said aloud, each Sunday, the Latin words "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" while reciting the Confiteor.  That was a confession of our many sins we were all required to make not only to God, but to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Michael the Archangel, John the Baptist, Saint Peter and Saint Paul, all the saints and, if memory serves, most everybody else.  Each of us repeated that those sins were committed through our fault.  So, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" which translates as "through my fault, through my fault, through my most grevious fault."

While saying these words, we would beat or rap on our chests with our fists. The Confiteor was intended to be a humble acknowledgement of our failings and errors and admission that we were responsible for them.

It is yet another example of Catholicism's odd celebration of our sinful nature. But it's also, more positively, an example of moral courage and integrity.  The devil and his angels aren't blamed for our wrongs and mistakes, nor are other people.  To use a modern phrase I think is suspect, we "own" our sins.  We don't seek to describe them as trivial; we don't argue that they're sins everyone commits, and therefore are insignificant and we shouldn't be singled out for criticism; we don't misrepresent them for self-serving reasons; we don't claim that we're unfairly treated when asked to account for them.

In other words, we're not miserable, cowardly, hypocritical, weak, shifty weasels. Instead, we're honorable people, who have the courage to admit fault and the character to do better.

In what's being called "Signalgate" weasels abound. Perhaps they follow the example of their chief, who is never willing to acknowledge fault. But it's particularly difficult to avoid blame when a mistake has been admitted and the mistake is evidently one no knowledgeable person would have made and could have had serious consequences.  Seeking to avoid blame in those circumstances and becoming increasingly shrill in doing so merely make one appear cowardly, contemptible and untrustworthy.

Those who lack moral courage are likely to be cruel. They're also likely to be crass and juvenile.  We see these traits in the Group Chat in question but also in the conduct of this regime and the content of its self-righteous communications.

Money Makes the Words Go Away

 

We know from the movie Cabaret that money makes the world go around. Randy Newman has told us that it's money that matters (in the U.S.A.).  Recent events make it clear that money, also, makes words go away.

In particular, it does so with respect to words which the First Felon finds offensive.  By withholding federal funds, or threatening to do so, he compels institutions of higher learning to make certain that certain words won't be used by their students or faculty or on their campuses.  By "soliciting" huge donations from large law firms by use of threats to diminish or eliminate their access to government contracts and information, he in effect pardons them for conduct and expression contrary to his pursuits and induces them to agree not to express positions he dislikes in the future. Through the efforts of his plutocrat ally or perhaps crush, money is to be paid to those who agree to sign a petition which discourages voting for a particular candidate for a position on a state supreme court.

As a result, the government of a nation supposedly devoted to freedom of speech devolves into a racket for spending and being paid money in order to limit speech.  It's appropriate that our nation's government acts to limit our freedom in such a crude fashion, through racketeering, as crudity is characteristic of this regime and its facilitators and lackeys.

Our Great Republic's increasingly suspect Supreme Court facilitated, if it didn't cause, this kind of corruption when it equated the use of money to influence voting and government policy to speech protected by the First Amenment in the Citizens United case.  That decision virtually assured that our government would be corrupted by money. Our plutoctacy may owe its existence to the Justices of the Supreme Court, some of whom have revealed themselves to be unusually venal.

What hope is there that such a court will prohibit the use of money to limit free speech when it already has decided the use of money is itself a form of protected speech?

Trimalchio Exceeded

 

One of the less likable characters in the Satyricon written by the man we know as Gauis Petronius Arbiter (and there are many unlikable characters in that Latin novel of ancient Rome) is the wealthy freeman--a former slave--called Trimalchio. Trimalchio presides over an absurdly lavish feast featuring a remarkable number of exotic dishes, plainly costly if not palatable,  intended to impress his guests. 

While his guests eat and drink, he pontificates pompously on a number of subjects, including his extensive plans for his very elaborate funeral, portions of which he enacts.  He's arrogant, ostentatious, vulgar, completely without taste or class; the model of a nouveau riche. 

The title character in F. Scott Fitzgerald's novel The Great Gatsby is compared to Trimalchio as he's thought to be of the same character, trying to buy friends and his way into high society.  Trimalchio appears at the head of this post as he's shown in Fellini's version of the Satyricon.

Not for the first time, I'm reminded of Trimalchio by the current occupant of the White House.  He's also arrogant, ostentatious and vulgar, but he has exceeded Trimalchio in the extent of his showiness.  Trimalchio's excessive display took place on his own property.  Regrettably, it's the White House that in this case is the scene at which the garish, gaudy show takes place.

Whether it's being made a car dealership showroom, or so cluttered with golden objects, drapes and other hangings, it's walls filled with portraits, as to become something like a turn of the 19th century bordello patronized by rich merchants, the Executive Mansion is transformed into a showcase of crudeness the like of which would fill Trimalchio with awe and envy.  A ballroom is planned as well, it seems, and the historic and traditional Rose Garden is to be paved over and made a patio.

What is remarkable, though, is that it's thought that such gaudiness is the height of good taste and sophistication.  The White House is to become a kind of resort, conference center and wedding venue.  What could be better, or more appropriate, in these times?

Social Solipsism

Epistemological Solipsism is one of the sillier philosophical positions taken by philosophers in the long history of philosophy.  In its less silly form it amounts to the claim that, although we may have good cause to think we ourselves exist, we have no good reason to believe in the existence of other people or things.

I've always felt that there's something offensive about the argument that we can't really know whether the people and things we interact with without question every instant we live are real.  The contention is utterly futile, and one of the several philosophical positions which constitute claimed differences which make no difference.

But if taken seriously as a belief which impacts how we live, it's most offensive as it diminishes the worth and significance of others.  Why trouble ourselves about what can't be shown to be real?

I doubt anyone accepts Epistemological Solipsism in any meaningful sense.  But I think there are many who are what I'll call Social Solipsists for purposes of this post, and that their number is growing.

I'll define "Social Solipsism" as the belief that there is no good reason to care about other people.  Social Solipsists [shall we call them "the SS"? Not quite yet, perhaps] don't think other people cannot be shown to exist.  They think that they exist, but believe that they don't matter.  Social Solipsists aren't concerned by them, they don't sympathize with them, they don't think about them.  Social Solipsists acknowledge other people exist, but treat them as though they don't.

A Selective Social Solipsist thinks that certain people are significant or useful for one reason or another, for selfish reasons, and so care about them.  But the great majority of their fellow human beings are of no importance.

Social Solipsism has become rampant in our politics and in the media, social media included.  Other people--those who aren't useful, or don't think or act like we do, who don't figure in our plans, whose existence doesn't fit our interest or is contrary to it--don't concern us. They may be disregarded, and if necessary exiled or deported or  removed from the scene in some way.

Removed like Palestinians from Gaza, for example; or removed from employment in the federal goverment. Social Solipsists aren't concerned with the impact that their conduct has on others, as those others though they exist might as well not exist. Social Solipsists need not respect others, or consider their desires, for the same reason.

It's a new way of defining our self-regard and selfishness, and adds a philosophical tint to our sociopathy. And it seems to fit those who think empathy is a weakness well, if I don't say so myself.

Flip-Floppin' Away

 

The woefull state of the politics of our great nation distracts me from musing here on the latest efforts of the Missionary Media to enlighten us (something I long to do, those efforts being so dull, smug, and offensive). So bear with me, as someone said recently, as I marvel at the bewildering, inconsistent actions of our scatter-brained leader and the regime he's put in place to assure we're passengers in what may be called "Mr. Trump's Wild Ride."

Federal employees are fired or laid off without thought, for no reason but to satisfy the urge to do so.  Then, when reality intrudes on the termination spree and the disciples of Musk understand that in their enthusiasm to do his bidding they've fired useful and necessary people, efforts are made to rehire them.  And now that even those with rudimentary intelligence understand that thinking should precede action, we're told by one such person that while many will be fired because that is in some vaguely defined sense necessary, "good people" should be spared the axe.

We're now told that instead of a chainsaw, a scalpel is to be used.  Mirabile dictu!

Tariffs are threatened and imposed, and then relaxed or rescinded. Claims are made departments will be dissolved; then it's denied that they were made.  

Unprincipled people act haphazardly. They react haphazardly as well. They have certain desires they wish to gratify, and when acts taken fail to gratify those desires they reverse them.  They flip-flop.  They may do so again.  

In this case one of the desires of those in the regime is to satisfy the needs and wishes of rich, powerful people.  That's the function of government in a plutocracy.  So, cherished tariffs are made and unmade.

That function is complicated here due to the fact the regime leader is easily swayed by those who praise him and seek to satisfy his need for admiration. Also, he is notoriously unable or unwilling to be honest.  Tariffs imposed therefore are waived or postponed if the rich and powerful find them inconvenient, or if his ego is appropriately stroked.  Maybe he'll change his mind again.

But the haphazard, unpredictable conduct of the unpricipled creates uncertainty, and uncertainty is something plutocrats dislike and fear.  So perhaps his reckless conduct will be reigned in to protect the plutocrats. But where will that leave the rest of us?

The Pride of the Patsy

 

Someone who is easily manipulated, cheated, duped--a patsy, in other words--is generally known, even famous, for this weakness. Those who use the patsy are aware of it of course but others become aware as the extent of the manipulation is clear, and the patsy is made a subject of ridicule.

The patsy suspects he/she is perceived to be a pushover.  This often is the reason why the patsy is so easily fooled.  The patsy resents being seen to be a patsy, and so is eager to achieve something significant which shows him/her to be someone to contend with; an intelligent, savvy mover and shaker.  So Fredo Corleone in The Godfather II, for example, betrayed his brother because he thought he would thereby accomplish something important for himself which would make him a player in the game.  That's what he was promised by those who used him.

Perhaps the greatest patsy in modern history was Neville Chamberlain, who famously sought to appease Hitler by agreeing on behalf of Great Britain that Germany could acquire most of Czechoslovakia in return for Hitler's promise that Germany would seek no further territory.  Chamberlain believed he had obtained "peace in our time" and told everyone he had done so.  We know what happened next.

Because the patsy suspects he/she is thought to be a fool, the patsy is eager for and demands respect. The greater the patsy is perceived as a dupe, the more angrily and often and publicly respect is demanded.

I think what we saw take place recently at the White House is an example of this trait of the patsy.  He knows he's been considered a patsy for quite some time, and for good reason. Thus he (together with his anxious lackey) demanded he be shown respect by the repetition of expressions of gratitude although those expressions have been made many times already.  Significantly, however, he insisted that he himself be thanked, or thanks be given to him. Thanks given in the past were inadequate.

Since he's done little more than repeat Russian contentions and cut Ukraine out of negotiations, the fact the thanks in the excessive form demanded weren't forthcoming shouldn't be surprising.  It may be the case, as some have claimed, that no amount of groveling would have sufficed in any case, as what took place was simply the patsy doing his best to be a patsy.

We may find that Chamberlain will be replaced and another take his place as the greatest.

Brat Politics

 

I've been asking myself what word best characterizes the attitude of those making up the current regime and its acolytes. Clearly, they're cruel and their deeds for the most part reckless, corrupt and destructive.  But what word best describes the spirit behind their caprices?

I've decided that word is " bratty."  A "brat" (when not a bratwurst) is a spoiled, rude, annoying child or immature person.  A brat feels entitled and expects to get all that he/she desires.

Think of brats you've known and those portrayed in media.  The insufferable, cruel, whiney Joffrey Baretheon in Game of Thrones; the bullying, privileged crook Biff from Back to the Future; the contemptable, rude, malicious toady and sneak Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver; the despicable, spoiled, shrill Draco Malfoy from the Harry Potter movies; the exceedingly pampered and endlessly demanding Veruca Salt from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Then consider the rogues gallery assembled by the one to be known here as Aging Orange to pursue the agenda formulated by the bastardized "conservatives" who authored Project 2025, which AO repeatedly claimed not to know. It's difficult to conceive of them as anything but brats.

Their self-regard and self-righteousness is remarkable. They're not only entirely convinced that what they say and do and desire to do is all that is right and good, they expect that everyone else should know that's the case and resent it when they don't.  Indeed, they assail the sanity, morality and patriotism of those who doubt them to any extent.

Though they act like annoying, blustering know-it-alls who expect their whims to be treated as commands to be followed without question, they lack the wit to recognize their bratty nature. In fact they lack wit altogether. If they possessed a sense of humor their conduct might be tolerable in some respects. But their humor is vulgar and crude and never rises above mere sarcasm.

As brats, they're childish in thought and action. They view the world and others as spoiled children would-- without empathy or subtlety.  They're essentially selfish.  They employ threats to get their way and throw tantrums when they're not treated as they think they should be.

I'm unable to think of any other instance in our sad history when a nation was ruled by brats.  Past brats were in most cases mere figureheads, manipulated by powers behind the throne.  But now the brats are in charge.

Abandon all Thought Ye Who Enter Here

 

If there was something along the lines of a gate or portal by which people entered the service of the regime now infesting the government of our Glorious Union, I imagine that the words appearing in the title to this post would be emblazoned on it.  With the substitution of a single word, they of course are inscribed on the Gate into Hell in Dante's Inferno.

Some might say the word substituted, "hope," should be returned to the wording and made part of an inscription to be placed over an entrance into the USA itself.

We know that the titular head of the regime believes personal loyalty to him to be a condition of participation in it.  There is nothing less conducive to intelligence and critical thinking. What it requires is unthinking obedience to commands.  Questioning them, or even considering their appropriateness is disloyal.  Allegiance is owed to a single person, rightness is determined using a single standard.

As a mechanism to discourage thinking, inquiry and the application of intelligence to problem solving, the requirement of unquestioned loyalty is more effective than dogmatism.  Dogmatism is the absolute acceptance and arrogant application of particular ideas and positions. Thought may come into play in deciding which ideas one accepts.  Loyalty, however, is an emotional attachment, sometimes combined with hero-worship.

To an extent, dogmatism has played a part in most administrations.  In the past, the two political parties have not been radically different in certain matters, but have disagreed on questions of social policy.  The social policies favored by the party in power have dictated executive actions in many instances, which has meant that those actions have been undertaken mostly because dogmatism demanded it.

But in the current case, dogmatism is combined with personal loyalty of a kind typically granted to the leader of a cult.  The result is the implementation of policies consistent with both directed to ends espoused by the leader without regard to consequences.  Why consider consequences of sweeping actions when they are self-evidently appropriate because they're taken in pursuit of the desires of the leader?  No other considerations are significant.

So, for example, in the haste to terminate government employees in accordance with cult and dogma, mistakes are made.  Essential personnel are fired.  Then efforts are made to rehire them.

This unthinking compliance with the demands of cult and dogma is especially dangerous given the efforts made to extend presidential authority.

This is what our system has brought about, apparently. It may be corrupt, or we may be corrupted.

 

Of the Wealthy, by the Wealthy, for the Wealthy

 

It becomes clearer by the day that the primary purpose of the frenetic actions of the current regime is to benefit those who require no benefit, but seek more nonetheless.  This hunger after more money and assets is to be expected in the addicted.  Like the gluttons and hoarders they emulate, they consume and acquire merely to do so.  But the very wealthy are more wretched than their fellow addicts, as their mania for acquisition is at the expense of those struggling for even a small part of available resources.

Tellingly, the actions taken to reduce the size of government impact those departments which police corruption and conflicts of interest, enforce taxation or otherwise those areas which aren't important to the wealthy, such as education and healthcare.  They cut foreign aid, which is also without benefit to the wealthy. But the regime has ends in view beyond pandering to the rich.

For example, it's determined to stop the "persecution" of Christians it somehow believes is taking place within government.  It's devoted to the eradication of diversity initiatives, thus protecting the rights of mistreated Caucasians through a kind of process of elimination. Weirdly, the regime engages in a kind of crusade against transgenders and others whose sexual orientation differs from the norm (an extension of America's peculiar obsession with sex).

All this is secondary, though. I think most of these initiatives are stunts, intended to assuage the concerns of social conservatives making up the regime's base (there are no more political conservatives--civil rights are impediments to autocrats and plutocrats).

History teaches us that the wealthy prefer autocracy to democracy.  It's far easier to control a single person or small group than playing political parties against one another.  From the perspective of the wealthy, it would be ideal that all countries of the world be governed by autocrats who are at the beck and call of the rich. It's unsurprising, then, that our chubby-cheeked and obedient vice-president is urging European countries to give the far-right more of a say and that we cater to the Kremlin.

The efforts to expand Executive authority can't reasonably be characterized as preserving a democratic form of government or defense of the Constitution.  Those seeking to transform the government are violating their oaths to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, which should come as no surprise.

The Evil Twin of Richie Rich

 

To the extent one can be a contemporary of a comic book/strip character, it seems I'm a contemporary of Richie Rich.  Richie was the richest person--a boy I suppose I should say--in the world.  He was so rich his middle initial was a dollar sign.

Unlike most incredibly wealthy people, he was eager to make friends and spent his money helping those less well off. He was, in other words, entirely imaginary; the product of an imagination so vast as to entertain the charming belief that the exceedingly rich care about and care for the poor and unfortunate.

The actual person who is currently the richest person in the world bears no physical resemblance to Richie Rich. The child he insists on brandishing and parading before his friends and others, and before the cameras, looks a bit like Richie, though.  We must hope the child lives a normal and happy life despite his father's relentless efforts to put him on display.

So, Mr. Musk isn't Richie's identical twin. But in his arrogance, his disregard for those whose careers he's so eager to ruin, his blatant efforts to acquire power and more wealth to the injury of others, and eagerness to take advantage of the president who seems to have something of a crush on him, he qualifies as evil.

He comes from a wealthy family.  The very wealthy are very self-righteous as they've never had any reason to doubt their worth.  So they tend to believe that what they think is self-evidently true and those who oppose them are not merely wrong, but must be chastized if not "deleted" as he's suggested in his ominous way.  I can picture him saying his critics should be "corrected" in the way the ghostly caretaker of the Overlook Hotel told Jack Nicholson's character he had "corrected" his family in Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.

Some of the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age became philanthropists as they aged.  Perhaps they hoped thereby to buy absolution for their sins and into heaven as they bought so much else.  It seems Richie's evil twin is buying a goverment; perhaps more than one. Perhaps he thinks he can buy heaven as well.

Sentimentality and the Super Bowl

 

Watching this year's version of the spectacle called the Super Bowl, I was struck by how sentimental it's become.  It has been for some time, I think, but this year was the first time I felt that it was so self-consciously sentimental as to seem contrived.  Indeed, even silly.

As I listened while the Battle of Iwo Jima, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the first landing on the moon, the first flight of a manned aircraft, the march on Washington led by Martin Luther King and other great events were solemnly invoked, I couldn't help but reflect on the fact they were being invoked in connection with nothing more than a football game.  

It's preposterous to compare a football game to such events. It's absurd to claim that those who play in or watch that game are in any respect comparable to those who participated in those great events or achieve anything as significant as what they achieved. I don't care how well the game is played or how much money it cost to watch it in person.

The game and the seemingly endless pregame and halftime performances and football related musings of former players make up a spectacle, of course.  But even when the game takes place in a stadium bearing the name Caesar it doesn't compare with the spectacles which took place when real Caesars ruled and gladiatorial contests, beast fights and chariot races took place over many days, and not just a few hours, to mark a triumph or death or event. From a historical perspective, the Super Bowl isn't even that great of a spectacle let alone an event of the kind reverently noted before it was played.

Why, then, do we proclaim it's significance and greatness in such a histrionic manner as to become ridiculous? We don't seem to understand that by doing so we appear pathetic.  It's true that we live in an age where superlatives are regularly employed to describe anything, no matter how insignificant it may be, as the best or the worst thing in history.  Few may notice how amusing a propensity this is; there are indeed suckers born every minute.  Suckers are maudlin as well as gullible.

I enjoy watching the Super Bowl, typically.  That's because I enjoy watching football, though.  I don't think it has anything to do with great deeds performed by Americans in the past.  I don't think there's anything particularly laudable about extremely well paid athletes playing a game which can sometimes result in injury.  I understand we have a tendency to glorify great athletes.  We've always done this.  We are inclined in these sad times to misuse the word "hero"; I think because there are far fewer of them, just as there are far fewer great events taking place in a world where making money is the only perceived purpose of life.

But invoking the courage and sacrifice of those who fought in Iwo Jima in connection with the Super Bowl?  Really?

The Fools on the Hill

 

Benjamin Disraeli, the brilliant Prime Minister of England, once said:  "There is no act of treachery or meanness of which a political party is not capable; for in politics there is no honour."  This observation seems particularly applicable at this time, especially regarding the Republican Party.  But we must add to it the observation that while there is no honour in politics, nor is there courage or even intelligence as to that party in particular as the best evidence is it is for the most part made up of individuals so craven, so corrupt, so entirely spineless as to seem incredible.

How do we explain, otherwise, the fact that the Republicans making up the Senate and the House have become mere slaves to the grotesque creature who leads their party?  They cringe and obey him whatever he does and says.  If they had any intelligence or sense of history, they would understand that it's against their interests as members of the Legislative Branch to allow him and his lackeys to emasculate them and the government.  They've become political castrati singing his tune in high, piping voices.  They mince about the stage on which his bizarre opera is being played out, as if flaunting their servility.

Some of them gave lip service to the sanctity of our Constitution and the insurrection attempt in the past.  But they've changed their tune.  Now they parrot the claims he makes that January 6th was a lovefest.  They sanction pardons of those who threatened and injured members of law enforcement who strove to save their sorry asses on that day, which marked the end of American exceptionalism.  They fall over themselves in competition to praise his most fantastic claims and proposals.  They nod approvingly as he wrecks havoc.  The struggle to defend his caprices.

They shamelessly prostitute themselves in his service, as if he is their pimp.  We hear that some of his acolytes have joyfully said that "Daddy's home" as he took office.  There's something odd, indeed disturbing, when grown men bleat such a claim in their excitement.  How long have they eagerly awaited their Daddy's return, poor fellows?  They cherish their Daddy's approval.  They pander to those he panders to, simpering in their passion to please him.

What they do makes so little sense, and is such an extreme abandonment and surrender of their dignity and authority, that an argument can be made that they're victims of the psychological condition of infantilism--the retention of childish physical, mental and emotional characteristics in adult life.  How is it possible for them to have any self-respect?

We can only hope that they recover themselves somehow, and remember that they're supposed to be representatives of the people with obligations under the Constitution they've sworn to preserve, protect and defend.  Before it's too late.

Augustine vs. The Stoics

Let's try to ignore for a time the ugly and lunatic caperings of our politicians, including those of the elderly bully at the head of our government's Executive Branch.  [Is there anything more pathetic than an elderly bully?]  Instead let's consider some of the attacks made by the querulous Bishop of Hippo against the ancient Stoic philosophers.

Augustine, considered by some a saint, is a very significant figure, but I maintain was a very peculiar person.  I've noted several times in this blog that I think he was a kind of exhibitionist, flaunting his sins supposedly for our benefit, to demonstrate that even so great a sinner may be saved by Jesus.  Thus his life serves to demonstrate how desirable it is to be a Christian.  On the other hand, it's possible his conceit was that he was so great a man, so worthy of God's blessing, that he was saved even though he sinned so extensively.  In any case, this belief that Christianity provides salvation is the basis for for his claim it's superior to Stoicism, or at least that one of his arguments against Stoicism on which I'd like to focus.

Of course, the long-standing argument that the Stoic Sage held out by the Stoics as their ideal cannot exist is employed by Augustine.  He and others maintain that no human being could be as serene, detached, and so in control of human emotions as the Sage.  But it isn't clear that the Stoics thought the Sage to be anything but an unapproachable ideal we should seek to imitate.  If so, the fact that the Stoics used the Sage as a standard of thought and conduct should no more condemn Stoicism than Christianity should be condemned because  Christians are urged to imitate Christ, as suggested by Thomas a Kempis.  No Christian could be as good as Jesus, obviously, but it doesn't follow Christians shouldn't try to be like him to the extent possible.

Augustine also, however, thought the Stoics were prideful; guilty of Pride, one of the seven deadly sins.  That's because the Stoics dared to believe it was possible for humans to achieve happiness without the assistance and intervention of a personal god.  Without grace, in other words.

The Bishop of Hippo essentially created the cruel concept of Original Sin.  He proclaimed if he did not originate the pernicious belief that humans were tainted by the sin committed by Adam and Eve when they were persuaded to eat of the Tree of Knowledge despite the fact that God had told them not to do so.  For that sin, they were cast out of the Garden of Eden and condemned to die, to labor, to bear children, but to not merely do what human beings do to survive and thrive.  All human beings thereafter were sinful by nature.  They sinned merely be existing.  They need not do anything wrong.

Because we're naughty by nature, as it were, only God could absolve us of Original Sin and any subsequent sins, and did so through the sacrifice of Jesus as to the First Sin and by bestowing grace as to all others.

As Augustine rather proudly stated in his Confessions, because he was a great sinner he could not be happy, could not be wise, until Jesus saved him.  Not even the great Augustine could achieve what the Stoics said was achievable without divine assistance.  If Augustine required divine assistance, all others must require it as well.   So, the Stoics must be sinfully prideful for even making that claim.

Just as the doctrine of absolution serves to encourage sin or assuage our concerns when we act wrongfully, as I suggested in a prior post, so the doctrines of Original Sin and Grace serves to discourage our efforts to control our own conduct and achieve happiness or equanimity through the use of our reason and development of our character.  Each doctrine in essence renders us helpless to help ourselves, and yet promises that we will flourish and be saved if only we don't try to help ourselves but rely on God to do so on our request for forgiveness or assistance.  

Perhaps belief in a personal god necessarily requires that we take a dim view of the world and our place in it.

The Ugly Americans

The Ugly American is a film made in 1963 based on a book published in 1959. The film starred Marlon Brando, seen in the poster above sporting a tiny mustache. (I've never known why such mustaches were allowed and, it seems, popular).

It was set in a fictional country in Southeast Asia, rather obviously intended to represent South Vietnam.  There God's Favorite Country was engaged in a struggle with the Commies for the territory and the hearts and minds of its people, assuming they were judged to have them.

The Americans were portrayed in both book and film as isolated, privileged, ignorant and unconcerned with the people.  This was, as far as they were concerned, purely a matter of money and power. The Commies made a point of helping the people with food, infrastructure and weapons and would fight with them when needed. Not surprisingly the people eventually turned away from our Great Republic. 

The "ugly" American in the book/film was a plain, unassuming, common sort of fellow. He was a civil engineer who actually tried to know and  help the people of the nation. As may be expected the ugly American wasn't in fact the engineer, but the glittering, ignorant, arrogant movers and shakers who looked down on him and those he tried to help. 

Which brings me at last to the subject matter of this post.

The word "ugly" has more than one definition. The one I have in mind is "Repulsive or offensive; objectionable." Some of those making up the freak show which is our nation's cabinet and higher levels of government are undoubtedly ugly in the more common sense.  But to note that is merely unkind. Of more concern are their repulsive, cruel and what is more self-righteous actions.

We start with the extraordinary claim that making weak nations kowtow to ours is somehow a sign of our nation's greatness.  This is how a weak person thinks.  U.S. Grant considered the U.S. war against Mexico a contemptable crime. Who knows what the current occupant will do in his quest to triumph over the small and helpless. He will expect homage for these "triumphs."

Then there is the malicious, petty action ending protection needed by public sevants with whom he did n't agree.  And the conditioning of federal aid to those desperately in need of it because of natural disasters on state and local government doing what he says.

These are only a few of the caperings of the ugly who rule us now. I was inclined to note the frivolous attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship, but after all the Supreme Court has it shares of uglies too; their brown noses are becoming darker than their judicial robes.

The Problem with Absolution

It's useful to consider what absolution means and its implications, whenever it's referred to in a self-serving manner by those seeking some goal or position.  I refer, like those people do, to absolution in a religious sense.  That may well be its only proper sense; however, it's a distinction worth noting as absolution in a religious sense is something different from forgiveness.  It may include forgiveness, but it includes something more.  Those absolved of sins or wrongdoing are forgiven by God.  In some cases they're forgiven by God acting through an intermediary, like a priest.  But when absolved the sinner is released from punishment for that sin,  It's no longer a stain against the sinner, it cannot be held against those absolved.

Those of us raised in the Catholic faith know absolution well.  We know it through Confession as it was called in the past.  Now, I believe it's called Reconciliation.  In my youth, we would enter into a dark confessional and confess our sins to a priest.  We were supposed to do so "heartily."  I remember the words we sinners were told to begin our confession with:  "O my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee..."  Having uttered those words, we would list our sins.  The priest would assign us some penance, usually consisting of more recitation, but of prayers.  He would then absolve us, in God's name.  "Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis"  he'd have said in the good old days of Latin, and you were absolved of sin in God's name.

Absolution is something available in the Abrahamic religions generally, but is especially prevalent in Christianity.  I can't help but wonder if the idea played a part in their spread and popularity.  What could be better, than to be granted absolution for our wrongdoings and avoid punishment for them?  Especially when it's so easy to obtain?  Better yet, you may sin yet again after being absolved, and be absolved for those sins.  Jesus just keeps on redeeming us for our sins, when asked reverently.  We can wait until we're on our deathbed and be absolved, in fact.  Absolution is a Get Out of Hell (free, relatively) Card.

It may be claimed that absolution isn't really available unless we're really, really sorry for our wrongdoing.  If that's the case, though, we can sin all we like, over and over again, and then be really, really sorry when we ask for absolution, later.  

Absolution therefore seems to actually encourage sin.  It certainly doesn't deter it.  Can one even feel guilty for having done wrong knowing that redemption is just a prayer or ceremony away?  Perhaps that knowledge serves to at least partially explain why so many of us, especially those who openly proclaim that they've found Jesus, or have been born again, after having been caught in sin, sinned so openly before being caught.

The First Felon

 

For the first time in its history, our Great Republic will shortly have a convicted felon as its President.  Somewhat surprisingly given that some of its members have shown themselves to be susceptible to influence and contemptuous of generally recognized maxims of judicial conduct, the Supreme Court rejected his effort to postpone his sentencing.  There was no legal basis for doing so, but it has become uncertain that the Supreme Court finds a legal basis for its decisions necessary in these dark times.

But he's a duly elected convicted felon, and if we're to allow, if not encourage, felons to hold even the highest of public offices, then that is the way of our nation, now.  It may be the case that we'll balk at electing certain felons, I suppose.  Perhaps electing a convicted murderer is something the public will decline to do, for example.  But the field is open, now; the race is on.  Who will be the next convicted felon to grace the office of the Presidency?

It's difficult to be the first, in this case.  Perhaps that's why there was a struggle to avoid having that distinction when he became President.  Now, though, he may be a portent of things to come; a pioneer.  The first felon of many.

Ultimately, of course, electing anyone to any office in our Glorious Union is more than anything a matter of money.  Influencing those elected is a matter of money as well.  Witness the wealthy of our nation rushing to "donate" millions to finance the inauguration.  What is planned?  One wonders.  As there seems to be no limit to the vulgarity of our politics, it's hard not to imagine a kind of combination Vegas show, circus, and displays of military might given the rhetoric which flourishes at this time.  When, though, has a "negotiation" to acquire lands included the threat or use of armed force unless the  lands are transferred?

Interested though I am in the history of ancient Rome, I'm not fond of comparisons between it and the United States.  But I can't help but think of what Plutarch is said to have written regarding the influence of money on the Roman state.  It began to determine what votes were made, who was elected, what they did; then it took over the law courts; then the legions; and then came the rule of Emperors.

I'm not certain about the military, but it seems our elections and elected leaders have succumbed to the wealthy and certain plutocrats in particular, and the law courts, including the highest court in the land, are more and more beholden.  Emperors we may not have, yet.  But we don't seem to have many qualms about those who rule us.  So, who knows?