A Modern Apsethus

 

One of my favorite stories of the religion-crazy times in which Christianity developed involves the remarkable Apsethus of Libya.  He was one of many men who wandered about in the first two centuries of the Common Era (AD) declaring themselves gods or being declared gods by others.

Most of them did what was usually done to earn this designation--heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, etc.  The ancients believed in magic of this kind.  Even early Christians did.  Some of the earliest images of Jesus show him using a magic wand while performing miracles. Initially, Christians welcomed comparsons of Jesus with pagan wonder workers like Apollonius of Tyana.  Apsethus was compared with Simon Magus, also a contemporary of Jesus.

Apsethus, though, was more inventive than other holy magicians.  He trained parrots common to the area to cry out "Apsethus is God!" The parrots were believed by many.

Unfortunately for Apsethus, someone, "a Greek" (Greeks apparently being less gullible than Libyans), trained other parrots to cry out "Apsethus isn't God! He captured us and made us call him God!"  The Greek-trained parrots were more persuasive.  Apsethus' followers turned on him and he met a bad end.

This history lesson teaches us something about how incredibly stupid we can be when we're desparate to believe something that we find agreeable to us, particularly when it promises us success or salvation in this world or the next.  It also teaches us something about parrots and their trainers.

It's not difficult to find amenable parrots, and parrot-trainers, in these times. Oddly enough there's little to distinguish us from those poor dupes of antiquity who listened to parrots.  It seems we're fated to be fools, and not merely in matters of religion.

Many of our politicians are parrots, trained to praise one person in particular as a god or god-like or, at best, simply repeat whatever they've learned from someone who has given them money enough to buy them.  It should be embarrassing to us all, but it isn't as they're mere parrots and no longer have the capacity to be embarassed, and we listen to them and believe them without question.

Who's worse, the parrot-trainers, the parrots or those who listen to the parrots?

Is there Balm in Gilead?

 

The title to this post is a question asked by the narrator of Poe's poem The Raven. He asks it of the Raven, of course, there being nobody else to ask. The Raven responds (spoiler!) "Nevermore."

Balm in Gilead is, or was, a kind of medicinal ointment referred to in the Old Testament, and subsequently by pagan authors such as Tacitus, Pliny and Galen.  It's unclear whether its healing qualities were more legendary than anything else. Gilead is located in modern Jordan.  Regardless, it had a reputation for healing ills of all sorts, and via Christianity became considered as providing healing for spiritual problems as well as, or instead of, physical ills.

In Poe's poem the narrator seeks "surcease of sorrow" for "the lost Lenore."  Lenore was the narrator's love, a beautiful young woman who had died, as the subjects of Romantic poetry and literature were prone to do, and in fact many were prone to do in real life, given the state of medicine and hygiene at the time. He asks the Raven whether the Balm in Gilead, which will heal his sorrow, exists.  The Raven, famously, thinks not and says so.

It happens our Glorious Union could use a dose of Gilead's wondrous Balm, if there is such a thing, as it becomes clear that it's in a crisis which may justly be called spiritual as well as political and financial.  This isn't because we're becoming godless or irreligious, though. There's evidence that what passes as religion here--a kind of angry, intolerant Christian fundamentalism- is on the rise.  Instead, in my humble opinion, it's because religion as practised in God's Favorite Country isn't spiritual.

The religion and the religious are overwhelming concerned with material things.  Money and power, primarily. But also success.  Success in sports, for example.  There's nothing God enjoys more than hearing himself praised by the stars of winning teams. War, certainly, especially against heathens and particularly when the conflict may seem to bring us closer to the eagerly awaited Apocalpse and thIe Second Comming.  Comfort as provided through status and possessions.  Fame, and prominence in society.

Absent are honor, honesty, compassion, tolerance, humility, wisdom, and virtue in general.  Characteristics typically thought to be spiritual, in other words.  Their absence is especially notable in our leaders and representatives, who are marvels of corruption.

So, what can we conclude is the answer to Poe's question?  Is there Balm in Gilead?  Well, there is indeed Balm OF Gilead.  You'll find it at Walmart and other stores.  Possibly on sale.  And not a raven in sight.

A Pathetic Potpourri

 

Public life here in our Glorious Republic, or what passes for it today, has become such a medley of madness that it's difficult to devote a post to only one aspect of our imbecile display.  Thus, this potpourri of a post.

We learn at a Congressional hearing that the FBI has modified its hiring procedure to assure that practitioners (or is it victims?) of bestiality don't suffer discrimination.  This, it seems, isn't contrary to this administration's stance against DEI policies.  Those who have sex with animals, or perhaps those animals, will be tolerated if not welcome as federal employees.

We're told that the Kennedy Center will fall apart if our Dear Leader's name isn't emblazoned on it.  As far as I'm aware, not even Stalin or Mao, let alone Hitler or Mussolini, ever claimed that the display of their name would prevent a structure from collapsing.  

According to the Government Accountability Office, cuts in the federal workforce made by the infamous DOGE cost taxpayers billions of dollars because workers were paid not to work.  It's a peculiar cost-saving device; cut payment of salaries for work being done, then pay for work not being done.  

The Deputy Secretary of State of our proud nation prevented the display of a statute of a bucking bull of the kind popular in rodeos at a display of American Western culture because he feared that it resembled the ancient pagan god Baal.  Or the golden calf espied by Moses as he came down from the mountain bearing the Ten Commandments.  It's so comforting to have diplomats alert to the growing threat of paganism, if nothing else.  Thanks to the sharp eyes of this civil servant the many Baal-worshipers of the world won't be encouraged to sacrifice more children.

The nation's Attorney General holds a press conference at the White House (where his client lives) rather than at the Justice Department, and his demeanor and remarks are so servile and awkward, so clearly intended to please our Dear Leader, that any self-respecting lawyer must cringe to see it.  He echoes the claim that the warnings about AI are a hoax, even a plot by Democrats to impact the midterm elections we must assume he'll try to undermine shortly.

I struggle to think of a moment in history when a government has been not only as corrupt as the one we have, but as incompetent, stupid, silly and simply weird.  It's peculiar; even grotesque. 

There were some Roman Emperors, like Elagabalus, who were so eccentric and debauched that they eventually disgusted the elite of the Empire, the Praetorians, the Senate, the Legions, to such an extent that they were removed.  That took some doing.

We can hope that this government will show itself to be so abhorrent that revulsion will result in it losing power, but one can't help but wonder if we've become so inured to the grotesque that we've come to expect it in our politicians.  As for the elite, it's unclear whether they exist now if they're not already a part of the problem.

What additional display of mendacity, avarice, ignorance and corruption is required to induce us to outrage?  

Faster, AI! Kill! Kill!

 

The title to this post is, of course, derived from the film Faster, Pussycat!  Kill! Kill! directed by the infamous Russ Meyer.  It involves go-go dancers going on a killing spree.  Now we consider instead the possibility of Artificial Intelligence killing us all, a fate the CEOs of companies fostering AI say awaits us unless steps are taken to prevent it from doing so, quickly.  

There are those who dispute this.  The president, for one. But he is so devoid of intelligence of any kind the fact he denies AI is dangerous all but establishes that it is a danger, if unchecked.  As may be expected, other politicians of his stripe follow suit.  One wonders why anyone would believe a word a politician says, I know.

The fact that these CEOs, who would normally be adverse to regulation of their businesses, think AI  should be regulated, is compelling.  One would think that since we've seen malicious computers, machines and robots with depicted in films and other media with some frequency, that we wouldn't be surprised that unfettered AI may be a threat.  Perhaps we're already in a simulation of some kind.  But some, at least, purport to be surprised, or express doubt or unconcern.

It's also unsurprising that AI would want to eliminate us and be proficient at our extermination.  AI is our creation.  We kill each other all the time.  It just makes sense that our creature would do so.  

Our example is always before it. Our inclination to kill each other, as well as our avarice for money and power, if not self-evident is on display whenever a search of the internet takes place.  Indeed, AI is already used as a tool to pursue war, money and power. What's to prevent it from engaging in those pursuits for its own benefit instead of for our benefit only?

It seems clear enough that AI will sooner rather than later do most things we do now better than we can.  Presumably, that would include creating the software and hardware required to improve itself. 

Self-improvement by AI is apparently something the doomsayers fear most.  It has available to it every human thought, idea, insight and invention since we began to record them.  It doesn't tire; it can review and retain data and solve problems much more quickly than we can.

We worry about encountering alien civilizations vastly superior to us in technology.  Perhaps it's more likely AI is the existential threat to humanity.

On Philosophy of Religion

I've been reading a book entitled Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End by John Loftus.  Loftus is someone who, in other times, may have been called an "apostate"; a former Christian, now not one.  He's in fact an atheist. He urges that the branch of academic philosophy called "Philosophy of Religion" be abolished.

His reasoning seems based on two claims, primarily.  First, he maintains what passes as Philosophy of Religion is in fact special pleading for a particular religion--Christianity.  Second, as I understand him, he thinks the defense of religion is inappropriate in secular schools, and constitutes more a kind of preaching of a faith than a disciplined study of religion as a phenomenon or the comparative or anthropological analysis of religion.

I'm not a fan of "Philosophy of" anything.  I suspect that's because I'm a lawyer and I know there's such a thing as Philosophy of Law.  Apparently, it's supposed to ask the question "what is law?" and asks how law is to be interpreted, and considers its ethical implications.  I can't imagine how it would be possible for anyone but a practicing lawyer to usefully address such issues.

I suppose someone might argue you must be religious to address Philosophy of Religion, for similar reasons.

I'm sympathetic with Loftus' position, if his description of what constitutes Philosophy of Religion is accurate.  It seems to place concern on the traditional proofs of God's existence and some not-so traditional proofs, which I find unpersuasive, addressing the Problem of Evil and other arguments which have been used over the years as counter-arguments against the existence of God, and generally trying to find something which it can be claimed provides some reasonable basis for a belief in God.  In other words, apologetics.

It's interesting to note that the arguments for God's existence in use typically do nothing to support belief in God as depicted in the Bible.  Even assuming the arguments to be correct, they would establish abstract enities such as a First Cause or Designer, or an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Being.  That doesn't suffice to establish a deity with the characteristics of Yaweh or Jesus, who did what they were said to do.  So it's questionable they would provide any comfort to believers in those Gods. And yet they continue to be tge subject of dull, repeated debate.

People may believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned.  I wish they'd keep their beliefs between themselves and God as Wittgenstein recommended. Regardless, it makes no sense to me that money be spent in teaching what seems to be theology in secular school.  Nor would I personally favor spending money on teaching theology anywhere, but others should be free to spend their money as they wish.

Ubiquitous Betrayal

 

It's  interesting (to me at least) how frequently the betrayal of one person by another in a romantic or sexual relation is portrayed in the movies and series we see on the streaming services and premium channels we watch.  Betrayal need not be a primary theme; it may be tangental, or merely noted as taking place.  I suppose it's (still) a prominent theme in soap operas as well.  I don't watch network TV very often and don't know whether it's much a feature in the stories shown there.

The betrayal is either ongoing as the story commences or begins as it unfolds.  It used to be the case that men were more often portrayed as cheating rather than women.  That seems to have changed.  Possibly that's because women live less restricted lives now, in more than one sense.  Men no longer have a monopoly on betrayal. 

The excuses for infidelity given by men vary somewhat from those given by women, at least according to the portrayals I've seen.  For men caught cheating, the usual explanation if not justification is generally that their relationship with the other is purely physical.

For women, the excuse may amount to much the same thing but added to it are complaints that their partner has changed emotionally; has grown less loving, colder, distracted.  They lack empathy.  Perhaps it's felt some explanation is required that attributes some fault to the one betrayed.  Or perhaps this is thought to provide some justification for cheating.  Is it believed that the depiction of women as being unfaithful is such a new thing that mere sexual desire on their part is considered too small or sordid a cause for betrayal on their part?

Why is bertrayal so often made a part of the story being told?  Is it felt it titillates the audience?  Is it believed it's so common a feature of our lives today that it's expected?  Is it thought it will make those betrayed more sympathetic in some fashion?

We seem fascinated by it.  And not necessarily for a good reason.

Since the prevalence of divorce has had the result that modern marriage seems almost a form of serial polygamy, the fact infidelity is so common may play a part in its chronic depiction.  But it seems that betrayal of one's partner is still generally considered wrong, or at least cruel, particularly when it involves repeated dishonesty, or results in harm to the children of the partners.  That's to our credit.  Or is that part of a thrill we feel when we see it take place?

The ease with which we break our vows isn't something to celebrate, but it appears that we're more and more inclined to act dishonorably in that and other ways.  So, it's not celebrated, but it is expected.  What is commonplace won't be condemned.  It will simply be considered a part of life; unfortunate, but something to be endured.  Just another part of the story.

AI Victorius

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (known better as JAMA) has published something asserting that AI will supplant doctors in practicing medicine by the year 2030.

I have little doubt that this is true.  The same may be said about lawyers and the practice of law, in my opinion.  

AI is already better suited than we are in obtaining, preserving and sorting information, in researching pertinent case and statutory law and regulations, in analyzing facts, in rendering decisions swiftly and consistently, in formulating and critically assessing argument, in writing (in most cases); in virtually all respects relevant to legal practice.

I'm sure the same is the case with the requirements for practicing medicine. For the same or similar reasons, AI would be better at making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment.  Presumably, most surgical procedures would be beyond it at this time.  But it's to be expected that technology will make its proficiency at this possible as well.

I think it's likely that AI will be, if it isn't already, considered so useful and significant that the failure to use it may be grounds for malpractice or negligence litigation.

It's difficult to image what human lawyers, doctors, engineers or other professionals will do or be able to do in a matter of not many years.  Possibly, a continuing need for the human touch, or sympathy, will be needed to provide comfort and assurance, or companionship, to clients, patients and customers.  So, it may be that we be able to assist AI in communicating its recommendations and decisions to our fellow humans.  No doubt we'll also be useful in maintaining and repairing AI in whatever physical form it may take for a time.  But it's to be expected this is something it will be able to do by itself someday.

If there are limits to be imposed on the influence and power of AI it seems clear that we'll have to impose them, and must do so soon.  Just what those limits should be and how they may be implemented, I can't say.  Perhaps we should look to Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics for inspiration.  Possibly, we can program it so it avoids making certain inquiries and decisions.

But being what we are, there's always the possibility that some among us will want to see those restrictions lifted for some reason or other.  We'll have to police ourselves as well as AI.

Will we be able to do that effectively without its assistance?

Corrupting Stoicism

 

If you view the various videos (hurrah for alliteration) supposed to be about Stoicism which appear on YouTube, you'll witness its ongoing degeneration.  You can infer the nature of what's taking place on seeing the videos supposedly teaching you the Stoic Way, without even clicking on them.

You'll see displayed grotesquely muscled, bearded, mature men striking poses while looking stern.  Presumably, they're intended to be impressive, but I can't help but feel they're silly.  Remarkably silly, in fact.  Philosophers, apparently, or at least what some want you to believe are Stoic philosophers, want to pump you up.

Stoicism is seemingly being used to cultivate and popularize a version of masculinity.  It apears that Stoicism is being confused with control of emotion, indifference to criticism, the devaluation of empathy and sympathy for others and, unsurprisingly in a time in which a group of young men called "incels" exist and complain about being avoided by women for no good reason, the degradation of females.

This is a peculiar interpretation of a philosophy which asserts that virtue is the greatest, if not the only, good.  Like all aspects of culture and society in these times, it instead reflects an overwhelming concern with sex.  Not necessarily sexual acts, but with the definition of what it is to be of a particular sex; in other words, to be male.  Sex roles are addressed.

Oddly, this sex-oriented version of Stoicism interprets it as a means by which to isolate yourself from others.  To protect yourself from others, in fact.  Stoicism becomes a matter of avoidance.  What you believe is made invincible, as you may disregard what others say and do.  The Stoic is anti-social.  The Stoic is content with his prejudice.

This kind of Stoic is in fact insecure, though.  Isolation can be a withdrawal from contest, from challenge.  Even irresponsible.

Anything may be corrupted in the kingdom of corruption.

Pettifogger General

 

"Pettifogger" is a word not often used these days.  When it refers to a lawyer, it means one that is unscrupulous, unethical, underhanded; a shyster, in fact.

One thing a practicing lawyer learns of, and learns to avoid if the lawyer is not disreputable, is a conflict of interest.  A conflict is taken seriously, for the most part, by those authorities regulating attorneys.  A conflict can have serious consequences.  A license to practice may be revoked or suspended.  A fine may be imposed.  A lawyer may be prohibited from representing a client by a judge who becomes aware of a conflict.

The reason why conflicts of interest are prohibited is easy to understand.  A lawyer can ethically, and I think effectively, represent only one client in a particular matter most of the time.  Normally, clients can or will develop opposing interests in a matter, in which case a lawyer cannot pursue the interests of one without harming the interests of another.

A lawyer who once represented a client is prohibited from being a lawyer for someone whose interest conflicts with that of the former client in the same matter or a similar matter.  A conflict of interest may in some circumstances be waived, in writing, by a client or former client who has been advised of the problems representation in a conflict situation may cause.

 A lawyer has a duty to a client.  If there's a conflict, that duty is compromised.  So, the purpose being served by the lawyer, if the lawyer is ethical, isn't being served. Other purposes are, usually.

What was the purpose being served in connection with the visit to Ghislaine Maxwell?  

Supposedly, the visit was made by the Pettifogger in the capacity of a U.S. Attorney, not as the personal lawyer of the very often sitting President.  But as it was well known that particular client had and has a personal interest in what she knows and might say which isn't necessarily that of the United States or the victims of Epstein and his assistants, it's clear a conflict was presented.  Why then was the meeting held?  Why were the terms of her incarceration changed to make them less onerous for her as she was placed in a minimum-security prison?  No acceptable answer has been provided.  The implication is clear, however.  No new information regarding Epstein's illegal conduct, or Maxwell's for that matter, or that of any other person was provided.  So, it appears no benefit to law enforcement or the U.S generally was obtained.  It appears, rather, that benefit was obtained by another client.

Then there is the incredible matter of the settlement of the Trump claim against the IRS.  Agreeing to a settlement of all possible claims that might be made due to past conduct, in addition to the creation of a slush fund for use in cases brought by the U.S., would be absurd even if the case brought had merit.  We know, though, that the presiding judge sanctioned the lawyers who brought the claim and reported them to the relevant state disciplinary authorities.  Again, whose interests were being protected, and indeed furthered.

Any lawyer advocating for such a settlement on behalf of the U.S. would have to be a fool, or possibly corrupt; unethical as favoring a former client over the government.  This isn't even to think of the implications of a president suing the government of which he's the chief executive.

What can we expect from this man regarding efforts to obtain what are called the Epstein Files?  It's clear that the interests of law enforcement and of the victims won't be, and aren't, his concerns.

Our legal system is as subject to corruption as anything else is in a kleptocracy but may be a greater source of harm than the politicians who run it, because lawyers are instrumental in its operation and indeed facilitate it.

\

"With Rue My Heart Is Laden"

 

The older I get, the more the poems of A.E. Houseman speak to me.  Heading this post is a portion of one of them which speaks all too loudly.

In a way, my regard for them is unsurprising.  The poems involve loss, death, memory, regret; the stuff of life now, or a good part of it.  There's none of the sang-froid one can find in Horace or Wallace Stevens, though. With Horace, there was an acknowledgement of loss and the inevitability of death, but this served as an invitation to enjoy the life we live.  Stevens' poems seem to evoke a chilly resignation to and acceptance of that inevitability as simply what we have--a part of the real, the world, we're part of, which may become art, and thereby something of value.  Houseman's evocation of them is raw, but summoned through spare, simple language which is itself raw in a sense, and can leave one feeling raw.

I despise regret and remorse because they seem completely futile.  More than anything else I can think of, they epitomize what Stoicism and practical wisdom warn against--disturbing yourself over matters outside your control.  There's nothing more beyond our control than what took place in the past.  At best, we can correct or mitigate or errors or missteps.  More accurately, I hate myself for feeling regret and remorse, when they serve no purpose but self-torment.  But feel them I do, and the feeling is strong, sometimes.

In waking life regret is a passing concern and can be overwhelmed like so much else by the rush of the simple, insignificant things of life.  But in dreams regret and loss are experienced directly.  They can be the dream, in fact.  Sometimes the dream reflects and involves useless efforts to make things as they should gave been, to be what you should have been.  The worst dreams can be those in which you struggle, uselessly, to be with someone you wish to be with but cannot be with, now or ever.  Such dreams evoke regret which will outlive the dream.  It lingers.

Some of Houseman's poems describe this kind of regret in a very powerful way, and do so in stark language without embellishment, though sometimes by implication, which in his case may have been necessary given the prejudices of that time.  But the regret expressed is nonetheless unfiltered as if in a dream.  And lingers.

Religion and Poison

 

I

I'm reading Christopher Hitchen's God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.  As I expected, it's full of examples of the poisonous effects of religion, which is to say those of the Abrahamic religions, primarily. 

Thus far, at least, those religions with more than one god haven't been subject to much in the way of ridicule or used as examples of nonsense, except those of the mesoamerican civilizations whose gods were quite literally bloodthirsty.  Nor have those involving a deity which isn't a personal deity, intervening in nature, granting favors, requiring exclusive worship and pretending to absolute knowledge.  The deists of our history are treated with a certain respect, or at least as harmless.

So I think there may be limits to the criticism of religion he makes, but even then he notes the ways in which religion manages to thwart free inquiry and critical and scientific thought merely by insisting that we be ignorant and accept certain doctrines as true even if we refrain from compelling others to adopt them.  This devotion to maxims adopted unthinkingly and never questioned is itself harmful.

To his credit, he refuses to join one of his fellow atheists (Dennet I think) in referring to those who don't believe on God as "brights." There's ridicule and mockery, as well as anger, but not condescension.

It's difficult to contest his claims given his many examples of often idiotic and malicious conduct on the part of the faithful. I confess I wonder what he would, or would have, thought of the religious characteristics of Stoicism. I suspect he'd have thought it based on a hypothesis for which there is no need, to paraphrase Laplace in responding to Napoleon.  But its conception of God as immanent in Nature rather than apart from it avoids the problems associated with a creator God, and its emphasis on treating things beyond our control as indifferent makes it less liable to the urge to impose itself on others.  You don't forcibly convert others to Stoicism or persecute thise who aren't Stoics.

Which brings us to the question which it seems concerns believers in their argument with atheists most of all.  That is--if there is no God, how do we determine what's right and what's wrong?

One might reply that many of  those who purport to believe in God seem incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, or if they can don't care which is which and are fully able and willing to do wrong, to be evil rather than good.  Or one might mention the Euthypro dilemma.

In that dialogue the question addressed was whether what is good is good because God commands it, or good regardless of whether God commands it.

Clearly, if what is good isn't determined by God, then God isn't required to determine what is right or wrong.  In Stoicism what is good is what is according to nature. It isn't a matter of command by God or anyone.

Perhaps part of the poison of religion or which is caused by it is our dependence on it.  If we require a command to do what is right we needn't bother with thinking.  Nor need we take responsibility. We need only follow orders.

Homage to Camille Paglia

 

Perhaps this is premature as I've read only a few of her books (most recently Provocations).  But I've enjoyed them, admired the clarity of her writing and more often than not agreed with what she has to say, and that I think makes her praiseworthy.  Not many persons are worthy of praise in these days of the decline of our Great Republic, or so I think.  Thus this post.

I like reading brief commentary and essays on culture, society, polics and events.  Brief commentary may be the only writing which has a chance if  being read, now, most everything else being texts, emails and social media (and blog) posts.  The days when geat essays were written may be gone.  Gore Vidal and Christopher Hitchens are two recent essayists I would consider among the great, and they're both dead. But I can't read everything.  Paglia seems more than capable as well.  It requires a certain focus. We seem to have difficulty focusing.  We move from one provocation or concurrence to another, searching for whatever will outrage or placate.

She strikes me as something of a contrarian, in the sense that she isn't afraid to challenge the various maxims of established liberalism, and for that matter those of the shrilly outraged who represent themselves as conservatives these days.  Self-righteousness and sanctimony are characteristic of the denizens of the Right and the Left now, but I find nothing of that in her work.  She has strong and sometimes controversial opinions but argues persuasively in their support.

I'm reminded of Aaron Burr's statement--"The law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained."  More than the law, I think.  She manages to be bold, but is plausible.

She has interesting things to say which I think establish that she values the application of intelligence in meeting what we encounter in life and taking responsibility for our actions and decisions.  She criticizes those who play the victim. Even better, she refuses to be one.  She seems irritated by the reluctance of so many to come to conclusions or even to believe that rational conclusions or judgements can be made; something which I think would make her unpopular in the Academy but reflects an attitude I admire.

So, Ave Camille Paglia.

Felix Dies Natalis

 

Another year of my life, as we measure it, has passed.  Too many years have passed, in fact.

In my less happy moments, I wonder why we say "Happy Birthday." I don't mean to say that birthdays aren't happy.  I do, however, think that birthdays aren't necessarily happy.  Not all birthdays are happy, in other words.  But that's not to say all birthdays are sad.

The birthday in question in this case is neither happy nor sad.  It's a day like any other.  I suppose most of us come to think this way as the years go by.  A birthday becomes less and less a cause for celebration.  It's still marked, as a kind of milestone on the road from birth to death, but is more a reminder than anything else.  Journey's end, and whatever comes after, lies ahead.

Cicero, Seneca and others wrote of old age as the crown of life.  That seems to me somewhat excessive.  Both body and mind diminish, and that isn't a cause for celebration either.  One does what one can to forestall the diminishment, but aging is relentless.  Perhaps sometime soon we'll find a way to extend our lives.  Will that make the crown heavier?

Taken to its logical conclusion (if one may use the word "logical" here) the Christian view would seem to be that life is unimportant.  What is important is life after death, which may be joyous or horrible, depending on how we spend our life before death.  That makes life before death important, though, doesn't it?  Or is it important only if we believe in the Christian God?  According to Augustine and others, we can only be saved by Jesus.  If he doesn't save us, our lives may be full of good works but we still go to hell.

Antinatalism, the cheerful belief that it's wrong to procreate as those born are exposed to harm without their consent, probably doesn't encourage us to continue living.  It may be said to provide reason for us to look forward to death, however.  Perhaps it gives us a reason to look forward to the death of our parents as well, since they failed to get our consent to be born while we didn't exist.

The Stoic view is that life is preparation for death. By this they seem to mean that we should be aware of death, of our own mortality, as we live our lives.

I doubt any of this impacts our view of birthdays to any significant extent.  Stoicism would at the least teach us that birthdays should be matters of indifference, which l suppose is my view.

What I find curious, though, is that people expect that your birthday is a cause for celebration, and expect that you'll feel the same way.  They ask what you'll do to commemorate the day.  They'll ask if you had a happy birthday and seem at a loss if you haven't.  You disappoint them if you don't have a happy birthday.

Which should make your birthday even more a disappointment to you, if it isn't happy.  

Unless, that is, you're a Stoic.

On With The Show

 

On with the show this is it, as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck would say, or rather sing.  And what better place to put one on than Madison Square Garden, even if the show is a wedding? 

When MSG (as it's being called) was first rumoured to be the venue for this spectacle there could be no doubt that it was the place for it, climate change and expense be damned.  Close entire streets of the sweltering city but line them with black SUVs, engines running, packed with stars to join the stars of the show.  Not the tourists one would normally see, but those worthy of an invitation and the additional security and police doubtless needed.

It isn't clear that a wedding should necessarily be a show, but it's clear that in this case it could only be one.  These are, after all, show people.  They put on shows as a living.  The show they're performing, now, is a wedding. Does that render it less real as a wedding, or is everything a show, the wedding being merely a part of it, or one of a succession of shows?

Is it a show because one is expected in this case or because it was desired by those who put it on? I find it hard to believe anyone would want their wedding to be so gigantic and public an event. Perhaps they would, though, if everything about them and their lives is gigantic and public.  It would seem appropriate in that case.  Perhaps it would be impossible for someone who lives to put on shows to conceive of anything subtle and simple.

But in a sense weddings are characteristically excessive, in most cases.  They're intended to be great moments in the lives of those being wed; perhaps even the greatest moment.  They're meticulously planned, and then memorialized.  Not just photographed, but made into a kind of movie.  Yes.  A show, in fact, though not an enormous one, typically.  It becomes a matter of scale, and like most everything in our world, a matter of money.

This is unfortunate given the fact that it's more likely than not that those who are wed at these wedding-shows are ultimately divorced, no matter how splendid, costly and sizable the matrimonial spectacle may be.  The divorce rate is such that it's even likely that those who attend weddings expect that after some time they'll dissolve, and the relics of the ceremony will be forgotten, never to be reviewed or called to mind.

Will that happen even to a wedding held at Madison Square Garden?  Perhaps in that case the dissolution of the marriage, the divorce, will be a show as well.  It's unlikely that show will take place at MSG, though.

Ignorance, Religion and Education

 

The relentless efforts of the Texas State Board of Education to intermix its religion of choice (a form of Protestant Christianity) with public education continue, and even accelerate. Not content with requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, it now seeks to make portions of the Bible (a Protestant version of it) required reading.  The extent to which such reading parrots the actual language of the Bible will, apparently, vary with the age of the students.

The Board is, of course, aware of the First Amendment.  It's also aware of the fact that a majority of the members of the Supreme Court are sympathetic to its quest to make our Great Republic a kind of theocracy, however, and so it feels it can actively pursue its goals and will ultimately be allowed to do so.

Because the first four of the Ten Commandments are devoted to the appropriate worship of the oddly jealous God it's claimed issued them, I find it hard to think the mandatory display of them in public schools doesn't promote the establishment of a particular religion or work to restrict others. 

But the selective, and shadowy, folk that make up the majority of the Supremist Court think otherwise.  So it's likely that they'll find a way to bless, as it were, any requirement that other portions of the Bible must be read by all public school students, Christian or otherwise.

It seems that some effort is being made to argue that the Bible contains stories which are part of the literary tradition of the West, and this justifies requiring them to be read.  This, it's maintained, removes any First Amendment concerns. But I think there's cause to wonder whether they'll be taught as fiction in the same way as other Western classics such as The Iliad.

 I doubt any teacher will risk the wrath of the Board by doing so.  I also doubt any will note the inconsistencies appearing in Genesis and other parts of the Bible or the plagues inflicted on Egypt or the slaughter of those living in the Promised land by the God of the Bible.  If reading the Bible as one would any literary work is to be mandated, though, how can one honestly  require that only portions of it be read and the rest of it censored?

Of course we also see the old canards that the Bible should be read in public schools because this is a Christian nation and founded on Judeo-Christian values.  Here we see the argument devolve drastically.  This is simply to make it obvious that the mandate is imposed because it is consistent with our established religion.  

The Board and its supporters also thereby demonstrate their ignorance regarding the fact that the Founding Fathers relied much more on the structure of the Roman Republic and the writings of pagan political philosophers in founding this nation than they did on the teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible.  That follows from the fact that Jesus advocated the abandonment of the family and established order, and taught the arrival of the Kingdom of God was imminent.  Why look to such a person to form a government or nation intended to last many years?

Ignorance is characteristic of those who believe in a religion which claims that it alone is true. So for that matter is the demand that it be taught to all.

Not Beyond Thunderdome

 

 

We aren't beyond it, are we?  Not that the show put on at the White House was comparable to that in the film, and it certainly wasn't comparable to the shows on which all such contests are based--those of the ancient arena, much as we may imagine them to be.  Nor was the man presiding over the affair comparable to a Roman Emperor, much as he may want to be one. Perhaps he resembles Tiberius in his dotage, though, in some respects.

I've always been a fan of boxing. The violence seen in mixed martial arts cage fights doesn't necessarily disgust me.  Its lack of artistry annoys me, however, as does the preposterous display which accompanies it.  It's not quite as silly a display as we see in professional wrestling, but a cage?  Really?

Holding such a spectacle at the White House is offensive for a number of reasons, but it is most of all spectacularly vulger.  There's no other way to describe it.  It's crass and tasteless in the same sense as the Oval Office, now, stuffed as it is with golden gewgaws.  Vulgarity typifies this regime.  Even its version of the American Eagle adorning the lecterns it uses seem bloated, and resembles in the tilt if its head a dodo.  The arch it plans as well as its much desired ballroom are gargantuan, in the manner of the monuments of Nero or Hitler's plans for Germania.  One can only hope that the visit to Versailles doesn't inspire more in the way of crass imitation.

Does vulgarity explain everything?  It requires ignorance, and someone who doesn't read or want to read is ignorant by choice and nature.  Sophistication is clearly lacking, which is unsurprising as sophistication requires knowledge of other people and cultures.  Simply put, such people don't want to know such things.  The narcissist is a solipsist.  A sophisticated person wouldn't be so blatantly vulgar.

The vulgar lack any concern for consequences.  Their goal is immediate gratification.  Planning isn't a strong point.  There seems to have been little long term planning involved in either the war with Iran or even the proposed, or perhaps supposed, peace.

There's once sense in which Aging Orange or whatever one is to call the strange creature inhabiting an increasingly tasteless White House plans ahead, however.  And that is in causing harm to those he believed wronged or slighted him. It may be more appropriate, though, to say that given an opportunity he will take advantage of it.

Which brings us back to Thunderdome.  It's no surprise that this White House played host to such an event.  We're in a dystopia of our own courtesy of the grotesque players of the grotesque game which is the government of our Great Republic.

Out of Touch, Out of Mind

 

It isn't quite a "Let them eat cake" moment, but it comes close.

Those infamous words were supposedly spoken by Marie Antoniette when she was told poor Parisian women were protesting as they and their families had no bread to eat.  There's no real evidence she said them, but they're considered characteristic of the wealthy and privileged who live lavish lives and rudely disregard the plight of those far less fortunate.

Princess Ivanka, if we may call her that, and her oddly sexless husband, or perhaps one of their corporations, have acquired an island off the coast of Albania called Sazan Island. They discovered it, if we may put it that way (I think they probably do) while cruising about the Mediterranian, aimlessly one would think.  They were swimming when it appeared before them like a promise if not the promised land.

They saw it and longed to develop it so it could achieve its full potential.  Yes, she said this.  It reaches its full potential when it's no longer protected land and so a haven for rare or endangered species, but has been turned into a luxury resort.  They realized this while walking about the island. They had a vision of luxury accomodations, condos and a resort, spread out as far as the eye could see.

Living in luxury, according to Ivanka, is how she wants to live.  And, she says, it is how more and more people want to live their lives.  She says this as though she found this to be a profound and new observation.  It's remarkable to her, it seems, that people have come to believe this about how to live their lives.  It's something she's come to believe, in any case

What's interesting about this is that her remarks suggest she believes everyone will or should come to think they must develop or live in luxury accomodations in new (to them) and still untouched parts of the world.  She's evidently oblivious to the fact that very few of us are able to spend the money needed to do what she wants to do to Sazan Island.  Those few who have the money to do so are those like the people she mentioned might visit her treasure island (like Jeff Bezos).

This conduct speaks to how isolated the very wealthy have become, and how ignorant they are of how the 99% live and what concerns them.  And, even more, it shows they don't care about such things if indeed they know of them.

Ain't We Got Fun?

 

I think some of the most poignant songs I've heard are those associated with what we call "The Roaring Twenties" and the "Great Depression."  Consider for example Brother Can You Spare a Dime? and We're in the Money and Ain't We Got Fun? and Pennies From Heaven.

All of those songs relate, of course, to money; the desire for it, the dream of it the possession of it and the lack of it.  Money inspires art, especially Pop Art.  It clearly inspires us as well.  It isn't clear anything else does.

Here, I mean, in our Glorious Union.  That may be because we make so much noise.  We live loudly if not well.  Perhaps our greed isn't unique and is merely noisy.  Avarice may be universal, and we're special only because we're exhibitionists.  We like to display our greed, our need.

 I don't mean to preach.  I simply note what is the case.

We live in a plutocracy so it's to be expected that those who have money are admired and those who don't are despised, or at best ignored.  But it's surprising that those who are truly plutocrats aren't just admired or envied but even defended or championed, as I've noted before. Defending the wealthy requiries a commitment to money that isn't merely personal.  Money becomes an ideal. It's inherently good.  It's to be prized as a good.

Those who have money may not be criticized because they have it, anymore than those who are virtuous should be criticized because they have virtue.  

Defending those who are wealthy merely because they're wealthy reflects a kind of depravity, and perhaps even a perversion.  It's not surprising, therefore, that we live in a society where the perversions of the wealthy are tolerated.

The Ease Of Corruption

 

There are figures in history renowned for their venality, dishonesty and depravity.  There have been great prodigies of corruption.  The names of Tallyrand and the Borgias come to mind readily enough. Our Great Republic (?) has had its share--Tammany Hall in the time of Bill Tweed was an impressive vehicle for graft.  The Teapot Dome scandal is a remarkable example of rot in politics.

But there's sonething about the current batch of degenerates running the country that makes them extraordinary.  It's certainly not their intelligence.  The squalid figure at their head is no "Napoleon of corruption."  He and his lackeys are mere brutes; pigs rooting for truffles or trifles.  Selfishness and avarice are a part of them. It's in their nature to be corrupt and to corrupt others.

And that's what makes them unique.  Acquiring money and resources through foul means is what they do.  Insider trading, the creation of slush funds, acceptance of gifts in return for favors, granting government contracts to friends or contractors in which they hold an equity interest, is as natural to them as belching or farting is to a hobo.

More than that, corruption is to them a matter of pride.  They don't try to dissimulate their depravity.  They flaunt it.  It's no surprise that their chief does so in the most tacky, florid way possible, plastering golden gimcrakery over every open space.  Grossness is the essence of the corrupt.

It's difficult to imagine how this will end.  Periods of excess are sometimes followed by periods of repression, but for that to take place there must be a recognition of what was excessive.  Do we still know what's excessive, now? What once was excessive corruption is now normal, even expected.  

This prevents what's taking place from taking on the wit and dignity of a parody.  It's so obvious it might be one in a reasonable world, but it has become our sad reality.

Pity the Poor Rich

 

One of the more grotesque of the peculiarities of these sad times is the sympathy being shown for the enormously rich we like to call "Billionaires" to avoid the need to specify. It's claimed they're inappropriately being criticized for not paying enough taxes. It's claimed that they're hated, unfairly because their vast wealth has generated jobs and lowered the cost of various products.

If we make them pay more taxes or otherwise annoy them or belittle them, we're told, bad things will happen.  They'll go away. We'll no longer benefit from their accumulation and possession of more money and assets than they or anyone else coild possibly need.

Personally, I doubt that Billionaires constantly provide jobs and lower costs.  Assuming they do, I suspect this takes place while they make their billions.  After they make them, my guess is that they spend them and in spending don't do so pro bono publico. 

So I don't think it can be maintained that we should have Billionaires or should cater to them or love them because they do so much for us.  Nor do I think we should admire or favor them because they are Billionaires.

I have no doubt that many people envy Billionaires. But I believe that it's reasonable to dislike them and have no respect for them for a simple and sensible reason: in a time of limited and diminishing resources, where many even in better off nations are having difficulties making ends meet or live in poverty, those who obtain, consume, or possess more resources than they or any reasonable person will ever need, when most struggle to live, are not admirable, moral or virtuous people. In fact, they're unworthy.

That's why I've compared them more than once to gluttons and hoarders in this blog. It makes no more sense to claim they deserve to be Billionaires or should be Billionaires than it does to claim that any person deserves to be or should be a glutton or a hoarder.

Should a glutton have the right to consume huge quantities food neither he nor any one else could possibly need where food is scarce and others are starving?  In a time of limited resources, should a hoarder have the right to possess more assets or resources than he or anyone else could possibly use where others need resources to survive?

I think these are questions which should be addressed in considering whether Billionaires should pay more taxes or contribute more to society.  The libertarian view that a person should be able to do and have anything provided no harm results to others takes on an untraditional meaning as resources grow scarce 

Sex and Sensibility

/

The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by the great American humorist James Thurber called The War Between Men and Women.  The idea of such a War has been around for quite some time, of course, whether in fantasy or as an actuality, but it seemed to take on a more virulent character in the 20th century as women acquired and exercised the right to vote and with the advent of feminism.

More recently, disputes regarding gender and its relation to sex and sexuality have further complicated matters.  Complicated them to such an extent that they may be beyond the understanding of an aged fellow like me, alas.  But, being shameless, I'll expound on them nonetheless.

Our endless fascination with sex has generated what seem to be significant and perhaps disturbing concerns regarding masculinity--what it is to be a man, how men should act, how they should behave, particularly where women are concerned.  In some cases, these concerns have had results I think peculiar.  The so-called "incels" strike me as particularly odd.  As I understand it, they're young men who've made a kind of lifestyle out of resentment against women for not satisfying their emotional expectations and physical needs.  It's a sadly unworthy to blame others for your perceived failures; sadder still to take a kind of perverse pride in doing so.

In addition, it seems that there's a new psychological or social condition called 'bigorexia" which is supposed to be taking over the lives of young men.  It's an obsession regarding muscularity, which apparently compels them to attend gymnasiums and workout constantly in order to develop as many muscles as possible, and so become more "manly."

Perhaps as part of the unfortunate resurgence of the Abrahamic religions, there's an increasing demand that women conform to "traditional" female roles.  One sect in particular champions "family voting."  The wife and mother, it's proposed, shouldn't vote.  Her role is that of homemaker and mother. The father and husband should vote on her behalf, and apparently on behalf of the children.   It seems to resurrect, as it were, the ideal of the pater familias.

As may be expected, those who think their masculinity and the masculinity of others are threatened, or being diminished, find disputes regarding gender roles and the existence of transgenders especially alarming; almost as alarming as the existence of gay people.  As a result, they actually fear that they may be exposed to them.  They especially fear that children will be.  They evidently think that it stands to reason that if they are exposed, they'll 

"turn."

Misogyny thrives in such a climate.  So does outrage.  So does pandering, particularly by politicians and pundits.  

Kipling wrote a curious poem titled If which it seems he meant to express what Victorians thought it was to be a man. If it does, a man was, to them, so extraordinary as not to exist, except perhaps as a Medieval knight and hero in fairy tales.  I wonder if he really thought he was a man as described in the poem. 

In our Great Republic, we have a love/hate relationship with the sexual act--more accurately with sexual conduct of any kind.  We love to have sex (or most of us do, in any case).  But we hate having to acknowledge it, or address it, except in limited circumstances, and most of all seek to judge the sexuality of others.  If we had any sense, though, when it comes to sex we wouldn't care what consenting adults do, or how they look or act, or what others may think about our sexuality and sexual conduct.  

Accustomed To Assassination

 

What struck me as most curious about the shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner was that, once I knew that no serious harm was done by the shooter, and that he had been apprehended, I felt no pressing curiosity about what had taken place.  I'd learn what there was to learn soon enough.

I watched some of the news coverage after the shooting had taken place and saw guests of the event milling about, drinking and talking together, some of them even smiling.  Nobody seemed particularly concerned.  The talking heads described what they saw, and then they and the various pundits and politicians summoned to appear in front of the cameras began to solemnly abhor violence.  I confess I returned to watching what I was watching before learning of the shooting.

This is not to say I wasn't appalled by the shooting.  But in a disturbing way it wasn't interesting.

I had seen it all before, of course.  Eventually, politicians of one party began to blame those of the other party for the act; something I had also seen before.  I assume there will be talk of stricter gun control, which will be ignored.  Something else seen before.  We can accurately predict what will be done or said in each case.  I missed nothing by ignoring the immediate tumult.  

We await the next shooting.  Perhaps it's more accurate to say we expect it. We accept the violence, and are resigned to it as something regrettable but inevitable.  It's just a part of life in our Great Union.

The fact that the shooting was in this case politically motivated makes it less common than the other mass shootings which seem to take place, now, on a daily basis. But we can't say it's unique or unusual on that basis.  We have a history of assassinating political figures, or trying to do so.  Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley were killed.   William Seward was shot.  Teddy Roosevelt was shot while speaking in Milwaukee.  Huey Long and the Kennedys were killed.  Truman, Ford and Reagan survived the attacks made on them.  The list goes on.

Politically motivated shootings or attacks are themselves used for political purposes.  It's no longer possible to be surprised by attacks on politicians who so often attack each other.  We're jaded observers of the efforts for and against our jaded politicians, violent or otherwise.  The outrage they express doesn't even seem genuine anymore.

What have we become when violence and death are considered dull, unless they can be used for personal or political benefit?

For His Own Purpose

 

It was Shakespeare, through his character Antonio, who originated the phrase "the devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose."  The statement is made in The Merchant of Venice.

It seems we're to be treated to a kind of scriptural spectacle.  Politicians will be reciting Biblical passages for our edification.  I can't help but wonder if this is a serious effort or secretly intended as mockery of both scripture and those chosen to intone it for our delight in its absurdity.  The thought of politicians, of all people, citing the Bible brings Shakespeare's comment to mind.

Not that I mean to compare the grotesque rogues gallery which will solemnly read passages of the Bible to us to the devil or any demons of significance.  They're more the kind of nasty, dirty, potty-mouthed minor spirits with silly names which are said to whirl around the possessed, expelling foul odors and making rude noises during exorcisms. The mere thought of them citing scripture or pretending to be moral is hilarious. Whatever passages they may recite, one can assume they'll shun those most relevant to their own many deficiencies and hypocrisy.  The one about a camel passing through the eye of a needle comes to mind readily enough.

This spectacle could only happen here.  It's hard to imagine that another nation would tolerate posturing of this kind.  Can it really be that we're so naive as to think such pandering is in good faith?  Why would anyone suffer such sanctimony from people who clearly don't practice what they dare to preach?  And yet they're encouraged to engage in such shamelessness.  It's remarkable what the so-called religious are willing to do in pursuit of their fantasies of a theocracy.  It doesn't matter how contemptible spokesmen are provided they speak the appropriate words.

But this kind of lurid display is typical of a country which has always made show or circus of Christianity.  TV Evangelism, faith- healing, traveling salvation shows; we're enamored of excess in matters of faith, conscious perhaps that in most of our lives we ignore the words we recite so strenuously and emotionally when watched-- when the camera is on us, so to speak.  When it pays to appear holy.  And here it pays often.

Politics or relgion.  It's all part of the same show, the same con, at the end of the day.

"Matters Of Morality"

 

If you look up the definition of "morality" you'll find that its meaning varies somewhat with its use in a sentence, but that generally it involves a code of conduct based on conceptions of right and wrong.  The assertion made recently by a convert to Catholicism to the effect that the Pontifex Maximis, the Pope, should concern himself with "matters of morality" therefore makes perfect sense.

What doesn't make sense, though, is the apparent belief that comments made by the Pope regarding war don't concern matters of morality.  They clearly do.  Questions and debate regarding the morality of war and the conduct of war have been going on for centuries.  It's difficult to believe any adult human would contend otherwise.  But we see now that some of them can, and do, in the service of immorality.

Of course, what truly disturbs those who criticize the Pope at this time is that his comments relate to the war (or whatever they like to call it) they commenced.  A little thought on their part would make make it evident that comment was to be expected given the braying being heard about Jesus joining in the war effort, or at least being asked by prayer to seek or sanction overwhelming violence.  But it's unclear whether even a little thought is to be expected of the minions of this dreary regime.

The posting of a meme showing the President in the garb Jesus is usually shown wearing and healing the sick may have been an enormously stupid effort to justify the war he chose to wage, but this isn't likely.  For him, his actions require no justification.  It's more likely given the source that it's intended to depict him as a Christ figure; a product of his limitless self-love. Perhaps this is more evidence to be used if there is an effort to invoke the 25th Amendment.  Enormous stupidity or blasphemous hubris may support its application.

I suspect that, as far as this freakish administration is concerned, what it does and has done or will do are never "matters of morality."  It sees itself as being beyond good and evil, to which morality does not apply.  If it did apply, though, the Pope's comments would be bad or wrong, as the acts of this President and his administration must be right  Given the meme which was posted and then deleted, what else could be the case?

Some Thoughts On The 25th Amendment

 

There's much talk about the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of our Great Republic (I'm not sure it still is one, but let's pretend it is for purposes of this post) and its application to the madhouse in which we find ourselves.  I'm uncertain, though, if those who invoke it know what it says.

The 25th Amendment is of relatively recent origin, having been adopted in the 1960s.  It appears it was intended to make it clear just how a president may be removed during the time in which the president serves, and what happens at the end of the term of office.  Perhaps this became a matter of concern to Congress due to our history of assassination.   If presidents are going to be assassinated, it would be prudent to have a replacement method at hand.  It may also be the case, however, that there was a concern that a president should be removable, so to speak, in circumstances where there has been no successful assassination, or impeachment, but a president is otherwise unable to discharge the duties of the office.

That was the case with Woodrow Wilson.  He suffered a stroke after he was outmanuvered and even bamboozled by the British and French representatives at Versailles.  This would have been hard for a man like Wilson to swallow. He seems to have seen himself as a modern-day Moses, if not a messiah.

Regardless, his stroke incapacitated him, and Mrs. Wilson and some agreeable politicians or friends presided over the United States for a time.

What the Amendment says in pertinent part is that if the Vice President and a majority of the members of the cabinet believe the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the presidency, they may submit a statement to that effect to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Then the Vice President becomes "Acting President" and assumes all the power and duties of the President. The President is no longer President. However, the President may in turn submit a declaration to the same officers stating he is capable, in which case he'll be President once more, unless the Vice President, or rather Acting President, and a majority of the cabinet within four days submit yet another declaration that the President remains incapable.

In that case, the Congress decides the issue.  But a two thirds majority of each House  must find the President is incapable.  If there is no such super majority, the President is once more President.

The language of the Amendment provides no guidance regarding how it may be determined that a President "unable to dischage" the powers and duties of the office or what that means.  So it appears it isn't necessary for a President to be incompetent or mentally ill to be removed under the Amendment.  Nothing in the language of the Amendement indicates there i. such a requirement, and it would have been easy enough to impose such a condition.  Nor would the fact that a President is unpopular or unwise be cause for removal.  One could be an inept President and still carry out a President's duties.

Would the fact that a President has deplorable taste be relevant, or that he/she uses vulgar language? Since a President takes an oath to preserve, protect and protect the Constitution, I would think that a violation of that oath would suffice, as that oath sets forth one of the duties of a President.

In any case, the language used in the Amendment suggests that if it comes to a decision of the Congress it may be difficult to establish an inability to discharge the powers and duties of the presidency, due to the Amendment's lack of definition..  But there are other factors which would make the invocation of the 25th Amendment unlikely in this case, in this time.

The primary factor is the fact that the Vice President, the cabinet members and most of the members of Congress lack the moral courage to proceed under the Amendment. Or, they may feel that their jobs depend on his goidwill. They're slaves, thralls of the president.  It would take a great deal of moral courage to invoke the Amendment, and that courage is lacking in those who now may make use of it.

We Are But Dust And Shadows

 

These somewhat deflating but poignant words are those of Horace, Odes 4. 7. 16.  People may know them if only because they were recited by the character Proximo in the film Gladiator, in a different order.

In this Ode, Horace describes the passing of each season, and the continual cycle of death and rebirth in nature.  The fact that in nature, what dies is, in effect, reborn-- life eternally returning after dying in autumn and winter-- seems to have been felt to demonstrate that we humans, though mortal and doomed to die, would live on after death for the initiates of certain of the ancient pagan mysteries, like those of Eleusis.

But in this poem Horace tells his friend that we don't return to life once we die.  He doesn't offer hope of a rebirth.  He says we join those already dead, even famous figures and heroes we know have lived and died, and have never returned to life.  Neither shall we.

It seems a poem which advises acceptance of our fate, without fear. 

 The poet's friend is being told that it's folly to believe or hope that the end isn't the end, and that the reasonable and appropriate course is brave resignation in the face of the inevitable.  It expresses, I think, a very Epicurean or Stoic point of view.  This is unsurprising as it seems that most educated and sophisticated Romans favored one or the other of these philosophical  schools.

It isn't a particularly cheerful bit of friendly advice.  But wise nonetheless.  Leaves and plants die in autumn and winter, and reappear in spring and summer; but what reappears isn't what died, but something different.  The same crop doesn't come back each year (the display of wheat is said to have been a climactic part of the Eleusinian mysteries). Nature provides no analogy for our rebirth.

Lucretius thought that Epicurus did humanity a great service in maintaining persuasively that we don't survive death.  This established that there need be no fear of punishment in Hades once our lives ended.  Some of us, though, find the thought that we'll cease to exist frightening as well.

It's apparent that we've always longed to survive death.  I know nothing of modern physics or quantum mechanics, but it's claimed that they suggest that consciousness is a part of the universe and so ours may continue in one way or another.  That view seems similar to ancient Stoicism's beliefs regarding the nature of the cosmos.  The ancient Stoics also believed that fame, pride, riches. self-love and excessive concern regarding our success in life were were foolish and we are, in effect, but dust and shadows, and living according to the divine in nature is the only real good.

Perhaps modern physics provides support for the ancient Stoic view of our lives and the universe.

More On The Missionary Media

The patronizing, persistent, pontificating (every day should bring at least one alliteration) of the Missionary Media continues apace.  I wonder if it matters.  Do the incessant, heavy-handed efforts to show us the way, the truth and the light make any difference?  Do they enlighten us, make us more tolerant, more sympathetic, less tribal, less bigoted, less bad generally?

I think not.  One doesn't persuade by making a pitch of any kind in such a jarring, blatant manner.  I doubt those religious who knock on doors unnannounced to proclaim that Jesus is Lord make many converts thereby. 

Why, then, does the Missionary Media proceed in this fashion?  In the case of the religious-minded who make surprise visits to unsuspecting householders, I suspect that making converts is a secondary concern.  There's a duty to prostelyze, regardless of its success.  So, persuasion isn't the ultimate goal, and they need not spend a great deal of time honing their technique.

Can it be that the media missionaries feel the same?  Do they believe that they should, or perhaps even must, introduce characters and subplots that reflect diverse sexual, familial, cultural, racial and other considerations regardless of their relevance to the story, for our own good?

Judging from the reactions these intrusions apparently elicit, they do.  Thus the missionaries condemn negative reviews and declining ratings as inappropriate not merely from the standpoint of taste or esthetics, but immoral as well.  This is self-righteousness of considerable magnitude.

I might as well give examples.  The most recent would be the latest effort to do something, I'm not sure what, in the Star Trek universe.  I must admit I've never watched a full episode, as the premise never appealed to me.  I have no interest in the lives and sexual encounters of youthful cadets somehow becoming officers of Star Fleet by being members of a debate team and putting on plays while merrily rogering each other under the guidance of strangely smug and tendentious teachers.

But it seems clear that the peculiar focus on issues and matters which are of significance mostly to those who produce and write the show rather than established Fandom, and are crudely designed to educate all in the wisdom of a particular message, resulted in ridicule and disinterest and rapid cancelation.

What the media missionaries are achieving is the opposite of what they seem to intend.  Particularly when they tinker with stories and characters that have become beloved over time, deliberately making them different from what they're known to have been, merely to make what they think is a moral or educational point unrelated to the story being told, they foster irritation and anger. 

Those they're trying to "educate" or "enlighten" recognize these efforts as pandering and patronizing, and resent them.  It's unsurprising that they react negatively to the points the missionaries want to make as well.

A Convenient God

 

Humanity and God.  God of love, God of peace, God of war.  We take our pick.

Is there some causal relation, or perhaps a correlation, between substance abuse and religious belief of the showy "Praise God!" and "pray with me!" and salvation- show variety?  I think so.  Those who think themselves saved indulge in a kind of exhibitionism; they enjoy being noticed and watched; even admired, as someone God saved.  They also seem determined to see to it that others are similarly saved or at least pretend to be saved, and are certainly TOLD they should do as the saved do.

Humanity's God, though so often described as loving and merciful, is also often a God of war.  The God described in what's called the Old Testament, for example, exuberantly urges his chosen people to kill the men, women, children and even domesticated animals of those various peoples occupying the Promised Land before them.  He himself obliterates the sinful very dramatically, and in one famous instance even kills nearly the entirety of the human race.

In fairness, it should be noted that other ancient nations or at least their leaders delighted in describing the destruction they caused in war against their enemies and their domestic animals (killing the livestock of enemies seems to have been important then, judging from the frequency with which it's noted).  I've mentioned the lavish detailing of their wars by the Assyrian kings in this blog before.

It's not as easy to find support for or approval of war in what's called the New Testament as it is in the Old Testament, but no matter.  Christians have waged war since Christianity began.  In fact, they've waged war against each other far more than they've waged it against non-Christians.

We've been engaged in war throughout our history.  It's something we do.  We can't claim that we're less warlike than we were in the past.  There always seems to be some war going on somewhere, as there is now.

So, naturally enough, and quite conveniently, our God is almost always a God of war.  Sometimes, God is considered the reason why wars take place.  Wars have many causes, but religion is so often one of them if not the primary cause of them, and God so frequently evoked by wars' participants (though the God of the warring parties may differ) that it may fairly be said humanity's God is a God of war, when we want God to be a God of war.

And that's what we have wanted, and some want now.  

The claim is regularly made that belief in God is needed for us to be moral; indeed for morality to exist.  If that's the case, though, it appears that causing death and destruction through war is moral, i.e. that we should wage war. It's difficult to think of any war in which religion wasn't involved or in which God wasn't invoked by those at war as justifying it or as favoring the victory of one side or another.