"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.

Thoughts On The Rough Beast

 

It seems each day brings with it some new freakish incident, threat or claim in these sad times.  I doubt even Suetonius, who wrote of the peculiarities of the Julio-Claudian emperors, could imagine some of the grotesqueries being perpetrated and paraded in front of us by our ubiquitous media.  Whether it's merely ridiculous, like requiring public servants to wear outsized shoes, or actively fostering fear and chaos, those in power seem to be determined either to commit outrages or slavishly support them.

W. B. Yeats believed that the First World War overturned our civilization and deprived us of the traditions and morals on which it was founded, presaging an apocalypse of some kind or another.  So, he wondered what Rough Beast would be born of it.  The 20th century was full of beasts, and so Yeats was right to expect them.  But no Second Coming was forthcoming, as was the case with the many Second Comings which have been predicted by the self-righteous over the centuries.

Could Yeats have imagined a Rough Beast that was destructive of civilized values but merely vulgar, rude, scatterbrained, blustering, ignorant, self-centered as a spoiled child, albeit cunning in a shabby way?  I doubt it.  Yeats was a great poet and evoked beauty and described evil, but in a superlative sense.  I'm not sure he would have believed an apocalypse might be caused by crude, malicious but otherwise unremarkable people put in charge of forces capable of wrecking havoc on the world.

We had to wait for someone like Orwell to tell us that the beasts to be feared most are those who are not great in any sense, are unworthy, even contemptible, but are raised by the corruption of our society to the highest places and are tolerated and even encouraged by those who are part of the corruption.

It's difficult to think, like Yeats, that the current Rough Beasts have beliefs contrary to those which form the bases of Western civilization.  In fact they value what has always been of the greatest importance in the West; money and its relentless acquisition.  Money, of course, is power, which has also been desired.  And they also rely on hypocrisy and purported adherence to so-called Judeo-Christian morals, at least in public, another characteristic of our civilization. 

The Rough Beast no longer slouches towards Bethlehem, but marches against it, and lays siege to it. 

The Frantic Quest For Significance

 

I think that it must be maddening to some people to realize that they are tiny creatures living among billions of other tiny creatures on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system among billions of other solar systems in a galaxy among billions of other galaxies in the vastness of the universe which, for all we know, is one of many other universes.

This is unquestionably the case, however.  And because of this, it's difficult to believe that any of us is of any significance in what's called "the grand scheme of things."  In fact, it's absurd for any of us to feel anything but insignificant.

This creates problems for those of us who feel we're important or special in any sense.  From this perspective, self-love and self-regard become laughable.  The self-important become objects of ridicule.  Those who admire others because they think them important are even more pathetic.

There are different ways a person may react to the realization that we're remarkably small participants in the universe. Some might despair, unable to accept the reality of what Warren Zevon called "the vast indifference of heaven."  Some may disregard it, and believe that they're the chosen of a god who created an enormous cosmos all for the sake of miniature beings on a miniscule planet, the equivalent of a grain of sand in an endless desert.

Some may revere the universe and accept their place in it, something that's plainly beyond their control, and strive to be a Stoic Sage. 

And some might be so angered by the thought of their insignificance, and so convinced of their importance that they use what power they have to demonstrate their greatness and grandeur.  They seek some way to prove it, to themselves more than others. This means they destroy the world and make their mark on it, usually through violence, the accumulation of wealth and building showy, grandiose monuments that others cannot help but see.  

They're the maniacs,  narcissists, gluttons and hoarders that plague us, hoping that somehow their short lives will be remembered if not extended due to their fame. They see devastation as the path to immortality.

The ancient Assyrian kings are good examples of this kind of mania.  They had their scribes write of their prowess in conquering cities and killing all their inhabitants in gruesome detail, so they wouldn't be forgotten.  

Is it possible we're seeing this mad quest for significance playing out now?

Vanitas vanitatum et omnia vanitas. Certain Biblical phrases are apt descriptions of the human condition and are impressive, especially when expressed in Latin.

The Pernicious Doctrine Of Repentance

I've wondered from time to time whether and to what extent the success of Christianity can be attributed to the doctrine of repentance--that is, the fact that it provides that sins may be forgiven.  I don't know of any religion or cult prevalent at the time Christianity began to spread which made a similar, equivalent claim in describing its benefits.

The popular mystery cults which existed at the time promised salvation, but not because you could, through them, obtain God's or the gods' forgiveness for the wrongs you committed if you became a convert and asked to be absolved.  Instead, salvation was forthcoming if you were properly initiated into the mysteries of the god and obtained thereby the knowledge required to be united with the deity.

Of course, merely asking for absolution isn't sufficient in itself to assure a sinner is forgiven.  The sinner must be sincerely sorry for the sins committed. The sinner must feel genuine remorse. 

In addition, the sinner must turn away from the way of sin and towards God.  Some Christian sects actually require proof of the sinner's change of heart in the form of good deeds and by doing what's required by scripture.

Thus is forgiveness attained, and responsibility and punishment avoided. Years of misdeeds are forgotten, and are no longer of any account.

This strikes me as unjust. I think that in most if not all cases someone who fears punishment, particularly eternal punishment, and believes it forthcoming for one reason or another, will certainly sincerely regret that he/she/they murdered, cheated, stole, etc. and genuinely wish the various wrongs committed had never taken place.  There's little possibility that someone believing in and facing Hell will simply pretend to remorse, thinking God will be fooled by a display of sadness.

It's also likely that a sinner facing damnation

will eagerly do all that can be done to establish his/her/their faith and demonstrate a desire to do good in whatever future remains.  There's nothing special or significant about believing Christians sincerely regretting their sins in such circumstances. It's almost certain, therefore, that all will be absolved.

 

It's an attractive prospect for sinners.

My point is that granting forgiveness for past sins or wrongs merely because it's requested minimizes the responsibility of the sinners and wrongdoers, and the significance of the misdeeds themselves, no matter how sincere the request may be,  Nor should forgiveness be granted merely because those that did wrong want to do good in the future, for the same reason.

The doctrine of repentance therefore gives those who do wrong to others, harm others, or are cruel and unjust, the hope if not the assurance that all will be forgiven as long as they appropriately seek forgiveness sometime in the future.  You may be as bad as you like now, as long as you become good.

Augustine wrote that he asked God to help him be pure, "but not yet."  The doctrine of repentance in effect allows that we should be good, but need not be good "yet."  If we're good eventually, we may be evil now.

"What Power Has Law Where Only Money Rules?"

 

I've mentioned Gaius Petronius Arbiter a/k/a Titus Petronius Niger, author of The Satyricon, Suffect Counsel of Rome, courtier of Nero, on more than one occasion in this blog.  He's mentioned by Tacitus and others, so there's credible evidence he existed.  He appears as a character in the novel Quo Vadis, which formed the basis for a movie of the same name.

He was known as the "arbiter of elegance" in Nero's court and a voluptuary, but also was competent and vigorous in performing his public duties.  He eventually fell afoul of the Emperor, like Seneca, and took his own life in a most remarkable way, slowly bleeding to death by opening his veins but stopping the flow of blood using tourniquets to prolong his life while enjoying conversation and banter with friends and writing a description of Nero's misdeeds which he sealed and had delivered to the Emperor after his death.

I qoute him in the title of this post.  It's a perceptive statement by a fascinating man intimately familiar with the rich and powerful oligarchs of a great empire ruled by a meglomaniac.

The ancient Romans had a high regard for law.  They generated a vast amount of written law through the centuries.  Much of current European law derives from that of Rome.  A knowledge of law was considered essential to a successful career, and many prominent citizens acted as advocates (such as Cicero).

The Roman respect for law wasn't limited to written laws.  Romans also revered the mos maiorum, the unwritten code of the customs and traditions they considered peculiarly Roman, such as duty, respect and discipline, which governed the conduct of their ancestors.

When Petronius wondered whether the law had any power where money ruled (implying that it did not), he was therefore maintaining that money had profoundly corrupted and undermined Roman society; had in fact perverted it.  The power of money had changed what it meant to be Roman.

It's become a cliche that the United States is failing and falling as the Roman Empire did and for similar reasons. Like all clichés, it's too simple, but there are similarities.  The U.S. was founded in large part by lawyers.  The Constitution is a legal document--essentially a set of laws.  The rule of law was essential to its creation and forms the basis for its continuance.

It's rapidly devolving, however, because plutocrats have usurped the administration of the government and have no respect for the law to the extent that it serves to thwart their power and influence and the realization of their desires.

The Supreme Court has assured that the nation's government can be bought by sanctioning its purchase as a Constitutional right, and narrowing the definition of bribery, in effect holding that politicians may be paid in return for their services except in rare circumstances.

So we may well ask Petronius' question now, 2000 years after he posed it, and come to the same conclusion he did.

The Age of the Pimp

 

A pimp isn't merely a person who obtains or manages customers for prostitutes.  A pimp can be a procurer of most anything or anyone that will satisfy the desires of those seeking their gratification.  A pimp is a panderer, a fixer, a facilitator.  Those skilled in identifying desires and arranging the satisfaction of them are the most able pimps.  Those whose customers are wealthy are the most successful.

We've been witnesses to the career of a demigod, perhaps even a god, of pimps.  There's nothing in his history which indicates he had extraordinary physical or mental talents, and yet he became extraordinarily successful in making money for himself and others and catering to the wishes and lusts of the rich,  powerful and famous.

His remarkable life seems to serve as irrefutable evidence that it is who you know, not what you know, that's important.  But perhaps that's not entirely true, as it's what he knew about those he knew that enhanced his life in an unusual and disturbing way, and may have led to his death as well as the exploitation of many innocents.

He was assisted in that exploitation by a host of notables from all over our long suffering planet. Their numbers are legion. They include heroes of all political persuasions, united in depravity.

What was it that made him King of the Pimps? The times I think.  Plutocrats believe that money buys anything and anyone.  Perhaps he believed he was a plutocrat along with his many friends.  But he misjudged his place.  Subject to the same desires, his usefulness ended as he indulged them himself without including his customers in indulgence, and so became vulnerable individually, unable to implicate his clients in the same misdeeds he was caught in.  Also, perhaps, his accusers didn't fear him as much as they feared those he enabled.

We're in the Age of the Pimp because the very wealthy need pimps to serve them.  They're not interested in people of substance or worth. They have all they need and more.  What they want isn't what they have already.

They want what they don't have, which is innocence.  They lost it long ago.  They understand they can no longer possess it, so they seek to corrupt those who do.  They want to take the innocence of others.  In that way, they assure that their corruption extends to us all.  We become a part of it.

The Goon Squad

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whom the Gods Would Destroy

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

God Loves Winners

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just Like Old Times

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So...bombs away?

,