Random Thoughts

I have notice a recent trend in stories on various web sites. All of them blame this group or that group for the impending demise of man.

You know something, maybe I am too cynical or something, but I find it the height of hubris to believe that any single man or group really is control of things that happen on our planet. No, the world is less like a ride on a roller coaster than it is a ride on a toboggan. On a roller coaster, there always is that knowledge that somewhere there lurks somebody (or a computer) that can slam on the brakes; in essence meaning that somewhere somebody is in control. On a steep enough hill with enough moguls, on a toboggan, no body really is in control and you just try to guide it to a safe stop.

The world is like that. People like to think they are in control, but … we aren’t and never will be. I don’t care if you are the pope, the president of the United States or some nefarious group that make up the usual conspiracy suspects. None of those people really are or can “control” events. They might be able to have some influence as to which way the toboggan flies, but they are not really controlling its fate.

Whether it is global climate change, or any of a host of other natural  threats to mankind, there really is little that we can do to actually change what those will do. Oh, we can tinker around the edges, but it really is not going to change what happens much.

It is just like peace is not going to break out … sorry, too many people and too many are not built that way. Unfortunately for mankind, war and conflict will remain its lot for a long time to come.

Unlike some, I don’t see “humanism” and “reason” coming to the rescue. And I don’t even pretend to know what God, where and whatever form he/she/it takes, plans to do. I would like to think that there is a plan, somewhere, but I don’t know.  But to lay the blame for all the world ills on humans strikes me as more than being self-centered.

Yes, humans do have an impact on the environment. Yes, a lot of that impact is negative. I suppose it would be a better world if there were less of a human impact, but I will be damned if I can figure out where to start, because as an American, I am really in a small minority.  Yes, we have good in my country, but does that mean that we should surrender all our advanced “things” in order to make everybody “equal”? I suppose that would be “fair”. At least that is what our president says he wants: for everything here to be “fair”.

Anyway … nuff said.

For those who are interested

http://www.lulu.com/shop/rich-browne/i-remember/ebook/product-17349496.html

How exciting the world we live in

Read an excellent commentary

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/Coyne+protest+devolves+into+movement+about+nothing+except+drama/6668222/story.html

Think about it … the more we advocate strife, the more we are going to get.

WAR ON EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY!!!!!!!

Just a thought

I often look at the news stories about the people who are protesting this aspect or that aspect of the current world economy and wonder if these people really think about what they are protesting.

I mean do they really understand how slender a thread modern civilization depends upon and how easy it would be to condemn millions, if not billions, of humans to death, quite rapidly unfortunately, were their aspirations to be realized.

It often amazes me how much we take for granted, especially those of us in developed countries such as the United States and Canada.  We just take for granted that grocery stores will have ample food; electricity, natural gas and water will be there on demand, dependably and without question; that gasoline, tires and even computers linked to the entire world will just be there. Do we ever really stop to think how marvelous these things are? Do we ever stop to think what would happen if just one of the things that prop up the whole interconnected system were to suddenly disappear?

What would happen if, tomorrow, there were no more fossil fuels to burn? How many people would die? Who would decide which people were to die? What gives those people the right to decide if they live or die?

If there were no petroleum products, then there would be huge shortages of food in all populations centers, world wide. There would be no fuel, tires, lubricants to keep the trucks, trains, ships and planes moving all those needed food stuffs to the cities and even small towns. Unless you had your own stockpile of food, and enough land and animals to grow your own to keep you supplied all year, you soon would starve.

If it wasn’t for oil, coal and natural gas (or, hades, nuclear power), few people would have electricity (that runs just about everything), because there would be no way to build or maintain solar cells, wind turbines or water turbines without those things; nor would most of the clothes that we have (made of synthetic fabrics) be there.

Jobs would be gone, because the raw materials to make things would not be able to get to the factories … or the service jobs would dry up because either no one could afford the services or there would be no need for them, because the things they provide no longer would be possible.

There would be no need for colleges, besides no equipment for them, or even secondary schools.

I just wonder what people would do, other than die and kill each other over what little resources that would remain.

Just a thought.

Chicago NATO protests

I see where the lines are being drawn between the Chicago police and those who wish to “protest” the meeting this week of the 60 or so nations invited to annual meeting of the heads of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

There will be disturbances. There will be heads busted. There will be tear gas used. There will be windows broken. Those are all a given.

It is not that there will not be people ostensibly to peacefully petition for the redress of their grievances. There will be some … but the core will be there to incite violence. They are begging for violence. They are pleading for violence. It is their sole objective.

Why incite violence? Because it achieves their ends.

First, the Chicago police are not known for their restraint with demonstrations, so the object is to push the limits until they are forced to react. And they will eventually have to push back. That too is a given.

Second, this is not really about war or US imperialism or social justice. Not really. It is about people wanting people to take them seriously, even when everything that they do augurs against their being taken seriously.

Yes, the coming demonstrations will do some damage to the credibility of the “authorities” and their observances of the rights of  “free speech”, but then, that exactly what the object of the demonstrations are: To delegitimize the governments in attendance.

It is easy when you don’t have the responsibility to make the decisions and do the things that have to be done in order to govern large groups of people.

So sit back and watch the show.

More Random thoughts

I peruse a lot of different news sites (rather than watch TV, I prefer to read my news … I guess that is a holdover from being a print journalist for so many years.  Anyway, even the web news sources have me shaking my head these days. It is bizarre, no matter what the slant of the purveyor.

1. I regularly visit the Huffington Post, and get amazed at some of the things that the limousine liberal (I am sorry, the progressives) set gets jacked up about. One of the more recent is a headline that some evil billionaire is going to launch an “vicious” ad campaign against President Obama.

First, since when is this any different that say the slams against Mitt Romney or George W. Bush? I mean, give me a break.

Second, obviously these people have not studied much American history … if you think politics is dirty now, you really need to go back and look at want passed for political dialogue in the late 17oos and all through the 1800s in this country. You will be surprised at what was said about various political figures and candidates.

So, some rich guy (that you don’t agree with) is going to spend a bunch of his wealth to tear down a political opponent. You have a problem with that? You need to have a reality check. Stop and think about what the “freedom of speech” really means and it means having to put up with idiots you don’t agree with having the freedom to spend their own money (regardless of how they came by it) to say things that you don’t like. Sorry, that is the price of liberty and having a freedom to speak our minds.

2. There is some veteran of Iraq (he is like a 27-year-old student now) who is going to take his medals from serving in the so-called “Global War on Terrorism” and try to give them back to President Obama at the NATO summit in Chicago later this month to protest, as I gathered from the story, the war in Iraq and the continuing war in Afghanistan. What a hoot. I am sorry, he has got every right to do it, but so what … as far as I am concerned (unlike MSNBC) it really is a non-story. First, we pulled out of Iraq, remember? What happens there, now, is their problem, not ours, nor is it the US’s responsibility if they can’t get their act straight. Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. Second, we will skedaddle from Afghanistan soon enough, just wait and see. (Don’t know the definition of skedaddle, look it up, particularly as it was used in the American Civil War – oops, I am sorry, the War of Northern Aggression – contexts)

3. It is really getting hard to condemn that Hispanic guy down in Florida who shot a young Afro-American that got everybody is such a tizzy.  According to the medical reports being leaked, the Hispanic guy had injuries consistent with getting the fecal material beat out of you, and the Afro kid had scrapes and bruises on his knuckles consistent with some who was knocking the crap out of someone … in addition to the bullet hole in him. Granted, I think both young men some pretty lousy decisions that fateful night, but if I had a broken nose and had my head slammed against the ground at least twice, hard enough to break the skin and start me bleeding, and the guy who did it looked like he was coming back to give me more, I am not sure I wouldn’t use Mister Colt’s equalizer. And that is regardless if I had been wondering what the heck the person was doing in my neighborhood late at night. I am not sure I would have been as obvious about following him, but hey … I am a devout coward at heart.

4. I see where the progressives are up in arms that the Republicans don’t have a plan ready to replace Obamacare if it gets struck down or repealed. Like, they have to replace it? Since when.

Ok, health care financing is a mess in the US, but then it is just about everywhere else. We choose to ration health care (a limited resource no matter where you go) by limiting access to those who either have sense enough to figure out how to get insurance (which is not the be-all panacea that some think it is, but that is another story). In Canada, they ration health care in their own way. It is called time. You have a health problem … be prepared to stand and wait until the limited number of health facilities and personnel have time to see you.

Now, I am sorry, but unlike other nations, like our European friends, providing health care is not some right that is required of government. Sorry, that dog doesn’t hunt either. Somebody has to pay for it and that is a fact. In Canada, they used taxes, like a 15 percent (I think it is 15 percent) national/provincial sales tax on just about everything. That is in addition to its progressive income tax structure. The point is, whether  you put it on the individual to provide for his and his own (or her as the case may be) or you take from the individual to ensure everyone and his cousin has at least some access to health care, health care is/was/will be a limited resource and will have to be rationed. It just matters how a society decides to do it … is it an individual responsibility or a collective responsibility?

5. I have been following an old high school acquaintance of Facebook these days (by the way, the Facebook IPO is a ripoff, but don’t let anybody know I said that … it produces zip), and one of his latest rants is on Israel. Now, granted he admits he is a progressive (heck he was way back in high school, but that is yet another story), but he thinks the Israelis are far to harsh on the Palestinians and that the Palestinians should be given a contiguous state with East Jerusalem as its capitol. Ironically, the Palestinians have been offered just that or pretty doggone close to it several times and have walked away from the table and rejected it. The most recent time being in 2000 and the first time was in 1947. Of course one could make the same argument that the Jews, who really have just as much a claim to the ancient land of Palestine as the Muslim Arabs, also deserve to have a contiguous state with its capitol in Jerusalem. Of course, it all could have been solved way back in 1947, if Jordan (essentially East Palestine) had just annexed the West Bank and the half of Jerusalem it held, and if Egypt had just annexed the Gaza Strip, instead of administering the area as a giant concentration camp, but that is water under the bridge now.

6. I would go on about the great unease I am feeling about rest of 2012 (and it has nothing to do with the Mayan calendar or any doomsday prophesies) but I think I am going to let that thought continue to percolate in the old noggin a little longer. Just say that I do fear that there may “interesting times” ahead of us, and not necessarily peaceful ones.

Homosexuality and marriage

It seems that a great brouhaha has arisen, with President Obama’s endorsement of marriage between homosexuals.

So what?

Ok, I understand that people who find themselves sexually attracted to members of their own gender want to be accepted as a person of value. As humans, they deserve that right. Granted, in almost every society on this planet and practically every religion of any size, homosexuality is viewed as, if not abhorrent or  taboo, at least not normal and to be discouraged, but that really is not the issue here.

Nope, not even close. The issue is money  and money from someone else. It is not a matter of whom you have pleasure with, so much as it is about what money or benefits you are deprived of if you violate what is, for the vast majority of the human species, considered socially acceptable behavior.

Look at any of the “demands” of the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transsexual advocates, and all their demands are centered around receiving the same financial benefits as married couples. That, really, is what it all about … that and social acceptance for behavior that is not considered socially acceptable.

Ok, I really don’t care what you and another person, or even several other persons, do to get your rocks off. As long as no one is being physically injured in the process, or in the rare cases where some form of injury might occur (depending on how you want to define injury), as long as the injured party consents with the understanding of the results prior to the event.

However, don’t ask me to “approve” of such behavior or give it my endorsement, because it probably ain’t gonna happen.

Why do we have “marriage”? Well, it isn’t to make sexual pleasures acceptable. Sorry, that one doesn’t fly with me. No, societies basically have created the institution of “marriage” for one reason, and one reason only, and that is to provide for the next generation by binding the male to the female that the male makes pregnant … and that basically is the answer in a nutshell.

At last count, at least according to my biology, humans are not asexual and two of one gender can in no way physically create offspring.  OK, I am discounting in vitro fertilization, but that is more like cloning than actually fertilization. So, the primary rationalization for marriage is not met: Two women, or two men, are not going to conceive a child. It just ain’t gonna happen.

Which leaves us with the question: Since, marriage also can mean two people in a loving and caring relationship (which never has been an absolute prerequisite for marriage), is that not a rationalization to allow homosexuals to marry? I guess that depends on how you define “marriage”.

It will be interesting to see what the US Democratic Party does, now that the state of North Carolina has amended its state constitution to include the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. That not only knocks out same-sex marriages (wanted by the GLBT community) but also kicks the pins out from under polygamy (found in some Islamic communities and other religions – including fundamentalist LDS, or Mormons). The problem is that the national convention for the party is to be held in Charlotte, North Carolina. Oh, horrors. How can we have the candidate for the party that believes in the rectitude of same-sex unions in a state that has just prohibited such unions?

Of course, we could solve part of the problem, by taking government out of the equation, and making all laws neutral as it comes to the status of marriage … sorry, no bennies or tax breaks if you are married … no penalties either. But that ain’t gonna happen either.

Still, as one wag pointed out, by defining marriage as between one man and one woman is not necessarily discriminatory against homosexuals.  Homosexuals still have the right and privilege to marry any one of their choice, as long as they are the other sex. And since it takes one of each to fulfill the primary reason for marriage, outside all the tax and other financial benefits society has bestowed on married couples in order to encourage the propagation of the species, it would seem obvious that if you don’t meet the prerequisites, you can’t do it.

I think we probably need to come up with a new institution that allows people (of any sex) who want to proclaim their devotion to another person without having to drag sex into it.

But then, we would be basically saying that there is no good, nor evil, and that we should reward some behaviors over others. Not sure I want to go that far.