Not long ago I watched a documentary about how the "housing market crisis" has affected Britain. In it a man is quite upset that he has lost his house, he is being foreclosed on and must move all his possessions out o the house immediately. If he does not, the bank will move them out and charge him for doing so. Because he has so little money and must move so quickly, he will be forced to discard a lot of stuff that he would not otherwise. The way he kept referring to "my house" brought home a sad truth to me that is so glaringly obvious, yet so clouded over, that relatively few people seem to actually, truly understand it...unless they happen to have to learn the hard way. That truth is this: If you do not have the title or deed to a house, and if you are making payments on it, IT IS NOT YOUR HOUSE!
Think about it for a moment...under what circumstances could a private business, using the force of law, evict you out of your own home?
Whatever the "American Dream" is, a major pillar of it has always been "to own your own home". Why? Somewhere in the 1980's, Philis (my wife at the time) and I "bought our own home". It was a nice new home on a cul de sac in a "housing development". It was only a quarter-acre lot but I was proud of it and lay out where I wanted the garden to be, behind the house; watched most of the construction of the house. It sure had that "new house smell".
I forget now what my employment was then, but most of the payments would come from Philis's disability check. In fact, that was one thing that made us feel a little more secure about the whole thing - that her guaranteed income was even better than a regular job income, since I might possibly get fired or lose my job. After I think about a year or so, maybe two, a letter arrived which changed all that. Her disability income, it said, was "up for review" and would be suspended pending a hearing. No house payments possible. We lost "our house". We both cried profusely. Luckily, her mother had a house that her father had left to Philis to be used whenever she needed, and I, as hubby, got dragged along.
When the dust and tears settled a bit I began to realize that as much as that hurt, I was still somewhat relieved. It was to be a 30-year mortgage. It almost felt as though I had dodged a bullet in being snatched out of that decades-long enlistment. I had not liked the whole deal from the start; we were to pay $40,000 for the house plus $60,000 for the interest, over that thirty years. Sure there was conflict inside me lucked out of that slavery contract but a MAN is supposed to provide for his family and I felt about a half inch tall. In any case, it was abundantly clear that it was not OUR house. Nor, I realized, would it have been any different if we had paid 29 years and then been unable to pay. And that would have hurt a great deal more.
One of the "selling points" I always heard about buying a house is, "Why pay all that money in rent to make someone else rich and you still never own the house?" I don't recall hearing a corollary of "Why pay all that interest to make a banker richer and still might never own the house?" Sadly, most people seem to think that "buying" a house equals owning a house. It does not. Further, even if you do manage to actually acquire the deed to the house, it is still possible to lose it in various ways. Imminent domain might be invoked. The upkeep and taxes may become more than you can manage. In my opinion, unless you are very wealthy and have every reason to think you always will be (you can easily pay cash for a house), it is just goofy to volunteer for decades of slavery under the guise of "freedom".
I have become so disabused of the notion of "owning a home" that, were I to (somehow) have a high income and good credit and be able to buy a fine home, I surely would not. Even if I won a lottery and could pay cash for a home, I would consider that long and hard before doing it. I have come to detest the notion of "having good credit" because it smacks, to me, of being stood upon a stump and pronounced "good stock" as with a man at a slave auction.
In trying to gain some understanding of the conservative mindset, I went looking for comments by them. The following is a comment I found here...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110222/ap_on_re_us/us_census_dying_counties
If you include every American who receives their living directly from the American Government (the People) you reach a staggering sum. If you include everyone (i.e. postal workers, politicians, dept. of transportation workers, military, and so on) currently approximately 35% of the American Population is being supported by the People....
When the Federal Government (the People) can no longer support the permanent welfare class and the vast multitude of government employees, these people who received their livelihood from the People will riot. So basically, 35% of the American population (108 million people) will riot against their supporters, the 65% (201 million people). The catalyst for next American Revolution will be the 65% collectively uniting to put-down the rebellion of the 35%.
This person considers that all government employees...teachers, postal workers, firefighters, police, et al, are "welfare cases" because their pay comes from the government.
Bill "Hardcase" Gillen on Friendburst says that he asked for a raise and he got it because he works hard and does a good job...he doesn't need any "union thugs" to speak for him.
There seems to be a growing number of people now who think there will be, and look forward to, a war between the "socialist libtards" and "regular people". Not a culture war, not a rhetorical war, not a political war... a war in which bullets rip through flesh and bone and dying people are screaming.
Overall this has been a good day for me. Just finished a Hungry Man Dinner, so that's always a good thing. Had some good conversation with friends. Played games.
Earlier I watched my first episode of An Idiot Abroad. I knew Ricky Gervais did it and that he also did the original The Office in the UK. The Office seemed to be very popular but to me it was very boring and dumb...I never saw any humor in it. I think some people confuse stupid with funny. So I worked it up to watch Idiot. Ok, Karl the "idiot" may be an idiot, but as far as I can see he couldn't hold a candle to the idiots in the places he visits. I saw the one where he goes to India.
An Indian "Saint" said he should take a dip in the Ganges for "cleansing". Right. One of the most polluted bodies of water in the world, full of all manner of dangerous and disgusting stuff, including dead bodies sometimes...for cleansing. Yep, idiots in my book. Would you drink a bottle of water from the Ganges?
A shop where they sell piss to drink, and cow shit..."Holy" cow shit, no less, as soap. Hey, I've seen some dirty ass redneck places, but I have yet to find one where they think cow shit is soap.
Now Our America with Lisa Ling is on. All about Faith Healers (watch the clip here). Earlier in the week, with all the crap going on in most of the Middle East and North Africa, I was musing about how a dozen or so Hiroshima-sized nukes in that region would be so refreshing. Now, seeing what is going on amid the ruins of Heritage USA, and how so many people apparently think this is wonderful, I realize I was wrong about the Middle East...we need MANY more nukes over a much bigger area.
Watch all three videos...which is sadder, the grand Hotel in ruins...or that a "new ministry" has restored it?
Bartholemew, there's an old saying from some place that says, "May you live in interesting times." I been bored for quite a while but I gotta say, so far this year looks promising, in the interesting category.
You might have heard something about a bit of a brouhaha in Egypt. It seems the trigger for all this current stuff was what the Guardian newspaper called the "small incident" of a feller setting himself on fire in Tunisia back in December. Here's what they said about that:
"The riots and demonstrations that have swept through Tunisia during the past 10 days also began with a small incident. Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi, living in the provincial town of Sidi Bouzid, had a university degree but no work. To earn some money he took to selling fruit and vegetables in the street without a licence [sic]. When the authorities stopped him and confiscated his produce, he was so angry that he set himself on fire."Source.
Then there was all that stuff in Egypt. What was that all about?
"Some of the protesters' targets were similar to some of those in Tunisia: high unemployment, skyrocketing food prices, pervasive poverty. But Egyptian protesters expressed their most vehement anger at government corruption, torture and police brutality,..."Source.
Oh, so a big part of it was about unemployment. Well, how high WAS their unemployment?
"Egypt's unemployment rate is 9.4 percent as of the last quarter of 2009, according to a report released in February 2010 by the country's Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics. Approximately 2.3 million Egyptian workers are unemployed, the report found. Over a million of the unemployed held high school diplomas, while almost 900,000 had college degrees."
You might notice that all those are in the Middle East, North Africa, area. Aside from wanting whichever "leader" they currently have out, nearly all mention something about unemployment, poverty, excessively high prices for food, gas, etc.
Well, you can just never tell what all them ragheaded sand monkeys gonna do, but we don't have no sich here in God's Country, the Grand Ol' USA.
Well, hang on Bartholemew, let's put our specs on and take a closer gander at it. They had protests in London too...and THAT was about stuff costing too much too and that was a Western country.
Yeah, but still wasn't here...
Hang on... up there in Madison, Wisconsin there are thousands of people protesting the way the governor there is acting, about cutting wages, threatening unions and even talking about calling out the national guard...Source, and NY and NJ are threatening really big cuts in all kinds of programs...
Well, them Yankees are always bitchin' about somethin'...
Well it ain't jist Yankees, Bartholemew, they want to cut out a buncha stuff in Texas too, Source, and you know right across from El Paso, they been sayin' for a few years now that Ciudad, Jaurez is the most violent and dangerous city in the world, and before you say that's just crazy Mexicans, sometimes that warring spills over into the US too, and, even though most of that is about heroin and other drugs, a lot of it is about the terrible economic conditions in Mexico.
You remember that thing about unemployment being 9 percent or something like in Egypt....you know what it is here? It fell to "only" 9% in January, down from 9.4% in December. Source. But that don't mean there were suddenly more jobs, just means a buncha folk fell off the "official" unemployment rolls. These folk say the "real" US unemployment rate might be closer to 25%. Source.
I keep hearing talk about gas prices getting up around $4 a gallon again, maybe $5 by the end of the year, and maybe even more than that soon after. Source. Not just gas either, last time we went to the discount store, the hamburger was $2.29 a pound. Last month it was only $1.79 a pound. They say food prices all over the world are really going up fast, and that means here too. Source. Part of that is because of gas prices going up and part is because of things like droughts in China and Argentina.
Yessir, Bartholemew, this year has possibilities... [crickets]
Although I could surely be wrong, I get the general impression that I will not likely see sixty years old (that would be March 23, 2018 for those keeping score at home). For some, that would be terrifying, and there was a time in which I "raged against the dying of the light", and still do from time to time when the adrenaline spikes a bit. But generally, my rage, about that and everything else, is pretty much down to the glowing embers left after the flames. I have, I suppose, come to fancy myself among the "wise men" who know that "dark is right" or at least inevitable, "because their words had forked no lightening". I wonder if it would hurt if my words forked lightening? Why would it matter in the slightest whether or not one raged against the dying of the light...as long as the light still died? It appears there are changes within the brain and rest of the body, which come with age, which make the inevitability and proximity of death little more than one more annoyance one must get through before the final nirvanic return to non-existence. It hardly matters whether or not one has fulfilled the principle purpose of life - procreation - the time for it is nonetheless over, and the "survival instinct" begins to wither as much as the flaccid penis.
Watch...is Herbie raging against the dying of the light?
Full episode The Human Body Part 7 The End of Life By the way, if you have not, you should watch the entire series of The Human Body, narrated by Robert Winston. In Part 7, the final episode, Herbie is the principle player and we get to watch him die...but there is no acting here.
You might remember there was mention of Egypt in an earlier box. That was written almost a month ago and I could not have foreseen the recent...eh, events there. Many comments along the lines of "something has been born there" have been made. My question is, "what"? There was no ultrasound. Most of the left seems to be overjoyed that something called "democracy" (whatever that is) has been born there. Much comment was made about the fact that most of the Fox News people didn't seem thrilled, and that they were "haters" for pointing out that, aside from Israel, there is no country in the Middle East that is run much like the Western idea of democracy. Well...? What other country in that region is "democratic" in the American sense? It all seems rather suspicious to me... there suddenly seems to be a flurry of "democratic" protest and resistance to "oppressive regimes" in the region. We are told that for 20-30 years, the people of Egypt lived under tyranny. That may be, I don't know, but I do wonder why it was tolerable for so long and suddenly now it is not. Why now? Was it not tyranny last year?
So...Israel is a democracy? Really? Even for Palestinian people?
That video is titled The Ultra Zionists. What would you say to the young Israeli guy at the end of the video about whether atheism is "a stupid way of life"?
Getting down near the bottom of this box we find a bit from my friend Hugh. About UFO's. Hmmm. There was a link to this video and a note saying he thinks I may soon be eating crow. I'm not sure I know what that means, since I have never denied the possibility of the existence of aliens and/or their spacecraft. I still do not. Nor do I see any evidence that this video contains either. Especially since Hugh included, in a separate note, this link to what Hugh calls "the official explanation (or cover story)". Do I know for certain what this was? No. I also see no evidence whatever in either the video or the text to doubt that it was anything other than a solar probe whose parachutes failed to open upon return to earth. Am I to automatically dismiss the "official explanation" as merely a "cover story" simply BECAUSE it is the official explanation? Is it impossible that the explanation is actually true only because it is "official"? I certainly understand and agree that it is important to maintain a healthy skepticism about things "official", though I see no reason to go off the deep end in the other direction either. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, no?
Youtube is full of videos claiming that the Voynich Manuscript is of alien origin. For all I know it is precisely that. But until I see hard evidence otherwise, I will think it far more likely that it was written (for whatever purposes) by some human in the 15th century.
One more thing... I had wondered whether it was just me or if other people were experiencing something I can only call now an attention deficit. After talking with several friends privately about this, I have concluded that it is a rather pervasive phenomenon. Many friends agreed with me that they have, in fairly recent times, become unable to take the time to read an entire book. Even if you really like it, it just seems to take too much time. I really wanted to read Sam Harris' latest book The Moral Landscape. So far, I have not. I was surprised and a little disturbed that I could not seem to even get through his article in the Huffington Post, A Response to Critics. If this situation persists, I will be sad....reading was such a pleasure.
I await the demonization from the left of the National Car Association and the National Knife Association for failing to support legislation that would make it more difficult for crazy people to get their hands on these instruments of death. Heh.
If you have arrived here after getting through these three boxes of clutter, I will take it that you do not suffer from my aforementioned attention deficit...and I thank you. Just wait till I get into the attic...
All our lives most of us have heard about "Communism". It is typically said to be a terrible thing, something so horrible that whole regions of the world go to war with other regions in order to fight against it. Something called "Socialism" is often associated with it and is viewed with almost as much fear and loathing as communism. And something called "Anarchy" is said to be the absolute worst of the lot, the thing that indicates that all human civilization has disintegrated, a thing marked only by terror, chaos, violence and death. But what ARE these things, really?
Here, I stumble across what is, to me, one of the most remarkable aspects of humans in general. A strange inclination and ability to apply one or more of these words to the most horrific social and political circumstances imaginable, even though neither of them has anything whatever to do with fear, chaos, violence and death; at least certainly no more than anything NOT called by one of these words. I find that simply amazing. One might think this is due to various leaders indoctrinating their followers, but it seems much more than that, an odd meme that is endemic among most humans everywhere, both the leaders and the led.
Consider "anarchy". Everyone knows, of course, that a state of anarchy is absolute lawlessness, chaos, people running about slashing, burning, assaulting, raping, killing, plundering and pillaging in a horrifying orgy of terror, violence, destruction and death. Many people who call themselves "anarchists" certainly reinforce this idea by...committing acts of violence and destruction. But why do most regular people, as well as many who call themselves "anarchist" think this is what anarchy means? Why do people think that anarchy = lawlessness and chaos? Does this not imply that things other than anarchy, like democracy or some other system does NOT involve violence and lawlessness and chaos? Just what does anarchy actually mean? Will a dictionary tell us? It would be well to remember that dictionaries usually present the currently generally accepted definitions of words, without regard to whether the definitions are factually correct based on the etymology of the words.
A pause...do facts and truths, insofar as they can be determined, matter to you, or are you quite willing to accept the commonly held ideas, as is, without further examination?
The word anarchy comes from the Greek "an", meaning "without" and "arkhos", meaning "leader". Well, there you have it, being without a leader means lawlessness and chaos! Really? Do you mean to say that you are not capable of leading or conducting your own life without rules and laws being imposed upon you by other people? See, THAT's what "without leader" means...without an external leader, someone other than yourself, making rules by which you must live. Does it occur to you that you just might be able to make such rules for yourself, and yourself only, of course? Well, sure, I could do that, but most other people can't. Aye, there's the rub. Without cooperation, how could anything ever get done? What, cooperation cannot occur without being forced to do so by some other person or circumstance? Do you suppose that all people are so different that any significant level of cooperation to achieve shared goals is impossible...that "what's in it for me" is the primary motivating force driving humans? Could the pyramids have been built without the order of the Pharaoh? If the Pharaoh had ordered and all people refused, would the pyramids be there?
While it is true to an extent and in a sense, that we are autonomous beings, computers in a way, it is also true that huge numbers of these computers must disconnect or at least damper the "autonomous" feature and behave serially; as a part of a larger whole in order for very large things to be done. No human individual who ever lived could have possibly built the Great Pyramid of Cheops, certainly not without modern powerful machinery. Was it mainly threat of violence and death for refusal imposed by the ultimate political and social power that caused so many thousands of individuals to carve on those stones, to lug them around and stack them? How many of those thousands did what they did because they believed deep within themselves that what they were doing collectively was a necessary and good thing?
Well, WAS it a good and necessary thing, objectively speaking? It's essentially a pile of rocks...granted that it is orderly and served some perceived purposes and has some amount of aesthetic beauty, but it is still essentially a pile of rocks. Would the life of the average Egyptian during those centuries have been better or worse without the grand collective projects?
What about "communism" and "socialism"? I tend to always link these two because, although people can come up with all manner of differences and variations, they both seem to me to refer to essentially the same thing; the social group or the commune, from which our word community comes. This is where definitions get screwy, to my way of thinking. One definition says, "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Crikey! Why are we suddenly talking about a party or a state? What happened to the community? We're told that a place like North Korea is, not merely a dictatorship, but a COMMUNIST dictatorship! WTF? Certainly seems to have a dictator, all right, but makes about as much sense to me as saying it's a democratic dictatorship. How is it that "a dictatorship" is not a totally, fundamentally different thing from a democratic or a communist or a socialist society? A dictatorship or an oligarchy is rule, typically capricious and cruel, by one guy or a relative handful of persons...in what way is this either communal or social or democratic?
Some might wonder whether it's only western propaganda to insist that the old Soviet Union, for example, was "communist". But I have seen many bits of old newsreel footage in which the citizens of that time and place were as fervently and joyously convinced that they were good communists as any Christian is convinced he is a good Christian. They worked like madmen, with a fervor that other religions could only envy; lived in mostly pathetic and shitty conditions even in the best of times, serving the interests of the dictator or oligarchy, somehow unaware that the general welfare of the people, of which they were a part, was going down the toilet. I have seen bits of interviews with modern Russians and even an occasional golden oldie, who speak wistfully and longingly of the days of Lenin and Stalin. How is this possible? Perhaps a lot of people basically only care whether "the trains run on time", without regard to what they carry and why.
The National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) - known in English as the Nazi Party - was in Germany between 1919 and 1945. Its last leader being one Adolph Hitler (since there couldn't possibly have been more than one). By the way and FYI, "Nazi" is an abbreviation of the pronunciation of the German word Nationalsozialistische. Now and for the foreseeable future, "socialist" is another word for "Nazi" in the popular mind (are minds popular?). If you use Google, try typing in "define social" and then "define socialism" and see what happens. Where, in the definitions of these terms, is there mention of dictators, mass slaughter, etc.? Hitler is said to have "killed six million" people, making him a relative piker in the slaughter game to Stalin who is said to have "slaughtered over 20 million".
So...Hitler the religious and maybe occultist Socialist, hated Stalin the atheist communist, (the feeling was mutual), they both hated capitalism and yet...money fueled the lot of it. Did both Hitler and Stalin not have to "fund" their relative countries and especially their militaries? If you genuinely hated capitalism, why would you participate in a game which is unplayable without money? Would all the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and camp guards and enforcers, etc. not have played the game without being paid money? It was all the fault of the Jews of course, except that all non-Jewish people used money too. Where was the general well being of the people, the society, in all that? Are we back to only the "what's in it for me" mode?
Why is it that only two groups or entities are usually acknowledged in such ruminations; the greedy individual capitalists or corporatists, and "the state". Again, where are "the people" or general society in there? Why is it that if all property and means of production are said to be owned by the people, it's actually a very small number of powerful government types who own everything. Do people in general not really understand what it means to "own" something, even collectively? If there is gong to be a "state" at all, why is it not a relatively minor administrative body or group doing the pragmatic and logistical work of society?
In our glorious democracy, of course, we have many "public servants", whereas WE are "the people", the ones who have the power. Compare your pay and power to that of the President or of Congress or of the Supreme Court...I bet they all have a lot more of both than you do. How is it that "the servants" give orders to "the owners"? Did Orwell write this dictionary? Who is the servant of whom? Of course 'we the people' do hold the ultimate power...we can always vote them out of office. Well, except for members of the Supreme Court who are legally in power until they die or resign. Congress members and other various "high government officials" - what happened to "servants" - can take a break from being, eh...servants, and go fer a whirl in the corporatocracy...er, democracy. Have you looked at the career of Dick Cheney? Did you think he was not in government until Bush picked him as Vice President?
Do you know what Larry Summers did before he was Obama's "Director of the National Economic Council"? For one, he was Chief Economist of the World Bank. He was also Secretary of the Treasury (remember Bill Clinton?). How about Obama's new Chief of Staff, William Daley (member of the infamous Daleys of Chicago politics fame)... he used to be Secretary of Commerce (Bill Clinton again), took a break to be on the Executive Committee of JPMorgan Chase & Company (Chase what mattersÔ!) (That position, Chief of Staff, used be called "Appointments Secretary", but that does have a bit of a sissy ring to to it, eh?) There is a multitude of other personages who have long played ring around the rosie in that "revolving door" between Washington politics and Wall Street. So, what does any of that have to do with us? If nothing else it should remind us of the truth of George Carlin's rant about the rulers of this country being a big club and we ain't in it.
That was a biggun...okay maybe one more before supper.
Did you ever come across a drawer, a box, a chest of some kind, and go through it to find dust, insect parts, rat turds, general trash and detritus and find something still perfectly useful and usable...something worth holding on to? I am under the delusion that I have found just such a (metaphorical) box from the cluttered crevices of my mind (I'm certain someone must have had a good quote about a cluttered mind, but I forget who and what), in the hope that someone may find such a bit worth holding on to, a bit of gold among the dross, as Mr. Jefferson might say. There is that slight uneasiness about the fact that this box was among the stuff completely wiped from my hard drive the time before last when Goodie Computer went in for resurrection. It wasn't here upon return. Now, after coming home again from the Second Resurrection...viola! A bit like a scene from Pet Sematary. Of course it is possible that such a box may contain something so disgusting, so revolting, that one instinctively heaves the whole mess overboard in an effort to save the ship. Will you find such a thing in here?
I think most Americans would say that, legally speaking, any two (heterosexual) consenting adults have the right to go off and have sex with each other. Even most of those who might object on "moral grounds", would surely still agree with the legality of it. And yet, so many of the same people would scream bloody murder if there were a financial exchange involved also in the sexual transaction. Why? Are they not still consenting adults? Even if they are immoral sinners, do they not still have "Free Will"? What is it about the introduction of a monetary component in the arrangement that makes it so unacceptable? Perhaps it is the monetary component that is morally repugnant, rather than the sexual one. The more educated and liberal would include the homosexual in the legal freedom, but even most of them would balk if the "adult" component were in question. It seems many assumptions tend to be automatically involved, whether the assumptions have any truth in them or not.
One assumption seems to be that if a monetary consideration is involved, it somehow makes the whole affair sordid, demeaning, dehumanizing. Why would any self-respecting person voluntarily "sell" (rent is the more accurate term) their body if they were not forced or coerced by others or by circumstance? But then again, why should only sexual activity be included in that ideology? Why would any self-respecting person voluntarily rent their body to others for ANY purpose if they were not forced or coerced by others or by circumstance? What's the difference whether you are a whore for sex or a whore for digging ditches?
What does "adult" mean? There is here, a legally set chronological age for most things which is said to mark "adulthood". But close examination shows there is little logic involved in the setting of these arbitrary numbers. How is it that one is "adult" enough to make the decision for himself to join with a military organization, be issued fearsome weapons with which to kill many other people at 18 years of age, yet the same individual is NOT "adult" enough to make the decision for himself whether or not to drink beer and whiskey until 3 years hence? Alcohol consumption requires three additional years of age more than killing other humans to be acceptable? And what about sexual activity...how old does one have to be for that?
We will often hear then about something other than chronological age, something called "maturity" or the "age of consent". But these are very different things. The "age of consent" is simply another way of referring to the chronological age. "Maturity" refers generally to a psychological state and what is the evidence that this is hard wired to chronology. Have we not all seen "adults" upward of 40 or 50 years whom we would call very "immature"? Have we not seen "children" far short of "adulthood" who engaged in deep thought and reflection and understanding, albeit with an unavoidable shortage of actual life experience?
What about sexual activity with a legal or blood relative? One natural assumption is the impact this might have on potential offspring. Putting that aside for the moment, if there were not going to be any offspring at all, why should anyone have any objections to this...for other people, not for themselves? If my sister and I are 12 and we both like sexual play and it feels good and we are harming no one, why should anyone be allowed to forbid it? Why is the assumption that one (usually the male) is somehow forcing or coercing the other? What if they are not? Oh, but surely if one is "adult" and the other is not, it is a clear situation of "imbalance of power", that is, the adult has more power than the "child". While this is probably true, why does it necessarily follow that the adult is using said superior power to force or coerce the child? Is it not possible that the "child" might very well be interested and voluntarily participate, possibly even initiate the activity? I know when I was six I was very interested in sex, it felt great and I would have much enjoyed my mom or any other female doing it with me. Of course if there had been threats or pain or fear involved, I would have hated that. But I would hate that just as much at 50 as I would at six, and it seems to me a bizarre assumption that such things MUST be included in sexual activity, that involves a "child".
What about work? I began my working life when I was two. Of course I did not understand that at the time, but I did the work nonetheless, mostly picked peppers in the fields. No one forced me to do this...I could as easily have simply sat and played nearby or taken a nap. My parents, especially my mother, were not cruel. I made my first dollar from work when I was four by picking 100 pounds of cotton all by myself in a day. I was very proud of myself and of my dollar. Again, no one forced me to do this...other children played and napped at the ends of the fields under shade trees. I had no interest in playing and certainly not in associating with those children whom I viewed as potential threats. Was it bad to be in an economic situation in which we were forced to work like that in order to get money? If so, why was it not just as bad - maybe worse -for my parents as for me? Would any of us, young or old, black or white, have been in the fields picking cotton if we could have had plenty of food, clothing, housing, etc., without that? If not, how is that not slavery?
There's a bigger box over there, what's in that...
My mind goes a lot. That is not to say that it is necessarily doing anything of any significance or anything profound...sometimes it's just more like a freakin' energizer bunny you can't make stop, even with a hammer. It sucks being kept awake for hours on end by your own brain despite feeling like you haven't slept in a week and feeling dead tired, and being still and quiet, and even doing some self-hypnosis...sometimes it just flat won't stop short of doing something dangerous.
I sometimes have a lot of fantasies. When I was younger a great deal of those involved girls and sex...now, not so much. One that crops up fairly often is how cool it would be if you were able to really time travel...go back to the old west, but have all the knowledge and a little technology from the present. That showed up again a couple days ago. It was triggered by seeing this guy...Bob Munden.
If he could transport back to Dodge City in 1830, he could be the real deal as a badass gunslinger whose name made most people sweat with fear. He is so incredibly fast with that gun it borders on the superhuman. He can draw, cock and fire literally faster than your eye can blink. More importantly, he actually hits what he intends to hit. It's not a trick gun either...it can't be fired by just pulling the trigger, you have to cock it first, for each shot. But he is so fast that if it were a real gunfight he could draw and kill three or four other good gunfighters before they cleared leather. In his case, it ain't trickery or high tech...just plain fast.
But then, what might the good folk of a sleepy old west town think if they encountered some serious super high tech? Apparently, other folks wondered too...they just managed to get a lot of money out of it. A movie I have been looking forward to for a while is finally coming to theaters in the summer. It's called Cowboys & Aliens. Ima save up to see that sucker. Hey, you got Stephen Spielberg and Ron Howard producing, you got Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford and the smokin' hot Olivia Wilde starring, you gotz cowboys, you gotz aliens...what's not to like? Check out the trailer.
It finally happened. I got jumpstarted. Required going down to the store and writing a bad check to get some cigarettes. Got home and was so interested in Cityville, it was still half an hour before I lit one. Then, like an old Chevy that hasn't been started in ten years, I started coughing and sputtering and finally leveled out, running like a Singer sewing machine and into blogging. Not quite ready to run full throttle yet... still need to get a bit o' rum fer lubrication and so I don't idle too high. (Don't worry, the check can't get to the bank before morning.) Been going back and forth of on Facebook with some folk on ye olde Free Will illusion (just like with Chris Angel, some can't see it's an illusion). Sometimes folk will say to me, "You think the world owes you a living!", as though that were an insult, to which I can only stare incredulously and say, "DUH!" Of COURSE the world owes me a living and everyone else as well. That's what it's THERE for. Even the Bible says so, lulz. I swear, some folk would pass acres and acres of harvested, perfectly good, fresh fruits and veggies, free for the taking and insist on going over there and burrowing into the ground like moles cuz they think they have to grow their own. Well, ok, I'll try explaining that a little further in more bloggage.
Been watching the revolution in Egypt...well, till the bullets started flying and then all you have is very long camera shots...boring. *sigh* Tunisia, Yemen, now Egypt...geez, I start feeling left out. When is OUR revolution going to start!? Did anyone remember to bring the alarm clock? *sigh* Always a bride's maid, never a bride. Maybe someday.
Actually, I'm killing some time right now, waiting to get more energy in Cityville, so I can build more houses and businesses. Perhaps one day humans will become civilized enough to only do that sort of thing in a virtual world or a game, like we now have a lot of war in football games, even though we still have killing wars too. Do any of y'all seriously not understand that one of the worst problems we have is not that there is fraud in the monetary system but that the monetary system IS fraud? Well, there's a topic fer a few blogs.
Didn't get my computer back today, still in shop. Maybe fried his brain. Hopefully next Wednesday. Meanwhile still using the loaner. Dum de dum dum. Well, back to Cityville...Chase what matters! See y'all tomorrow night I hope.
