|
I know this is a difficult topic for some people to discuss or listen to with an open mind. I keep trying to explain why I am not a believer. My purpose is not to convince believers to abandon their beliefs but to try to help them understand why I believe what I do just as I try to understand their views. And, obviously, those who think the way I do know where I'm coming from. I think I do understand why those who embrace one religion or another do so. Humans over history have shown a need to believe in a higher power to get them through the tough times and to explain the inexplicable. Something happened when we grew this big brain we have, and part of that was a need to hold someone else responsible for events we seem unable to control. As we have learned to control certain circumstances in life, such as some diseases, we no longer thank God for a cure; we thank modern medicine.  For me, I would pose this question to others, "Why should I believe in this God, the modern God of many religions, any more than all the gods who proceeded him or her?" The ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, and people all over the planet back then all had a belief in multiple gods whose existence was as provable as the modern-day God of the major monotheistic religions. I think the Egyptians had eleven gods, the Greeks had twelve gods and goddesses, and the Romans had twelve though it seems they may have added a few others later. It seems to me that all the gods throughout history were written about and explained to a frightened populace, typically by the elders. The elders were viewed as wise and all-knowing. Their explanations went a long way to explaining the many events, both natural and phenomenal, that affected the lives of the average human. Many elders claimed a kinship with one god or another or, at a minimum, clamimed a direct line to the god. We were, in no small part, a frightened species that, with a tendency to cower in fear when threatened. Being able to talk to someone closely connected to a god gave us confidence that everything would be alright. Today's God, and his or her predecessors required a couple of things from their adherents. One was the suspending of logic or critical thinking, and to exercise their imaginations so that they might believe in the proclaimed miracles and powers of the gods that ruled their lives. There was no proof of any of this. There were legends about the gods told by those privileged individuals who claimed to have a direct line to the gods. They served as the interpreters of the god's wishes and desires and thus became the religious leaders. The second requirement of the followers was an unquestioning devotion to the gods, often under the threat of expulsion, or in earlier times, denouncement and physical torture or death for questioning the teachings of the leaders of the dominating religion. Religion requires that you accept as fact whatever tales are in the religious texts. Regardless of the degree of improbability or incredulity such events may give rise to in the human mind, they are doctrine. In their time, many of the people of Rome, Greece, and Egypt were just as devout and certain of their beliefs as any modern Jew, Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu. I see absolutely no difference in the rantings of Pat Roberts today and his claims of speaking with Jesus than those of a Roman Emperor or Egyptian Pharaoh who claimed to be in touch with the gods. At any point in history, with any religious or spiritual cult, you might find, they have several things in common. They were all based on mythology about the deities and the founders of the religion. They have or had their sacred texts as "proof" that all of this had indeed happened. That same holds with modern-day faiths like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all have their tales that have been duly recorded by various authors down through the ages in the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran, and since it is written down, it must be true, right? Would that also be true of everything written down in the Inquirer? Or at Breitbart? The Drudge Report? Or the New York Post? The fact that something was written down and sworn to be accurate, and supposedly witnessed means little these days. Until you have hard evidence and all the facts, along with both numerous witnesses, you are going out on a limb by declaring something to be unquestionably true. The fact that most religious texts were written down a thousand or two thousand years ago by people who believed in witches calls the credibility of such accounts into question, in my opinion. I believe in what I can see and what can be demonstrated to be true. I deal in fact-based proposals, not dream interpretations or other types of mysticism. I can accept a well-formed theory that is backed by several fact-based deductions. The definition of the word theory is: "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." The keyword in that definition is "plausible," meaning that it is likely to be true or believed, as opposed to implausible, which can mean far-fetched, fanciful, or to stretch the imagination. For instance, the theory of evolution first proposed by Darwin 150 years ago was plausible. His theory was based on direct observations and logical deduction. Darwin stated, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." (On the Origin of Species, ch. 14) Darwin's theory of evolution stated that:
The notion of gods or God remains unproven by any scientific proof. There is no evidence that God exists. But, that doesn't mean that religion isn't real, or that individual beliefs in a God are not both actual in their minds and a significant part of their lives. Faith is a belief, and that belief relies on the existence of God. To be devout, one has to believe that God exists, and if you think it to be true, then in your mind, it is true. That is not proof of a God, merely evidence that your beliefs are real.
As for me, as I think I've stated before, I believe that I will live on in the lives that come after me. It won't be anything I'm aware of, and I won't see my grandmother or my first pet dog or any of the rest of that. At this point, I intend to be cremated. My wife will decide what to do with my ashes, and whatever that choice, it will release those elements of my existence back into our world to be absorbed in some manner by other living things. The gasses from my pyre will be absorbed into the atmosphere. Blending with the surrounding air, all will be breathed in by living organisms. I will, in a sense, live on but without any knowledge of an afterlife. For now, that is the best explanation I can offer of my beliefs. If I find another, more 'plausible' explanation, I'll either revisit this post or write a new one.
0 Comments
Corrupted big government is the problem, a huge fucking problem. |
 | Let's get something straight from the beginning. We are a nation of 330 million people and growing. You cannot run a country that big with a government the size of Waterloo Nebraska, home of the Weiner & Kraut Festival. I don't care how fucking smart you think you might be. Waterloo has about 900 people, probably one cop, several bars, and a dozen churches. Try running the United States of America with that crew. |
The problem we have and an issue that has plagued governments since the beginning of time is corruption. Governments, big or small, mean that money is going to be spent, a shitload of money in terms of billions and trillions of dollars. That much money opens the doors to favors, bribes, and outright criminal activities. Even little old Waterloo probably has its scandals when the Mayor's son-in-law gets some government contract. When there is money to be made, the worst in most of us come out.
In ancient Greece, corruption around the noble Olympic Games was a problem. Anywhere on the planet that humans have come together, and there is the opportunity to gain wealth, fame, power, or all three, there has been corruption. That is the nature of the human species. Even our pets have a degree of this in them.
Assume you have more than one cat or dog in your home. Buy a new toy and toss it on the floor. One of them will pounce on the toy. Chances are, on seeing the toy, the others will bound across the room to try to take it away from the first animal. Often, what seems like harmless play can turn into a war. We see this in primates (our cousins), our children, and in ourselves as adults.
When it comes to big government, the main difference between the two parties is not how much to spend but where to spend it. The so-called conservatives, currently in the driver's seat of our run-away bus-wreck-waiting-to-happen-bus, is being driven by the maniacal Trump and a morally bankrupt GOP. They have rocketed the deficit and national debt through the roof to provide tax breaks to corporations and their country club buddies. They are taking us to the edges of fiscal bankruptcy. They want a bloated defense budget, more regulations, and cuts in most public and humanitarian programs that they see as waste.
Turn it all over to the Democrats, and we'll see the spending redirected to programs to help the elderly, children, the destitute, all while trying to keep the main functions of government moving along. The focus will be on functions like the FAA, FDA, CDC, FEMA, VA, our military, infrastructure, environment, parks and wild areas, wildlife. Regulating the fossil fuel industry and trying to ensure that GM doesn't sell you a car that is in danger of having the wheels come off at 80mph on the freeway with your kids in the car will get attention. Interestingly, over the last four or five decades, the Democrats have done a better job of managing the budget and national debt than the Republicans.
The human focus of both parties and what to fund is where the differences lie. The GOP wants to line the pockets of their rich friends. They want to end single-payer insurance and Medicare & Medicaid programs because their rich friends own and are making a shitload of money off of human illness. They see programs like Social Security as some sort of give-away despite it being funded by payroll taxes. The GOP embraces a John Wayne mentality that says if you are in the dumper, it is because you didn't have the gumption to pull yourself out. Their philosophy is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps or starve on the streets; don't look for us to help you". Their priority is on things like the military because they and their friends have a vested interest in that industry. The manufacture and sale of arms to almost anyone allow them to make a lot of money. They will spend on the infrastructure only because their rich friends are contractors who will make a lot of money from government contracts.
The lefties, when in power, will turn toward helping the working class and down and outs. Don't get me wrong, the liberals will feather the beds of business and contractors, too, but they seem to have a soft spot for the common man that is missing in the conservative lexicon. Due to the way our political system relies on large donors, all politicians are on the take. Does the mechanic working at Jiffy Lube have that kind of money? No, so any politician ends up going where the money is, and the fatcats don't hand out cash without expecting to get something in return.
There is your source of corruption in our and any government on earth. We will only begin to move away from that recipe for corruption when we set up public-funded campaigns and elections. The devil is in the details, but we need a system where money from taxes goes to an election fund and is then doled out equally to all qualified candidates. No one candidate can solicit or spend more than any other candidate, thereby purchasing an election. This ensures that, first and foremost, they need to take their message to the voters, and hopefully, the best message will win.
As the Impeachment proceedings drone on, it's easy to space out with all the jawboning being done on both sides. As you might have guessed, I like politics and I like watching political grass grow, and I profoundly dislike Trump. That being what it may, I would like to be a voice of clarification and reason in all this legal and political wrangling.
The GOP is trying mightily to drive home the point that there is no evidence that Trump "ordered" anyone to commit bribery or extortion in any way. They seem to want us to believe that Trump was an innocent bystander while those sitting at the feet of power were pulling these shenanigans without his knowledge.
And, of course, the Democrats are doing their best to point out that Trump and virtually his entire cast in the Trump palace were in on all this extortion of Ukraine and that they all knew full well what was expected of them and what had to happen to keep the king pacified.
What this really comes down to, barring a revelation like the Nixon tapes, is what the intent was of Trump, his dealing with Ukraine, and the orders he issued to his cabinet and attorney's in regard to withholding critical funds in exchange for the announcement by Selinsky of an investigation into the Biden's and their role in corruption inside Ukraine.
And, of course, the Democrats are doing their best to point out that Trump and virtually his entire cast in the Trump palace were in on all this extortion of Ukraine and that they all knew full well what was expected of them and what had to happen to keep the king pacified.
What this really comes down to, barring a revelation like the Nixon tapes, is what the intent was of Trump, his dealing with Ukraine, and the orders he issued to his cabinet and attorney's in regard to withholding critical funds in exchange for the announcement by Selinsky of an investigation into the Biden's and their role in corruption inside Ukraine.
We first need to understand the meaning of intent, and for that we'll go to a couple of definitions from legal sites.
First, let's look at what The Free Dictionary says about "intent".
"A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.
Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.
In criminal law, the concept of criminal intent has been call mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks the mens rea and, under this concepts, should not be criminally prosecuted.
The Legal Beagle site says: "Malicious Intent or Negligence"Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined malice as acting intentionally with knowledge of the harmful consequences. The difference between a malicious act and a negligent one can be subtle, however. Someone who deliberately hits someone with his car has acted intentionally, or with malice. The same person who injures a pedestrian because he lost control of his vehicle on a wet road is merely negligent. The difference lies in the mental state of the actor -- a bad driver on a wet street most likely harbors no intent to injure anyone."
First, let's look at what The Free Dictionary says about "intent".
"A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design; a resolution to use a certain means to reach an end.
Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act. For example, suppose Billy calls Amy names and Amy throws a snowball at him. Amy's intent is to hit Billy with a snowball. Her motive may be to stop Billy's taunts.
In criminal law, the concept of criminal intent has been call mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks the mens rea and, under this concepts, should not be criminally prosecuted.
The Legal Beagle site says: "Malicious Intent or Negligence"Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defined malice as acting intentionally with knowledge of the harmful consequences. The difference between a malicious act and a negligent one can be subtle, however. Someone who deliberately hits someone with his car has acted intentionally, or with malice. The same person who injures a pedestrian because he lost control of his vehicle on a wet road is merely negligent. The difference lies in the mental state of the actor -- a bad driver on a wet street most likely harbors no intent to injure anyone."
Back to our eye-bending impeachment hearings. Based on the testimony of the witnesses to date, there can be no question as to the intent of President Trump. Whether by direct order, or insinuation, he made it clear to those around him that he wanted President Zelinsky to take certain actions that he knew would harm the candidacy of Joe Biden in return for the sorely needed funds that were being withheld by the President and his staff, funds critical to the security of Ukraine. This action was a direct threat of harm to Ukraine.
The second part of my analysis deals with the term "High crimes and misdemeanors". What did the founders mean by this? While we can't ever know what was in their minds, we know that they had watched the King of England and other monarchs behave quite badly under the assumption they had total power and free reign to behave anyway they wanted.
From The Free Dictionary, we again get a definition:
"The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is found in the U.S. Constitution. It also appears in state laws and constitutions as a basis for disqualification from holding office. Originating in English Common Law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S law. They refer to criminal actions as well as serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from tax evasion to obstruction of justice. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress."
From The Free Dictionary, we again get a definition:
"The phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is found in the U.S. Constitution. It also appears in state laws and constitutions as a basis for disqualification from holding office. Originating in English Common Law, these words have acquired a broad meaning in U.S law. They refer to criminal actions as well as serious misuse or abuse of office, ranging from tax evasion to obstruction of justice. The ultimate authority for determining whether an offense constitutes a ground for impeachment rests with Congress."
"Considerable debate occupied the Framers of the Constitution over the issue of impeachment, and the wording of the
grounds for impeachment was itself controversial. A proposed offense of maladministration was rejected as being too vague and susceptible to political abuse. Finally, they chose to use a phrase from English common law that had no precisely settled meaning at the time yet at least connoted serious offenses."
"The reason for the choice lies in the Framers' approach to the larger question of impeachment. Although borrowing language from the law they knew best, they explicitly chose not to imitate the English model of impeachment. Traditionally, this approach had allowed the British Parliament to conduct a simple review of charges and then remove officials by a majority vote. Instead, the Framers intended for removal from office to be the final step in a two-part process that began in the House of Representatives and, if charges should result, ended in a trial-like hearing before the U.S. Senate. Thus, two goals would be achieved: a full public inquiry into allegations, and, if necessary, the adjudication of those charges requiring a two-thirds majority for removal."
grounds for impeachment was itself controversial. A proposed offense of maladministration was rejected as being too vague and susceptible to political abuse. Finally, they chose to use a phrase from English common law that had no precisely settled meaning at the time yet at least connoted serious offenses."
"The reason for the choice lies in the Framers' approach to the larger question of impeachment. Although borrowing language from the law they knew best, they explicitly chose not to imitate the English model of impeachment. Traditionally, this approach had allowed the British Parliament to conduct a simple review of charges and then remove officials by a majority vote. Instead, the Framers intended for removal from office to be the final step in a two-part process that began in the House of Representatives and, if charges should result, ended in a trial-like hearing before the U.S. Senate. Thus, two goals would be achieved: a full public inquiry into allegations, and, if necessary, the adjudication of those charges requiring a two-thirds majority for removal."
It seems to me that any right-minded American would agree that abuse of the power of the presidency to advance their own political agenda fits the definition of abuse of power. Idol worship and fanaticism is not justification for standing by any person who has offended society by their behavior. We are a nation of laws, and not outlaws. We live by the rule of law, not by mob rule or the unfettered power of a monarchy.
What is unfolding right now in the Congress is what was intended by the Founders. The House will gather evidence and testimony from individuals with direct and indirect knowledge of what was said and done by Trump and his crew. The preponderance of this evidence, if justifiable, will be entered into what is called Articles of Impeachment and sent on to the Senate where they have the Constitutional responsibility to conduct a trial with the charges and witnesses both for and against the accused and they will have to render a verdict. That is their constitutional responsibility and we can only hope that McConnell and a GOP dominated Senate will take their responsibility seriously.
What is unfolding right now in the Congress is what was intended by the Founders. The House will gather evidence and testimony from individuals with direct and indirect knowledge of what was said and done by Trump and his crew. The preponderance of this evidence, if justifiable, will be entered into what is called Articles of Impeachment and sent on to the Senate where they have the Constitutional responsibility to conduct a trial with the charges and witnesses both for and against the accused and they will have to render a verdict. That is their constitutional responsibility and we can only hope that McConnell and a GOP dominated Senate will take their responsibility seriously.
In the insanity that is our electoral process, we are hearing one person after another (pretty much only Democrats) bashing big corporations. Right on! They are a bunch of assholes! They are screwing our brains out while getting filthy-fucking rich and the politicians won't do diddly-shit about it.
But, you know what? The fucking corporations are people. Not in the sense of that stupid-ass SCOTUS Citizens United decision permitting them to buy every fucking politician on the planet (that must be reversed somehow). But in the sense that corporations are giant buildings full of people; people just like you and me trying to pay the mortgage, get braces for their kids, the whole enchilada. The people at the top of the pile of people working inside the building are simply taking advantage of a situation that was handed to them. Oh, and they are making a shitload of money.
What is happening is that corporations are taking advantage of a system designed to allow them to make as much money as possible without regard to who is getting hosed in the process. This has been going on for almost 40 years when someone dropped a giant turd on the balance scale favoring big business.
What is happening is that corporations are taking advantage of a system designed to allow them to make as much money as possible without regard to who is getting hosed in the process. This has been going on for almost 40 years when someone dropped a giant turd on the balance scale favoring big business.
Let's be sure to give credit where credit is do, Ronald Wilson Reagan the lead actor from the famous movie, Bedtime for Bonzo who manage to get elected president. Reagan is the one who poisoned the well of democracy and started us on the path to a fucking plutocracy. He despised collective bargaining and made infamous the economic theory called 'trickle down'.
Reagan spewed shit like this; “As government expands, liberty contracts.”
And, while he was vomiting his government-is-awful crap, he was fucking up the economy with something called "supply-side economics". As a story in Forbes reported, "Make no mistake—things most assuredly became harder for all but the wealthy who, as the primary beneficiaries of the across-the-board 24 percent tax cut, watched their net worth skyrocket as those less fortunate or less successful took a major hit."
Reagan went on to rail against labor unions and fired the Air Traffic Controllers rather than look for a solution to their grievances. When he was Governor of California, he fought efforts to organize grape pickers. UNCOMM blog states, "Reagan’s Presidency marked the end of a bi-partisan union movement and moved the Republican Party far closer to big business. It also established a number of anti-union precedents within federal agencies that have taken decades to fix."
Reagan spewed shit like this; “As government expands, liberty contracts.”
- “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”
- “Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.”
- “Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
- “I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
- “Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”
- “Government is not a solution to our problem government is the problem.”
- “Government does not solve problems. It subsidizes them.”
- “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it and hell where they already have it.”
And, while he was vomiting his government-is-awful crap, he was fucking up the economy with something called "supply-side economics". As a story in Forbes reported, "Make no mistake—things most assuredly became harder for all but the wealthy who, as the primary beneficiaries of the across-the-board 24 percent tax cut, watched their net worth skyrocket as those less fortunate or less successful took a major hit."
Reagan went on to rail against labor unions and fired the Air Traffic Controllers rather than look for a solution to their grievances. When he was Governor of California, he fought efforts to organize grape pickers. UNCOMM blog states, "Reagan’s Presidency marked the end of a bi-partisan union movement and moved the Republican Party far closer to big business. It also established a number of anti-union precedents within federal agencies that have taken decades to fix."
I mentioned that corporations are full of people. The government is full of people, and our country is full of people. One characteristic that seems to be unique to primates among animals, and particularly refined in our branch of the hominids is we are a bunch of greedy fucks. Don't deny it. If someone creates a situation where you can cheat on taxes, or drive 100mph and not get caught, you'll do it; it's in our DNA. It's probably one of the least desirable traits in humans that have catapulted us to the top the fucking food chain.
All the corporations are doing is taking advantage of all the bullshit tax, environmental, and regulations in general that allow them to play the "Hurray for me and fuck the rest of you," game. Admittedly, they participated in this ripoff when they found greedy-ass politicians willing to bend the rules and change the laws in the favor of big business while accepting "unsolicited" donations from both corporate American and the PACs which are simply a way around the campaign contribution laws.
All the corporations are doing is taking advantage of all the bullshit tax, environmental, and regulations in general that allow them to play the "Hurray for me and fuck the rest of you," game. Admittedly, they participated in this ripoff when they found greedy-ass politicians willing to bend the rules and change the laws in the favor of big business while accepting "unsolicited" donations from both corporate American and the PACs which are simply a way around the campaign contribution laws.
What's done is done, and we can't do fuck-all about it. If we can agree that the system is fucked up worse than a soup sandwich after the last 40-or-so-years (the corporations may be a little reluctant to concede that point). We can start to move toward a balanced system that allows everyone from the largest corporation (probably Amazon at this point) to the guy parking cars at a hotel to not only survive but to thrive relatively. We don't need to punish corporate American, only rein it in a little so that everyone is living the dream.
What we need is people in government who will bring the scale back into balance without fucking everything up, again. Who are these people? That's why we're having these eye-bender debates and listening to candidates drone on day after day making the same fucking speeches. We are hoping to find a nugget of wisdom in one or more of them that signals a chance to right what is wrong with America.
I'm not saying don't be bold. Fuck yes, be bold! Be bold on climate change, ripping families apart at the border, and quit dithering the fuck around on healthcare; without it we fucking die.
What we need is people in government who will bring the scale back into balance without fucking everything up, again. Who are these people? That's why we're having these eye-bender debates and listening to candidates drone on day after day making the same fucking speeches. We are hoping to find a nugget of wisdom in one or more of them that signals a chance to right what is wrong with America.
I'm not saying don't be bold. Fuck yes, be bold! Be bold on climate change, ripping families apart at the border, and quit dithering the fuck around on healthcare; without it we fucking die.
I watched the last half-hour or so of the first debate the other night (July 30, 2019), but it was the candidate's closing statements followed by CNN interviews with participants that turned into an ‘aha’ moment for me, and especially that of Marianne Williamson. A quick reading of her bio on Wikipedia suggests a “spiritual” person, and that’s okay but that stuff tires me a little. We are, however, simpatico on most of the issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marianne_Williamson
Don’t get me wrong, I guess she has a big following and has made a shit-load of money with her self-help books, speaking engagements, et al; good for her, I wish it was me. But, I think she has about as much chance of being the next president as I do.
That prediction notwithstanding, she made some great points in the debate last night and the one that worked for me in the interview was her comments about how we have lost our moral compass (those are my words, not her’s exactly) in politics and governing. No matter your favorite candidate, we do need a diversity of ideas, not the rubber-stamped crap that Trump and GOP are peddling.
A number of the other candidates, specifically Warren and Sanders spelled out some great ideas and policy proposals, ad nauseam. Williamson pointed out in a no-bullshit fashion that it takes more than a bunch of wonky-ass proposals and plans to put us back together, it takes morality, and that turned on a sports-field size flood light in my brain.
A point of clarification here, morality has nothing to do with religious beliefs. I’m an atheist, and believe me, I have more fucking morality in my little finger than that fat-ass-fake-Christian Trump has in his entire body.
Morality simply means you care. You care about people afflicted with disease, poverty, oppression, abuse, the list goes on - we are a clannish animal and that requires caring about each other to survive. You don’t have to believe in this God or that God to have moral fiber.
One last comment on the link between morality and religion (which means Christianity to most Americans). Buddhists are some of the most moral creatures on earth and they don’t worship God. Hindus, also a people full of morality may or may not believe in God - it seems to be flexible. About 22% of the worlds population subscribes to Buddhism or Hinduism - that’s about 72.6 billion people who seem to embrace morality without God. You get my point.
Back to Williamson’s statement and what I got from that. You can spout policy all day, and it can make a lot of sense, but if you are truly going to make a run at solving the problems that plague our planet you need more than that; you need people who give a shit, people who fucking care. That’s what she’s saying.
You can be the wonkiest fucking candidate in history (kind of like Warren and Sanders) but if the populace doesn’t give a shit about kids in cages on the border, or people on opioids, or refugees living in squalor around the world, or people without health insurance, all your policy speeches mean jack-shit.
So, it seems to me that morality belongs, not to the candidates but to us voters. Do we give a shit about people being slaughtered around the world, or starving, or being shot on the streets of Chicago? If we do give a shit, we can elect a policy-wonk knowing they will have the popular support they need to get the job done.
If you conclude you don't give a shit, then you can elect any lame-ass dork (like Trump) that you want because without people on the street and in government who give a shit, nothing is going to change.
So, ask yourself; do I give a shit? If the answer is yes, then decide which candidate you think is going to help you relieve some of your moral indignation at the bullshit going on in our country and around the world.
If you conclude you don’t give a shit, then pick out one of the thousand issues that really pisses you off (it will almost certainly not be resolved without someone caring) and vote for the person babbling about your one issue because in the long-run it won’t mean a fucking thing; they won't get elected and you can keep bitching.
Mike Davis
Discussing life, politics, and philosophy in the language of the bar.
Archives
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
August 2019
July 2019
RSS Feed