Thursday, January 08, 2009

An easy life






I am sure Matt Lauer gets up early and works hard, but to do what he does and make 13 million (or is it 16?) a year...Seems to have a very nice life, with a nice family. And despite my lack of appreciation for the general milieu, I can always overcome that to appreciate a particular man. He is a lucky and fine lookin' fella, in terrific shape and wears his jeans well.

________________________

Later on

We don't hear much about Nelson Mandela's South Africa, now that the days of apartheid are over and the majority black population governs. Apparently the place is a mess. Can you spell "Rhodesia"?

I had yet another politically incorrect thought the other day. Colonizing. We all know that the Europeans pretty well colonized the planet over a period of several centuries. And we are all told it was a bad awful terrible thing.

But what if the Europeans had suddenly transcended their human nature and become post-colonial liberals and never colonized anyplace? What if they had left the rest of the planet alone? Would Africa and the Americas now be great tribal theme parks? Would the Ottoman Empire still rule the Balkans, the Aztecs still lord it over Mexico?

Now there's a fertile matrix for alternative history.

PS Note that the Ottomans got their empire and the Aztecs their by...colonialism and/or outright invasion and conquest. Do Turks feel bad about their history? Do Aztec descendants in Mexico think they got what was coming to them? Hmmm.
______________________________________________

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Daily absurdity




I have very bad car karma. I have to park my car on the street. It gets dinged and vandalized. One got stolen. People back into it, side-swipe it. Etc.

This week, some thug broke the passenger window and ripped off my radio/CD player. So it's in the shop. Insurance provides me a rental car. BUT. I live in neighborhood with area-specific parking privileges. My rental car will get ticketed. This has happened before.

So. I go down to the parking and traffic place to get a temporary permit to park in front of my own house...

I fill out the forms, and hand the woman my license. She tells me, "We don't accept a driver's license as proof of residence."

You know, you can vote for frickin' President on the strength of a driver's license, or satisfy Homeland Security that you can board a plane, but the bureaucrats of SF do not find this document important enough to give a you a temporary parking permit.

______________________

Friday, January 02, 2009

Crisis in Canada





Canada is little less than an abusive police state. This, from folks who ought to know.

___________________________________

Thursday, January 01, 2009

Jan 1 2009

I have never been a fan of New Year's. Some folks hate Christmas; I find the whole hoopla about a new calendar unmoving. So I will not indulge in the rituals of reminiscence and prognostication. Except to say that 2008 was a decidedly mixed bag: moments I would not have missed, and moments I could very well do without. But as so often in life, they are linked together. To want one is to accept the other.

I normally spend this time of year at home in SF. Currently I am back East to help attend to the family matter of aging and ailing parents. It is sobering. I thank God for my siblings.

I am with my Dad, who is now just a barely audible echo of the man he once was. I don't think he knows who I am now. For this New Year's it's just me and him and his caregiver.

Instead of the mildly cool and wet days of January by the Pacific (47 and cloudy today), I have the pleasure of hearing the wind howl outside the house, over a sunny rural landscape covered in snow, with the temperature at about 15 and a windchill factor that makes it feel like -2. Getting to the gym today --a pillar of my sanity-- will not be the usual ten minute walk but a longer drive in the heated up car.

Thank God for movies on the Internet.

____________________________________

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Israel vs Hamas


So. Israel gives up a piece of conquered land, turfs out its own settlers by force of arms, and hands it back to its Palestinian enemies. Hamas takes over Gaza. And then Hamas uses that returned land to launch months and months of rockets into Israel, targetting civilians. Finally.....Israel retaliates. And Israel is the bad guy.

A word from the recently late Samuel Huntington, via Robert Kaplan, insisting that we
"must learn to distinguish among our true friends who will be with us and we with them through thick and thin; opportunistic allies with whom we have some but not all interests in common; strategic partner-competitors with whom we have a mixed relationship; antagonists who are rivals but with whom negotiation is possible; and unrelenting enemies who will try to destroy us unless we destroy them first."

Is there anything about Hamas that would make them

1. true friends
2. opportunistic allies
3. strategic partner-competitors
4. antagonists
5. unrelenting enemies

I wonder.

Waddaya think?
________________________

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Looking the World In the Eye

HT to two very atypical Canucks, the irascible Kathy Shaidle and sharp-witted Mark Steyn, for noting the death of Samuel Huntington and also for linking to the terrible images of what the Muslim jihadi terrorists in Mumbai did to their Jewish captives, a young rabbi and his pregnant wife. Savages.

Multiculturalists and frightened/guilty white liberals loathe Huntington's thesis in The Clash of Civilizations, that the age of ideological confict is being surpassed by a return to the ethnic-cultural-racial clashes which have marked most of human history since the first group of homo sapiens split into tribes. Cain and Abel. He coined the apt phrase, "Islam's bloody borders". But the redoubtable Robert Kaplan got Huntington right, and recognized that he "looked the world in the eye". And Fouad Ajami, rethinking Huntington's "Who Are We?", notes the struggle between the now-unfashionable patriots of the American Creed and the ascendant international elites of "Davos Man".

A cultural note, California style. I live among people who value something they call "consciousness". Now I, troglodyte that I be, imagine that consciousness has something to do with accessible awareness of your true and significant situation. For a lot of my neighbors, who are evolving and growing, it seems to mean increasing your level of abstraction from your true and significant situation.

If I am walking through a bad neighborhood --and I note that many of the evolved would find the judgmentalism of such a term intolerant and intolerable-- consciousness means being awake to potential dangers, such as mugging, assault, etc. If the evolved find themselves in such venues, I suspect they would be musing with Deepak Chopra about the unity of all sentient beings and would repress any thoughts that were less than lionizing of their oppressed neighbors. Which of us, I wonder, would be more "conscious"?

Who was it who noted that "I and the lion may well be brothers, but the lion does not know that." A crucial gap in information.

What does it take to "look the world in the eye"?

________________________


Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Apocalypso

The SciFi channel produces an incredible number of incredibly bad movies. It's like the Ed Wood Memorial Channel. In addition to the almost obligatory HyperTalented Bitch character, we have the channel's obsessive commitment to totally unrealistic diversity formulas.

Tonight it's 10.5 Apocalypse, where a huge fault splits America in twain and Las Vegas sinks and the Hoover Dam breaks, with the obligatory side-stories of poignancy and pluckiness. What makes if incredible? As the country is dissolving, President Jeff Bridges relies on basically two people to give him info and planning to avert the crisis. And while the continent is rapidly imploding, everyone takes time to engage in slow-paced interpersonal conversations.

Really awful. And the 2 hour pile now on is only Part One! Written AND directed by John Lafia.

(This post is neither about sex, politic or religion.)

Angry GLBTs

The internet and the media are abuzz with angry GLBTs these days. In the USA, we are still going on about Rev. Rick Warren and the incoming President's inauguration invocation.

Now, with the utterly unbiased and unpredictable BBC (insert emoticon for eye-rolling sarcastic smile) leading the way, we hear that the Pope has taken the opportunity of the Christmas season of love and joy --where we should erase all references to Christmas lest we offend minorities, by the way-- to tell us that although saving the rainforests is a good thing, saving mankind from the threat of homos and transgenders is just as important. You can imagine the outrage.

Well, Il Papa did not say that. What he does reject is "gender theory", much beloved not only of gays and transgenders, but feminists, for its assertion that male and female are socially constructed (and oppressive) cultural performances, not expressions of nature, much less the Creator.

I reject it, too, though Benedict XVI and ExCathedra come to different conclusions about some of the consequences.

I am just about out the door and will return to this later, but here's the section of his speech...a long one (10 pages, 3600 words) given to the Curia, which ranged from reflections on World Youth Day to a four-part meditation on the role of the Holy Spirit, part one of which (see below) has to do with the rational structure of a cosmos created by a rational God, an old theme of his.
It was this theme that got the Muslims pissed at him a while ago.

The Italian text is the Vatican website. Here's my translation. And the screwup with the font is what happens when you copy a Word text to Blogger. Sorry.

There is first of all the affirmation that comes to us from the beginning of the story of creation: the creator Spirit who hovers over the waters, creates the world and continually renews it. Faith in the creator Spirit is an essential content of the Christian Credo. The datum that matter bears in itself a mathematical structure, is full of spirit, is the foundation on which stand the modern natural sciences. Only because matter is structured in an intelligent way is our spirit in a position to interpret it and to actively reshape it. The fact that this intelligent structure comes from the very same creator Spirit which has also given spirit to us carries with it both a task and a responsibility. In faith about the creation stands the ultimate foundation of our responsibility toward the earth. The earth is not simply our property to be enjoyed according to our interests and desires. It is rather the gift of the Creator that has designed its intrinsic orderings and with that has given the orientational signals to which we attend as stewards of his creation. The fact that the earth, the cosmos, reflect the creator Spirit means that their rational structures, beyond the mathematical order, become almost palpable in experience and bear within themselves an ethical orientation. The Spirit which has created them is more than mathematical – is the Good in person, which, through the language of creation, indicates to us the right path.



Because faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Credo, the Church cannot and must not limit herself to transmitting to her faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for the creature and must assert this responsibility even in public. And in doing this, she must defend not only the earth, the water and the air as gifts of creation belonging to everyone. She must also protect man against his self-destruction. There must be something like an ecology of man, rightly understood. It is not an outmoded metaphysic if the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and women and asks that this order of creation be respected. Here it is a question of the fact of faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, dismissal of which would be a self-destruction of man and therefore a destruction of the very work of God. What is often expressed and intended by the term “gender” comes down to a self-emancipation of man from creaturehood and from the Creator. Man desires to make himself by himself and to dispose always and exclusively by himself what concerns him. But in this way he lives against the truth, lives against the creator Spirit. The rainforests deserve, yes, our protection but man deserves it no less, as a creature in which is inscribed a message which does not mean the contradiction of our freedom, but its condition. The great theologians of the Scholastic age have considered marriage, the lifelong bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of the creation, which the Creator himself instituted and which Christ –without modifying the message of creation—has then gathered into the history of his alliance with men. It is a part of the proclamation to which the Church must bear witness in favor of the creator Spirit present in nature in its ensemble and in a special way in the nature of man, created in the image of God. From this perspective, one ought to re-read the encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex-as-consumption, the future against exclusive claim of the present and the nature of man against its manipulation.



So. Did Bennie Sixteen target homos and transgenders? Or did he make a general statement to the effect that things have a nature and a structure, reflecting the rational structure of a Creator who is not sheer Will but Logos, ordered meaning? And would departing from the structured nature of the human being in matters of gender not include also contraception, divorce, etc. as well as homosexual acts? Agree with him or not, he was hardly taking a swipe at a particular group to the exclusion of others, but, as he often does, discussing an idea which is dear to a group.

In the interests of full disclosure, as Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope did some writing which had a big influence on my life a couple of decades ago and not a pleasant one. I had some very unfriendly things to say about his ideas and I said them publicly. But first I read the damn stuff, the whole text!
Journalists are, as a class, scum. Robert Kaplan considers them the Inquisition of the modern world. The spin on this speech reminds me of times when a news anchor tells you that after the commercial we will see so and so respond with rage to an allegation that such and such. When the film plays, we see so and so mildly unappreciative. MSM largely lie and tell you what you are supposed to be seeing and hearing when in fact it may not be so at all. I worked in a very media-intense field for several years and was often interviewed for TV, etc. I know how this goes. And the BBC? Please.

Re: LGBTQI, etc. outrage here...it's as if every time the Pope said the Creed, Jews exploded in wrath that he implied that their religion is wrong.

Foot-stamping adolescents.
________________________________
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...