previous post next post  

H&I* Fires, 14 Feb 2007

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That's only polite. [Hey - trackbacks work again!]

You're advertising here, we should get an ad at your place...

************************
Another in the 'let's step out side our comfort zone' set of links. Heart meds. Stress relief referee doll. The claim: by being hypocritical about democracy in the ME, evidenced by the cut off of aid to the Palestinian Authority, the US is 'stoking the fire' of unrest in the region.

Sorry. Had to do that. The rest of the Castle Contrarian Corps is MIA around here(Al? Jack? Owen?).
-----
Maybe Skippy-san and Eddie were right? Somalia looks to be disintegrating. Damn.
___
Armed Forces Journal on the proposed end strength expansion.
-----
Something for the 'I didn't know that' file.

That said, I respond to Tony Poe the same way I react to arguments that terrorism is a legal method of warfare: Wage War Honorably. 'You may be compelled to wage war, but not to use poisoned arrows.' ---Balthasar Gracian
---------
Partisan humor. Iowahawk brings 'teh funny'. And so does the HuffPo without intending to. Note: death threats are not kosher, to anyone. Ever. Got that? Death threats are simply wrong.

But geez, like the blue rage brigades don't use similar tactics with unintended actions by the fringe hangers on? Please. A real case of a sword cutting both ways if you ask me.
ry

************************

The headline has it right: The Height of Cynicism. Cowardly, disgusting, borderline traitorous. - FbL

********************************

Via the Jawa Report:

Video: American Soldier Held Hostage in Iraq Alive

A video posted on a Shiite Islamist website has emerged of an American soldier, Spc. Ahmed K. Altaie, being held hostage. The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video. It is posted below.

Right after Altaie was captured by forces allegedly tied to the Mahdi Army, a relative contacted The Jawa Report. I won't identify her out of respect for what she is going through, but she was depressed that the media had written her relative off and wrote to ask if we really believed he was still alive. I'm very glad that he is.

Read the rest and see the video here. -the Armorer

**********************************

Via SWWBO, comes this great Valentine's Day observation at Wizbang. -the Armorer

*********************************

Speaking of the Mahdi Army, I posted last night in response to the Captain's post that I would not count Sadr out or the Mahdi army. Long history of Iraqi Shia dissidents running off to Iran to survive while getting monetary and political support from the Iranians. They live by, "run away to live and fight another day."

And, I disagree that OBL is dead just because Zawahiri told the "faithful" to follow Mullah Omar. Mike Yon recently said that all pointers tend towards a big offensive in Afghanistan this spring by the Taliban. There have already been some impressive fire fights. It's more likely that Bin Laden simply is not going to be leading fighters in Afghanistan. It's too hot, even now. He has to worry that he'd be given up or given away. He'll stay in Pakistan or where ever we can't go. But the fight is still on against the Americans so, of course, Zawahiri will tell the faithful to follow the Mullah.
-kat

************************

Administrative Announcement: For those of you using Mac machines (the classy portion of our readership) Safari may not give you the kind of responses you expect, like getting the rest of a post when clicking on the "Extended Entry" link. Try the Firefox browser. It'll take awhile to load Argghhh!!! the first time but after that the site will load as quickly as Safari and all the links will work.

If any of this turns out to not be accurate, it's John's fault :) (*Ow*... Kidding, Armorer, kidding...)
-Instapilot

************************
Today's Presidential news conference. Deals mostly with Patreus and the ongoing Iraq War.
ry
***************

*A term of art from the artillery. Harassment and Interdiction Fires.

Back in the day, when you could just kill people and break things without a note from a lawyer, they were pre-planned, but to the enemy, random, fires at known gathering points, road junctions, Main Supply Routes, assembly areas, etc - to keep the bad guy nervous that the world around him might start exploding at any minute.

Not really relevant to today's operating environment, right? But, it *is*

The UAVs we fly over Afghanistan and Pakistan looking for targets of opportunity are a form of H&I fires, if you really want to parse it finely. We just have better sensors and fire control now.

I call the post that because it's random things posted by me and people I've given posting privileges to. It's also an open trackback, so if (Don Surber uses it this way a lot) someone has a post they're proud of, but it really isn't either Castle kind of stuff, or topical to a particular post, I've basically given blanket permission to use that post for that purpose. Another term of art that might be appropriate is "Free Fire Zone".

19 Comments

As far as humor at HuffPo, I dont know if you mean just the post. But the comments are hilarious! Here's an example:No matter what Donohue says or does, it is already too late. He has loosed the genie of hatred, and he cannot put it back in the bottle. Nor can any other right-wing hate-spewer.'Cause, you know... the hatred was never a part of left-wing discourse. ROFL!
 
Death threats may be wrong, however, people who spew the venom those commie heathen were spewing should expect it. If they have the right to disparage the Virgin, then others have the right to wish them on to their dirt naps. Plus a threat is just that, a threat. If that's all it takes to scare them, they should think twice about insulting other people's core values. In other words, if those females can't take the heat, they should go back to the kitchen. The real story is John Edwards taking so long to realize sticking by God-haters was not the way for a Dem to re-take the South (or any of the rest of the country, for that matter).
 
Well, for some reason, the Dems keep thinking that the way to counter the "G-D" complex of the right wing conservative branch is to demean G-d and all those that believe in him because they fully believe, based on some bizarre data, that there are way more "cool" Christians and atheist that are fearful of the power of the Conservative Christians. The problem, of course, is that all Christian teaching starts out with the very basic premisis of the bible, "cool" Christian or not, when you start dissing the core concepts of religion with a really wide and nasty brush, you are definitely going to offend the living h-ll out of some of those "cool" Christians. The best part is that folks like ms. Marcotte think they came up with the concepts of charity, helping others, defending liberty and any number common practices without the influence of Christianity. If she had remembered her history and upbringing, she would have also recalled "do unto others". She didn't. And now she must, in other biblical terms, "reap the whirlwind". And she thought the bible was just a giant tool to oppress women and force unmitigated population growth. heh. She must have slept through Sunday School.
 
I guess my time in Wackifornia has marked me more than I thought. Either that or being in a hard science where faith is the exception has. I just can't get that mad about it. And you all know I can get quite angry and am often thin skinned. I dunno, maybe having people scream in my face that God doesn't exist means I don't find an offensive blog post enough to get that angry over. Don't get me wrong. I think the digital groundswell to force these two out was appropriate---given that these two would've been doing the same if the opposing side said something equally offensive(ala macacca). Turn about is fair play in my opinion. But a blog post makes you angry enough to actually even consider, even in jest, physically harming someone? That's a bit much for me. But then, I'm gollum. .
 
ry - Our forefathers started a revolution over taxes! Most people who have a belief system think their belief system is more important than their tax bracket. I hope that puts it in context for you. Sure, Jesus himself said to turn the other cheek, but God also empowered David to take 200 Philistine foreskins just for a wedding dowry. Therefore, a little righteous indignation should certainly not offend your Wackifornia sensitivities. There are things more important than human life to many of us. It is also interesting that it is usually those who have no respect for life in the womb who make the biggest whine over mere threats. The last I checked, nobody has ever died by being threatened to death. Maybe my time in the AOR has hardened me, but that's how I see it. This all looks disjointed but I don’t want to write a dissertation, just thoughts on why others may be a little more incensed than you can comprehend.
 
Therefore, a little righteous indignation should certainly not offend your Wackifornia sensitivities.
Heh. Yeah, but to me the question is of what is 'righteousness' here. Is it killing the offender? Anger is one thing. Taking them to task, verbally, for an offense, a verbal offense is hunky dory. Give 'em the, verbal, business. The great commandment is to try to convert them, not send them to meet their Maker---given that they aren't threatening the lives of Christians. And the Mercott's aren't threatening the lives of Christians. They're just rambling and blaspheming and such. It isn't a physical threat. They can't rob you of faith if you don't let them. They can't force you to cough it up. Unlike taxes. Sorta apples and oranges, yeah? Anger? Si. Spewing the venom right back? Si. Death threats? No way Jose. Just isn't smart. Makes the Great Commandment that much harder to do. Either that or I'm just still so shellshocked theologically from growing up in Wackifornia. You be the judge. No hassles no worries, Loader. This isn't something I'm gonna get mad over. I'm not that great a Christian and don't mind criticism of my failings.
 
(moved to proper place. ry) I o w a h a w k = stupid (rare) H u f f i n g t o n P o s t = vile (always) And as for the target of disdain, I find her stuff actually more interesting, better written, and a whole lot more entertaining than either of the two sites ref'd. Go figure. Must be my contrarian nature... Posted by SangerM at February 14, 2007 1:32 PM
 
Do tell Sanger. What ideas does she ponder that make droping the f bomb every three sentences worth it? I've only seen what's been linked to, and found it to be as offensive as many claim that a Quran in the toilet is. But if she actually has ideas, well, that makes her readable, no? My take? The Edwards campaign tried to pick up big progressive bloggers for max exposure. Didn't really think about who they were or what they did. ONly about their reach. Like trying to make a woman who hired illegal aliens to be your labor secretary. Didn't look at all the factors and then fell victim to to identity politics. And Donohue is def. an identity politics warrior. Marcotte seems to traffic in that realm, as do many progressives, so I can't see why they're mad. A different group won using the tactics pioneered by progressives and id warriors. Goose. Gander. Really strikes me as each side saying it should be out of bounds to do, but tacking on 'you first' to calls to stop.
 
ry- I think you are right that threats aren't smart. However, I don't think it's the big deal everybody makes of them n,owadays. I guess I've got a bad attitude on that one. To me, no blood, no foul, that's all. I don't threaten, personally unless I intend to carry though. Since I don't think those 2 commies are worth going to jail for, I guess I won't threaten them.
 
Thanks for linking to the Armed Forces Journal article. I've linked to you here.
 
> And as for the target of disdain, I find her stuff actually more interesting, better written, and a whole lot more entertaining than either of the two sites ref'd. Go figure. Must be my contrarian nature... > Do tell Sanger. What ideas does she ponder that make dropping the f bomb every three sentences worth it? I've only seen what's been linked to, and found it to be as offensive as many claim that a Quran in the toilet is. But if she actually has ideas, well, that makes her readable, no? Ry, First of all, the only reason I don't 'cuss more on-line is that it makes one look ignorant, and because 1) it's not allowed here (mostly), and 2) I am trying to create a "portfolio" of things that I can point back to and say, I wrote that stuff. Here, on TGR, and on other sites, as well as the websites I'll get back to building after March. BUT, I spent a long time enlisted in armor and infantry units, and frankly, it took me a long time to be able to speak in complete sentences without use of the most all-purpose word in the English language. I mean really, not only can the word stand on it's own in almost any word form (verb, noun, adjective, preposition, etc.), but it can be used as prefix, suffix, and--like no other word I know--it can even be used as both a universal substitute for many other words, AND as an extra syllable to add emphasis to almost any other word. Truly a remarkable word, under-appreciated and over-used. Mostly, though, it's just overly prissy Americans who get whacked out about it. And yes, I understand the value and importance of words, but really, it's just 4 letters that represent a sound, that but for a consonant or two could be any other perfectly good word, like buck, duck, Huck (as in Hound or Finn), luck, muck, puck, ruck, suck, tuck, & yuch. Ah, but you'll talk about connotation. Hmmmm, I know people who find guns and killing and war related words to be obscene, and I think abortion is obscene, even the word connotes evil to me... So what's my point? That your focus on the f-bomb as the key to evaluating her ideas is kind of lame. But hey, you are not alone in that; lots of people judge ideas by who presents them and how it's done rather than by weight of merit. And I'm not above that either. Everybody does it. I just don't care if people use curse words, 'cause those are just grunts, while I do care if people use racial epithets, for example, which are not. Second, All I did was click on the links from here, and then on the links from there to her page, and I read the whole thing, top to bottom. I think she's a bit of a twit, but as I said I found her stuff more interesting, better written, and a whole lot more entertaining than either of the two sites you ref'd. I am too old and crotchety, I guess, to enjoy poorly done stupid satire or parody like the first link, and too intelligent (yes, even me) to see anything other than the random mental firings of half-witted, drool encrusted, knuckle-dragging, bottom-feeding, sea slugs in the other. And her stuff was not evil, just kind of dumb. But she clearly is not--she's just a bit young yet. And look, she's famous, whereas you and I, well, we're just backwater puddlesplashers. Third, the notion of a Quran in a toilet is not offensive to me. Nor is the notion of a bible in a toilet, or an American flag being burnt, or trash-mouth talk about God. Why is that, given the things you know I care about? Well, God will take of what's God's and it is not my job to take up for him. His book, he knows who's done what to it. If he cares, he'll handle it, if he doesn't why should I? And as for flags and other symbols, I care about what they represent, not what they are. Some angry Arab or Pakistani trampling on my flag just shows me how frustrated and or stupid they are. Burning an American flag does not demean the people or the ideals it represents. I fly the flag and wear it because I care about what it represents, not what it is, which is just cloth. By the same token, Ry, I try real hard not to get too whacked out about simple minded things like what that woman wrote, really. If I did, I'd be in the same league as that Catholic fellow who made an a$$ of himself and made her a celebrity with his protest. Now see, the kinds of things that get me steamed are the folks who interfere with soldiers' funerals to protest the war. People who torture children. People who ruin other people's lives without a care (like the Enron buggers who screwed all of the people whose futures depended on the money they stole). People who sell dangerous drugs, especially to school children. People who traffic in slaves (and there is a LOT of that in the world). Forced female genital mutilation. Rape. Abortion as birth control. People in positions of trust who violate that trust for personal gain. False accusers who ruin other people lives. Drunk drivers who commit murder. Bullies of every size and shape. And so on ad nauseam all the way down to and including being forced to sit through utterly stupid annual Rape Prevention classes run by mean, ugly women who figure it's perfectly ok to insult all men just because some are rapists. I now know how non-Japanese Asians must feel when they go the Pearl Harbor Memorial and they are given the evil eye by all the round-eyes who can't tell a Korean, Chinese, or Southeast Asian from a Japanese person. Or even worse, another damn suicide prevention class that makes me just want to slit my wrists out of spite.... "that'd teach 'em.!!!" But I digress again.... Anyway, you took more from what I wrote than I meant, I think. I just found her site less offensive or dumb than the two linked too. No judgment made of her, just them... see?
 
Heh. Sanger, sometimes you think too hard. I have the language rules because while it may not matter to you, it does to other, and it all contributes to "tone". One reason many people lurk here is precisely because the F-bomb doesn't get dropped here much. And there's the whole concept of 'fighting words' as well. And, as I've discovered over the years, the people I've lost in terms of readership because I won't let them go all potty-mouth trash-talking didn't add much to the conversation - but did make the place unpleasant at times. So, yeah, I get your point about the word doesn't matter (and having been a trash-mouth combat arms soldier myself, I'm fully conversant with the usages) I find that the Rulez, as applied here, facilitate conversation, and if it makes you have to think a little more because of some vocabulary restrictions... well, that ain't a bad thing, really.
 
> Heh. Sanger, sometimes you think too hard. No joke there! But I really don't mind the rules. Same reason I try not to use the word. As you say, some people do get offended, and it is a turn off. I just don't get overly wrapped around the axle if other people do it. It just doesn't offend me, though I have found myself offended on behalf of other people I felt were being abused by a 3rd party. You know what I mean.... But I just don't understand the "concept of 'fighting words'" :-D heh.
 
But I just don't understand the "concept of 'fighting words'" :-D [Armorer looks sadly at the Castle BS Meter, needle wrapped around the peg. Time to call BCR Labs and get a new one.]
 
ha ha Better get a big one, 'cause I'll be done w/ school in a month, and then I'll really think I'm somethin' heh. yeah. :-p
 
I don't think you think too much, Sanger. I love it when you do this. Forces me to really think instead of just do the minimum. It's the minimum that seems to have forced Sanger to do some mental pushups. I simply read her(MArcotte) and saw the same-old anti-Catholic rhetoric, but with a Howard Stern twists. I'll say words everyone tells me not to so I can be edgy and avantegard. Ooooh, how original and informative. Even the, in Sanger's opinion, well writen rage doesn't impress me. i'll take a disapassionately writen treatise on how stupid Catholicism is over coherent rage. It's simply my tastes in things. You wrote that you(Sanger) saw something of value. I didn't. In this situation I was more 'Really, where? I don't see the sailboat. Where's the sailboat?' curious than 'Oh, yeah? Prove it.' challenging. There's times where we'll but heads but I wasn't trying to but heads on this one. I really just didn't see the sailboat. You told me where you saw it. I still don't see the sailboat. Oh well. No big deal. On foul language. I may not have been Mil, but I can cuss in five languages. Even Philippino---and that's about all the Tagalog I know. It may have once been the province of milspeak but it bled over into sports a long time ago. I may not have been a state champ, but I earned 7 varsity letters in three different sports. It isn't simply the four letter word. Four letter words have their place. But they have no real place in certain types of discussions, particularly academic ones. Something both John and Sanger highlighted. Theology and social policy really aren't one of them in my opinion. I don't go to Howard Stern to find out what's wrong with society or how to order it. She was very Howard Stern. Where does the offense come from? Well, I tend to take my religion seriously. Bashing it hurts. BUt note: I didn't join the Donohue crowd. I just laughed about the situation. I thought it funny. One Identity Warrior taken down by another, using her tactics. Funny stuff. Was I pleased? I'd be lying if I said I wasn't. Sure, Iowahawk took a cheap laugh. But even the cheap laughs are funny. And the random firings of sea slugs(now that's a phrase) is funny in that it was taken seriously! That's why I said it was funny without really intending to be. Like the time my buddy Kolbot spent 5 weeks researching a certain phosgene reaction as part of his independent project for his PhD only to have one of his committe memebers tell him he'd already done it and it didn't work. Tragic, but still something that's side splitting funny. I don't look at it as Sanger being 'the old coot'. More like it just isn't his thing. I didn't like World Police or Beer Fest. Just not my thing. But John loved them. Simply a matter of preference. I really do think this was mostly the result of me not being clear. Sanger's in a position where every sentence needs to be clear and accurate. Thesis writing and serious academic work do that to you. And I was lazy. Sorry man. Arguing by analogy. I really need to stop doing that, don't I? Sure it torqued me, what she wrote. As did the Virgin Mary made out of dung or Piss Christ. BUt it was more of the 'why'd they do that?' variety. I didn't go thru hoops deconstructing it. It's one of those things that you get pissed about but isn't at a level where you are forced to act. It was mallrat behaviour. Annoying. (And that's only for me. Loader and other saw red and charged.). Why did I find Iowahawk funny? Well, part of it was the simple "liberals suck" schtick. The other part of it was, where his list was accurate, Marcotte is as much a puddlesplasher as the rest of us. A pottymouthed puddlesplasher got peter principled. That's funny. They make movies about this that are funny(The Hudsucker Proxy).
By the same token, Ry, I try real hard not to get too whacked out about simple minded things like what that woman wrote, really. If I did, I'd be in the same league as that Catholic fellow who made an a$$ of himself and made her a celebrity with his protest.
That's reasonable. I still find it hurtful. Like when my bud Herr LowInensityConflict says religionists are stupid. It hurts. I'm think skinned. I take it personal. But I didn't jump up and down about it here. And look at what I wrote to Loader above please, Sanger. I may be un-neccessarily defensive here, but if you look at that I don't think you can say my response to it was out of line. I said people are okay to be pissed, okay to make pleas for her removal for what appears to be bigotry(hey, she supports the rule set of which that's a major component), but not to be insane about it. Okay, let me try to explain it this way. I'm a rules guy. You tell me what the rules are and I'll play by them, but Ill expect you to play by them too. The rule in play is that hatred toward religion and groups is bad. Can't say anything bad about Judaism. Can't say anything bad about Islam. So Marcotte comes along and says hateful(not evil, but hateful) things about a religion. I point to the rules. She broke 'em. She got busted. No big deal. Yeah, I dislike the rules too. It really panders to the most thin skinned and biggest whinners. BUt they're the rules I'm expected to play by. So I do. I find it hillarious that those, progressives, who claim to be the defenders of those rules fought so hard to deny they'd been broken and when that failed to say that the rules didn't matter. It's a real head shaker kinda funny. I'm still proll'y not being clear enough. But no worries. I may have had red ink corrections all over this, but it isn't a topic I'm gonig to go inchoate with. Growing up religious in CA just doesn't lend to it. And I mean red makrs like in a writing collabrative instead of a teacher, Sanger. (Dang it, arguing by analogy again.)
 
Ry, Excellent response to my junk... And all perfectly fine and understandable and ok with me... On one point though, I'd like to comment. You wrote "the rule in play is that hatred toward religion and groups is bad. Can't say anything bad about Judaism. Can't say anything bad about Islam." etc... Whose rules? Mine, Yours, the PC world of the ACLU, the Pat Roberts rules? Heck, there are no clear rules on anything anymore except this one: "Everything is ok that I think is ok, and everything I don't like isn't." Screw the rules. (And I'm not talking about the civility rules here on Argghhh, but rather the "societal" rules you are talking about....) Muslims threaten to kill, maim, rape, and pillage for being accused of being overly violent. NeoNazis get heated for being told they are anti-semitic (which is wrong, they are anti-Jew, not necessarily anti-arab). Catholics get hot for being called names at a time when it's almost impossible not to find another weekly news story about child molesting Priests. Jews get all offended for being told Israel is cruel for keeping Palestinians bottled up like in Gaza (try reading the Dosadi Experiment by Herbert to see what I think Israel is creating in Gaza). Homosexuals get tight-a$$ed when some guy says he hates gays, and their femme counterparts get angry when some man says he wouldn't want to 'do' them anyway. Yeah, I get aggravated at a lot of stuff, and I do understand fighting words, but I have had people tell me to my face that Jews are pigs, that Hitler was right, and that the world is a better place because some of my recent relatives were turned into soap, or conversely, that the holocaust never happened; and in 2002, an civilian AF finance office employee told me she understood why I wanted all of the money the AF owed me because 'that's how my people are.' I even had some northeast Italian fellow tell me while I was giving him a price break at a yard sale, "Yeah, I don't wanna Jew you down, or anytin..." And I've had been called every kind of foul name by black people, who I have personally found to be the most vocal and least socially-restrained Jew haters. Which is REALLY funny because when I worked at that defense contractor in Virginia, I had to ask my supervisor and several of my white fellow employees (more than once) not to talk about n-----rs around me or to include me in those kids of conversations. And one of the fellows (a retired AF Lt Col, in fact) said to me, well I woulda' thought you of all people wouldn't mind. Go figure. And there's lots and lots and lots more of that--trust me. For as far back as I can remember. But through all of that, the only thing I could do was talk back... Never a thrown punch, never a major dustup. And usually if I said anything, I got told "Well hey, it's a free country...". So, when I say I can look at something like the what that gal wrote and not be overly offended, well, I guess the little man in the back of my head just figures "at least she's not going on about neocons or Jews (yet)." And BTW, that anti-Jew site AFSis linked to? That kind of stuff is just so common you can't imagine. It's just a feature of my life. And you wanna know what else? One reason I tell people I'm Jewish is so THEY can avoid embarrassing themselves. I mean, I don't have an outsized nose or a tail, and I don't wear a yarmulke or earlocks, and I don't hunt up Christian babies to sacrifice on Passover, and my name doesn't in -stein or -berg or the like, so there's just no way for people to know they might wanna' keep their Jew-jokes and comments to themselves. In fact, I've had to be 'pleasantly' offended far fewer times since I started doing that than before. Of course, I do get asked a lot more dumb questions, and there always seems to be one person who wants to make a point or argue about something, but I refuse, generally to engage (depends on the person). It's really just no use, kind of like arguing with Cliffy-poo. All of which may not answer your questions or satisfy your needs, vis a vis me, but hopefully it gives you some idea about why I tend to see the world just a bit different than most.
 
Hmm. How to state. Okay. Maybe we sound different, but the only person I actually ever seek out to complain about religious persecution stuff is Jess. I don't typically get all upset about this stuff. My response to racist stuff as a kid was to run---since weddo(white guy) was usually the guy the vatos wanted to beat up, good thing I could run fast even with 20lb of books on my back. (Granted, being Jewish, you've proll'y taken more gut shots than I have. Not trying to have a willy measuring contest here. Just that I have some idea and empathy for the situation. I've sat in X-country practices and have a recent S.O.t.B immigrant kid start complaining about white people all being X. I may not know all the forms, but I've seen some of this nonsense.) We're coming from largely the same position I think. I didn't get that mad about it. It miffed me when I read what Marcotte had written. But I wasn't going to start ranting about it. When other people got her, I was happy. I thought Iowahawk funny and HuffPuff funny. Not your cup of tea. Sorry about that. Like I said, I'm a rules guy. Screw the rules is typically the LAST thing in my mind. I like the rules. I like the order they give. Chaos annoys the hell out of me--except for when it comes to housekeeping, then it's why fight entropy. That's just me. Societal PC rules, as I understand them, is you can't say hateful stuff about a group. Maybe that's because I've spent 10 years in college towns. But that's how I see it. Though, based on how people act, you do have a real point. 'Everyone wants everyone else to be Christian while they can act like heathens.' Man, you're screwing up how I see the universe. Turning it from somewhat ordered to Adam Smith's everyone versus everyone. Damn you.;) No worries Sanger. I like these long posts by you. I learn. I think. I get to know you. I'm cool with doing all three.
 
There is no order but what order we create, either alone, in our sheltered worlds, or in concert with other like-minded individuals. Order is an illusion, it is a warping of reality, the unbearable chaos of daily life filtered by our minds' eye and presented to the inner 'us' in whatever form we have decided is palatable--today. But never doubt the chaos is there, just beneath the surface, nor that it takes only a slight scratch to reveal the disorder, to unravel the curtains and veils we hang to make us feel secure, safe within the womb and concerned only about warmth. And calm. There is where you find order, but nowhere since.... From the day of our birth, all would be violence and fire at every turn, but for our self-restraint--taught and learned--because humans are always, always of two minds. We spend our days caging the inner demon, the howling fury that is in each of us, that would settle every dispute with a twin-blade ax, or a crushing morningstar, that would gnaw the heart out of an enemy for the sheer excruciating ecstasy of it. We live our lives in the shadow of murder and mayhem, and in our deepest heart of hearts, in our very molecules, we know--we KNOW--that we are only a hands breadth more civilized than our ancestors whose parents were the first to climb down out of the trees. And we do not want to admit, but we all know, there is no greater, more viscerally satisfying moment then when we unleash the Rage, anointed by righteous indignation, to smite with utter rapturous abandon those who've earned our enmity. We are naught but bottled violence, waiting to be shaken. You want an ordered universe? You are in the wrong one. You want calm and peace? Give up the struggle. Let go, cast off and float on the tides, accept every idea as equally valid, allow everything to be true--make no value judgments, believe in nothing, and blind yourself to the difference between right and wrong. Only when you care about nothing will you find peace. Of course, most of us will only be able to care about nothing when we die, so instead we seek control. Order. Peace. But order is not peace, is it? What is order except the wall we build around chaos, the dam we must constantly patch and repair, the war we wage every day for some semblance, some veneer, of control. We say we want sense, to know what the rules are, but what we really seek is understanding, and the ability to step confidently into the street, without having to look both ways, knowing we'll reach the other side because the rushing traffic will flow around us. But God's having none of that, is he? So much for order. So much for peace. Enjoy the ride. -- V/R SangerM
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.