Posts
Thank God we live in America, right? In America we are free and equal, aren’t we? Anybody can achieve the dream. Isn’t that so?
Long, long ago in Europe, in a land not so far away, there was a kingdom called Amorica. The people there fretted because the Glory that was Rome was gone, and now the Franks stood on their doorstep and threatened invasion. The people of Amorica trembled, because the Germans, that is the Angles and Saxons, already overwhelmed their cousins across the water and now the Franks were threatening them. What could the people do?
The Priest stood up to say some comforting words to the people. Unfortunately, because of the Glory that was Rome he said everything in Latin so none of the people understood what he was saying. That language was already dead as far as the people were concerned.
Then the King stood up and gave a rousing speech in High Britain because of the Glory that was Arthur, but that was not much better, though the people caught a few of the words. Their own language was more closely related to Welsh than Britain. Still, the King roused some of the nobles and perhaps that was a good thing, but what could the people do?
One of the beggars, the lowest of the low stood up last and looked at all the people. “Go back to your homes, ye idiots. At least ye got homes,” he yelled. And so that was what the people did because they figured life would just go on as it had and, as far as they knew, it would go on the same forever. So the Franks came and the people were right.
The King and his nobles owned the actual land and ruled the kingdom, except for the land owned and ruled by the church. The King passed decrees. The Church passed decrees. But the people just went on like the land itself. They were peasants, the serfs who worked the land, some merchants and craftsmen in town, perhaps guild members, and artisans of a sort, but all of them really peasants. They got up with the sun, worked until dark, had families before they died so their families could do the same thing after they were gone. And the beggars, the lowest of the low, still hung around the fringes of all this and…begged.
Let me be the first to say, welcome to the New Dark Ages.
Today the chief commodity isn’t land, it is industry, and the nobility is money-made, but this makes sense because today conquest is not by the sword. Instead it is by mergers and acquisitions. I call it the Owner Class, but a more detailed description of how medieval it really is will have to wait for a future post.
The Church, of course, has been neutered in our present society, but it has not gone away. It has been replaced by Federal, State and local bureaucracies. Trust me, for every decree your CEO hands down, the government is handing down three. Again, the details will have to wait, but I might say that the more actual daily power our elected officials hand over to the bureaucracy, the more medieval we are becoming.
We, or most of us anyway, are the peasants, what I call the employment class. Some of us live paycheck to paycheck. Some of us do well enough, but only as long as we have a job. Lose the job and we risk losing our house, all our perks and benefits, and becoming part of the group that lives paycheck to paycheck. Note: when someone in the owner class loses their job they get a package generally worth more than what you or I would make in our whole working careers.
Serfs: workers, laborers, artists, craftsmen, small businessmen (merchants) entrepreneurs (for the most part) and etc. Most of us, anyway.
Then, of course, there are the beggars. We treat them better these days. We have welfare and plenty of other programs, but they remain a drain on the rest of us, a useless, non-working, permanent underclass of people. Again, more on that to come
-MichaelThe Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Rewritten History, Orwellian Style.
Here is an example: Sept = 7, oct = 8, nov = 9, dec = 10 (decimal/tenth). So why is September the 9th month, October the 10th, November the 11th and December the 12th. December should be the 10th month, shouldn’t it?
Let’s see, that would make the New year around March first – or most likely March 21st at the Spring Equinox. Whoever decided the New Year should be in the middle of winter? Obviously, at some point in history things got changed, and these days I bet most people never thought that dec means 10.
The important thing to note about the calendar is this cannot have happened by accident or evolution. People did not suddenly wake up one morning and all decide to move the time for the New Year. Some person or persons in power had to make the change. In this case, it was Pope by the name of Gregory the Great.
So, the question for the day: Is this kind of rewriting of life happening today? Yes.
First, an obvious one that some people still understand:
False: The Civil War was a war to free the slaves.
True: The Civil War was fought because many southerners believed their states, communities and individual rights were being trampled on by a national government out of control. The Southern answer was to separate from that national government. The Northern answer was to “preserve the union.”
Slavery was deliberately not discussed for two years of the war because of the hope that the Southern states might yet be reunited peacefully. When the Emancipation Proclamation was finally passed and signed, it was done with the hope that it would cause a spontaneous uprising of slaves in the south that would cripple the southern economy. It did not happen…
False: European colonialism was perpetrated by aggressor nations and greedy men who oppressed people and suppressed local cultures in order to gain economic advantage, steal the native resources and enrich the looting nations
True: In the thinking of the time, the world was seen as progressing from worse to better, from primitive societies to civilization. It was the same kind of progressive thinking that produced the theories of Marx and Darwin and caused the founding fathers of the United States to want to “form a more perfect union.”
Far from being exploitative, the Europeans believed they were giving the people of the world, some of whom were still living a stone age existence, the best that they had. It was their moral imperative to bring the benefits of civilization to “backwards” nations. They believed the spread of western, Christian civilization was right, good and true and for the benefit, not detriment of the world. And this colonialization, though far from perfect, was always driven, not by greed, but by the highest ethical standards. Indeed, Ghandi himself was clear when he said his passive resistance would be utterly ineffective against anyone who held to a lower moral ground than the British.
False: Food, clothing, shelter and (now) healthcare are human rights.
True: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the original word that was taken out because of the slavery issue, that is, property are rights. You own your thoughts, your beliefs, your labor, your things and (yes) your money, and what you do with them is your decision. The United States Constitution spelled out some rights for all to understand: freedom of conscience – to assemble with others and worship as you please, freedom of speech and the press, freedom to defend yourself, your family and your property against tyranny. These are rights. Why? Because they depend only on you to do with what is yours as you see fit.
Food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare are not rights. They are entitlements according to our current rulers, but they are not rights. Why? Because they depend upon others, specifically stealing from others in order to insure them to you!
You can see, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Life is being rewritten by those with power and influence, and it is being rewritten under our very noses. Perhaps the second question should be, why?
-MichaelThe Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
Let’s see, that would make the New year around March first – or most likely March 21st at the Spring Equinox. Whoever decided the New Year should be in the middle of winter? Obviously, at some point in history things got changed, and these days I bet most people never thought that dec means 10.
The important thing to note about the calendar is this cannot have happened by accident or evolution. People did not suddenly wake up one morning and all decide to move the time for the New Year. Some person or persons in power had to make the change. In this case, it was Pope by the name of Gregory the Great.
So, the question for the day: Is this kind of rewriting of life happening today? Yes.
First, an obvious one that some people still understand:
False: The Civil War was a war to free the slaves.
True: The Civil War was fought because many southerners believed their states, communities and individual rights were being trampled on by a national government out of control. The Southern answer was to separate from that national government. The Northern answer was to “preserve the union.”
Slavery was deliberately not discussed for two years of the war because of the hope that the Southern states might yet be reunited peacefully. When the Emancipation Proclamation was finally passed and signed, it was done with the hope that it would cause a spontaneous uprising of slaves in the south that would cripple the southern economy. It did not happen…
False: European colonialism was perpetrated by aggressor nations and greedy men who oppressed people and suppressed local cultures in order to gain economic advantage, steal the native resources and enrich the looting nations
True: In the thinking of the time, the world was seen as progressing from worse to better, from primitive societies to civilization. It was the same kind of progressive thinking that produced the theories of Marx and Darwin and caused the founding fathers of the United States to want to “form a more perfect union.”
Far from being exploitative, the Europeans believed they were giving the people of the world, some of whom were still living a stone age existence, the best that they had. It was their moral imperative to bring the benefits of civilization to “backwards” nations. They believed the spread of western, Christian civilization was right, good and true and for the benefit, not detriment of the world. And this colonialization, though far from perfect, was always driven, not by greed, but by the highest ethical standards. Indeed, Ghandi himself was clear when he said his passive resistance would be utterly ineffective against anyone who held to a lower moral ground than the British.
False: Food, clothing, shelter and (now) healthcare are human rights.
True: Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the original word that was taken out because of the slavery issue, that is, property are rights. You own your thoughts, your beliefs, your labor, your things and (yes) your money, and what you do with them is your decision. The United States Constitution spelled out some rights for all to understand: freedom of conscience – to assemble with others and worship as you please, freedom of speech and the press, freedom to defend yourself, your family and your property against tyranny. These are rights. Why? Because they depend only on you to do with what is yours as you see fit.
Food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare are not rights. They are entitlements according to our current rulers, but they are not rights. Why? Because they depend upon others, specifically stealing from others in order to insure them to you!
You can see, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Life is being rewritten by those with power and influence, and it is being rewritten under our very noses. Perhaps the second question should be, why?
-MichaelThe Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Anger, Hate, Divisiveness and Vitriol
I think there is something wrong with the human ear – some of them, anyway. Lord Acton suggested that power corrupts but I rather think power interferes with the ears. Elitism in general, but elitism empowered in particular makes hearing a lost art.
To be fair, it isn’t just elitists. I have counseled numerous couples in their marriages and I have guided several boards through their decision making processes. I heard one spouse say calmly and sincerely, “You are right. I was wrong in that and I am sorry.” But all the other spouse heard was spit, spit, criticize attack. And when board members disagreed, I have gotten from both sides, instead of constructive words, complaints that the other side is being negative and obstructionist. To be sure, on a grander, national scale it is much worse.
People are concerned in this nation that all humane discourse has ceased, and in some ways they are correct, but it is not because people have ceased to try. It is, I believe, because the ears are clogged. I honestly feel that apart from a very few on the far left and far right, Americans are willing to reach out reasonably across the aisle, share their perspective and position and calmly discuss the issues. First, though, we have to fix the ears.
I think it depends in one part on how strongly we feel about our side of the issue, how important we believe it to be and how likely we are (the power part) to implement our point of view if we can just overcome the opposition. Thus, discussing the issue to find a reasonable solution takes a backseat to overcoming the opposition. In that case, we no longer hear the reasonableness of the words presented. We look only for mistakes and loopholes to overcome those words, and when we find none it often becomes spit, spit, criticize, attack for real.
When people on the right hear someone on the left express a legitimate concern about (for example) an environmental issue, the only thing the people on the right hear is loony, environmental whacko. Conversely, when people on the left hear someone on the right express a legitimate concern about (for example) immigration, the only thing the people on the left hear is divisive, hate-filled bigot. Neither characterization is correct. But how can I say what people will not hear?
I think this problem with the ears also depends in part on the discussions themselves. I know those on the left will find this hard to believe, but people on the right, including the infamous talk show hosts, present passionate (to be sure) but extremely reasonable and well thought out positions on the issues. Sadly, those on the left only seem to hear anger, hate and vitriol (spit, spit).
On the other side, people on the left tend to talk, not in reasonable arguments, but in conclusive statements, often assuming that any educated person has read the same books and studied the same reports they have – those books and reports where these arguments have all been dealt with in length. Sadly, all that people on the right hear is this lefty is an idiot with no reasonable argument to support their position and no leg to stand on.
To be fair, people on the right could read the books even if they are disagreeable from premise to conclusion. At least you will know where the other side is coming from. And people on the left could make more effort to frame their positions in a reasonable way, backing up the ideas with a few facts might not be a bad idea, and maybe stop treating conservatives like backward, ignorant rubes simply because they have not read (or not been convinced by) the same books you read in college.
I think a final part of this problem depends on how we view life, the universe and everything. The liberal worldview or mindset sees things one way, and though not all liberals think alike or see things exactly the same, the underlying foundation is equivalent Likewise, the conservative worldview or mindset may be equally equivalent though non-universal. Those foundations, the place where all discussions and arguments must begin, the place where all ideas originate and the foundation on which those ideas stand are obviously incompatible, liberal to conservative. What is true, and any psych 101 student can tell you this, is anything that challenges our foundational beliefs is seen as threatening.
If you believe that individuals are the problem, and especially individuals with power like private company executives or the rich, and that the collective (government) is the only fair and just way to keep such individuals in check, you will react vehemently if not violently against any words that threaten that way of thinking.
If, on the other hand, you believe that government is the problem, and especially when it caters to certain groups or attacks liberty with bureaucratic rules, regulations and punitive taxes, and that individuals by voice, vote and in exercising their liberties are the only way to keep government in check, you will react equally badly against any words that threaten that point of view.
Thus liberals claim conservatives hate all people (groups) who are not like them. Thus conservatives claim that liberals hate everyone (the whole nation). Thus liberals see conservatives as practical anarchists who don’t care if a few get rich and everyone else suffers. Thus conservatives see liberals as practical tyrants who don’t care if no one gets rich and everyone suffers. So it goes.
We don’t hear each other. And we won’t as long as we perceive the other side to be threatening our most deeply held and cherished beliefs about life, the universe and everything. And we won’t, as long as we are virtually speaking different languages: one presenting reasonable argument and the other presenting conclusions as if they are foregone conclusions. And we won’t, as long as our focus is not on what the other person is saying but on how we can overcome this opposition and accomplish our agenda.
Now, one final note would be this: this is not a new phenomenon. The Prophet Elijah had to run for his life when Queen Jezebel did not like what he was saying. She did not want to hear it! Likewise, Jeremiah was held in prison because the king said he always prophesized such negative, hateful things. Generally, people have never wanted to hear the other side of the story when it cuts to the core. King George and the British Parliament were offended and angered by what the Continental Congress had to say. And sometimes it comes to war.
I re-read the Barmen declaration not long ago, drafted in Nazi Germany by Barth and Bonheoffer (and others). Essentially, all it said was Jesus Christ is the Lord of all life. Adolf Hitler is not. Of course Barth was a neutral Swiss, but Bonheoffer was easy to throw in jail. He died in jail for his angry, hate-filled, divisive and vitriolic words………
-Michael The Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
To be fair, it isn’t just elitists. I have counseled numerous couples in their marriages and I have guided several boards through their decision making processes. I heard one spouse say calmly and sincerely, “You are right. I was wrong in that and I am sorry.” But all the other spouse heard was spit, spit, criticize attack. And when board members disagreed, I have gotten from both sides, instead of constructive words, complaints that the other side is being negative and obstructionist. To be sure, on a grander, national scale it is much worse.
People are concerned in this nation that all humane discourse has ceased, and in some ways they are correct, but it is not because people have ceased to try. It is, I believe, because the ears are clogged. I honestly feel that apart from a very few on the far left and far right, Americans are willing to reach out reasonably across the aisle, share their perspective and position and calmly discuss the issues. First, though, we have to fix the ears.
I think it depends in one part on how strongly we feel about our side of the issue, how important we believe it to be and how likely we are (the power part) to implement our point of view if we can just overcome the opposition. Thus, discussing the issue to find a reasonable solution takes a backseat to overcoming the opposition. In that case, we no longer hear the reasonableness of the words presented. We look only for mistakes and loopholes to overcome those words, and when we find none it often becomes spit, spit, criticize, attack for real.
When people on the right hear someone on the left express a legitimate concern about (for example) an environmental issue, the only thing the people on the right hear is loony, environmental whacko. Conversely, when people on the left hear someone on the right express a legitimate concern about (for example) immigration, the only thing the people on the left hear is divisive, hate-filled bigot. Neither characterization is correct. But how can I say what people will not hear?
I think this problem with the ears also depends in part on the discussions themselves. I know those on the left will find this hard to believe, but people on the right, including the infamous talk show hosts, present passionate (to be sure) but extremely reasonable and well thought out positions on the issues. Sadly, those on the left only seem to hear anger, hate and vitriol (spit, spit).
On the other side, people on the left tend to talk, not in reasonable arguments, but in conclusive statements, often assuming that any educated person has read the same books and studied the same reports they have – those books and reports where these arguments have all been dealt with in length. Sadly, all that people on the right hear is this lefty is an idiot with no reasonable argument to support their position and no leg to stand on.
To be fair, people on the right could read the books even if they are disagreeable from premise to conclusion. At least you will know where the other side is coming from. And people on the left could make more effort to frame their positions in a reasonable way, backing up the ideas with a few facts might not be a bad idea, and maybe stop treating conservatives like backward, ignorant rubes simply because they have not read (or not been convinced by) the same books you read in college.
I think a final part of this problem depends on how we view life, the universe and everything. The liberal worldview or mindset sees things one way, and though not all liberals think alike or see things exactly the same, the underlying foundation is equivalent Likewise, the conservative worldview or mindset may be equally equivalent though non-universal. Those foundations, the place where all discussions and arguments must begin, the place where all ideas originate and the foundation on which those ideas stand are obviously incompatible, liberal to conservative. What is true, and any psych 101 student can tell you this, is anything that challenges our foundational beliefs is seen as threatening.
If you believe that individuals are the problem, and especially individuals with power like private company executives or the rich, and that the collective (government) is the only fair and just way to keep such individuals in check, you will react vehemently if not violently against any words that threaten that way of thinking.
If, on the other hand, you believe that government is the problem, and especially when it caters to certain groups or attacks liberty with bureaucratic rules, regulations and punitive taxes, and that individuals by voice, vote and in exercising their liberties are the only way to keep government in check, you will react equally badly against any words that threaten that point of view.
Thus liberals claim conservatives hate all people (groups) who are not like them. Thus conservatives claim that liberals hate everyone (the whole nation). Thus liberals see conservatives as practical anarchists who don’t care if a few get rich and everyone else suffers. Thus conservatives see liberals as practical tyrants who don’t care if no one gets rich and everyone suffers. So it goes.
We don’t hear each other. And we won’t as long as we perceive the other side to be threatening our most deeply held and cherished beliefs about life, the universe and everything. And we won’t, as long as we are virtually speaking different languages: one presenting reasonable argument and the other presenting conclusions as if they are foregone conclusions. And we won’t, as long as our focus is not on what the other person is saying but on how we can overcome this opposition and accomplish our agenda.
Now, one final note would be this: this is not a new phenomenon. The Prophet Elijah had to run for his life when Queen Jezebel did not like what he was saying. She did not want to hear it! Likewise, Jeremiah was held in prison because the king said he always prophesized such negative, hateful things. Generally, people have never wanted to hear the other side of the story when it cuts to the core. King George and the British Parliament were offended and angered by what the Continental Congress had to say. And sometimes it comes to war.
I re-read the Barmen declaration not long ago, drafted in Nazi Germany by Barth and Bonheoffer (and others). Essentially, all it said was Jesus Christ is the Lord of all life. Adolf Hitler is not. Of course Barth was a neutral Swiss, but Bonheoffer was easy to throw in jail. He died in jail for his angry, hate-filled, divisive and vitriolic words………
-Michael The Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Dear General Patraeus,
I understand the actions of the pastor and his little flock – to burn a copy of the Quran – is insensitive and offensive to Muslims. I understand how it might make our job in Afghanistan harder. But I also understand these two points worth remembering.
First, we are at war. I know given the present rules of engagement it is hard to remember that. I also know that there are many people in Afghanistan and across the Muslim world who are biding their time, waiting to see how things turn out, and waiting for America to get the H*** out. Some of these are closet jihadists. We all know this.
As I said, I understand how this pastor’s burning of the Quran might make your job harder, but it might also bring some of these Jihadists out of the closet. Instead of fighting this pastor, I recommend fighting the administration who has your military hands tied. That way, when these closet jihadists show themselves you can do some serious butt kicking. Yes, lives will be lost. Lives are lost in war as you know, but if you can see your enemy out in the open, you might be able to bring things to a close more quickly and thus save lives.
Do you think that maybe the continuing violence in Iraq after we “finished our work” is because we left too many jihadists in the closet there?
Second, this pastor’s self-expression is precisely what a free America allows and what you are supposed to be defending: His right to be stupid. The constitution does not say you have freedom of speech as long as it is sensitive and inoffensive. Your job is not to criticize this pastor but to defend him. Your enemy is not this American Citizen but those very people who want to force this citizen to shut-up.
Look, I am in no way condoning the acts of this person, but I will defend to the death his right to do it – as should you. So, here is a suggestion. Maybe this pastor could fly to New York and on 9-11 he can burn his Quran on the site of the ground zero mosque. Hey, this is America! Every stupid, insensitive, offensive act deserves another.
-MichaelThe Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
First, we are at war. I know given the present rules of engagement it is hard to remember that. I also know that there are many people in Afghanistan and across the Muslim world who are biding their time, waiting to see how things turn out, and waiting for America to get the H*** out. Some of these are closet jihadists. We all know this.
As I said, I understand how this pastor’s burning of the Quran might make your job harder, but it might also bring some of these Jihadists out of the closet. Instead of fighting this pastor, I recommend fighting the administration who has your military hands tied. That way, when these closet jihadists show themselves you can do some serious butt kicking. Yes, lives will be lost. Lives are lost in war as you know, but if you can see your enemy out in the open, you might be able to bring things to a close more quickly and thus save lives.
Do you think that maybe the continuing violence in Iraq after we “finished our work” is because we left too many jihadists in the closet there?
Second, this pastor’s self-expression is precisely what a free America allows and what you are supposed to be defending: His right to be stupid. The constitution does not say you have freedom of speech as long as it is sensitive and inoffensive. Your job is not to criticize this pastor but to defend him. Your enemy is not this American Citizen but those very people who want to force this citizen to shut-up.
Look, I am in no way condoning the acts of this person, but I will defend to the death his right to do it – as should you. So, here is a suggestion. Maybe this pastor could fly to New York and on 9-11 he can burn his Quran on the site of the ground zero mosque. Hey, this is America! Every stupid, insensitive, offensive act deserves another.
-MichaelThe Fiction Side: The Storyteller http://mgkizzia.wordpress.com/ The Non-Fiction Side: Word & Spirit http://michaelkizzia.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)