Well, I had two hard drive crashes in succession. That, along with a heavy work schedule have put me out of the blogging business for several months. But, since I have gotten no comments, am I to conclude that:
- everyone is perfecly satisfied with the status quo,
- no one wants better representatives, we all want worse ones,
- we want better representatives, but we want them without the personal burden of being a better person, or
- you think that I am way off base, and the people that we are has nothing to do we the leaders we elect?
I don't see any other choices in the matter ... do you?
Buz
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Sunday, July 8, 2007
For Better or Worse?
I want you to be 100% honest. Do you think that man as an individual is better than man was, say 3500 years ago in Egypt. Don't make your decision based on US standards. Look at the world in its entirety. Compare the Egyptians driving their slaves to build the pyramids ... the constant wars with their neighbors to invade or repel invaders. Are we really any different than they were? Are we different inside? Are our motives any different, any more noble than theirs? We have made technological strides. They had horse carts and charriots; we have trucks and automobiles. They had bows and arrows and spears; we have rifles and rocket propelled grenades. They had war; we have war. They had taxes; we have taxes. Their rulers thought they were gods; our rulers act like they are gods.
Have we changed at all in 3500 years? Is there one ray of hope that we will change in the next 3500 years? Can mankind go through 7000 years of existance and not gain one iota of insight about himself?
So far, the one thing that we have looked to that it might enlighten us, science, has brought us advances in medicine, chemistry, and biology to keep our bodies alive, cosmology to tell us that there may be other worlds like ours, and physics to give us the weapons to destroy ourselves and any other civilizations we might encounter should we visit other planets.
Where is our hope? To what or to whom can we look to change man ... not just mankind in general, but each individual person ... you and me? Is it possible? Can it be done before we are glowing bits of dust?
If it is possible, is it something we will do? Will we do it out of desire or desparation, or not do it at all? Are we too comfortable with where we are? A person once told me that until the pain of staying the same is worse than the pain of changing, we will not change. What if the pain of staying the same comes too late for us to change? Is it already too late?
If it isn't too late:
- What needs to happen to convince us we need to change?
- How must we change ourselves?
- What are we willing to do to change?
Buz
Have we changed at all in 3500 years? Is there one ray of hope that we will change in the next 3500 years? Can mankind go through 7000 years of existance and not gain one iota of insight about himself?
So far, the one thing that we have looked to that it might enlighten us, science, has brought us advances in medicine, chemistry, and biology to keep our bodies alive, cosmology to tell us that there may be other worlds like ours, and physics to give us the weapons to destroy ourselves and any other civilizations we might encounter should we visit other planets.
Where is our hope? To what or to whom can we look to change man ... not just mankind in general, but each individual person ... you and me? Is it possible? Can it be done before we are glowing bits of dust?
If it is possible, is it something we will do? Will we do it out of desire or desparation, or not do it at all? Are we too comfortable with where we are? A person once told me that until the pain of staying the same is worse than the pain of changing, we will not change. What if the pain of staying the same comes too late for us to change? Is it already too late?
If it isn't too late:
- What needs to happen to convince us we need to change?
- How must we change ourselves?
- What are we willing to do to change?
Buz
Friday, June 15, 2007
So What Is the Answer?
How do we get better people as candidates?
Simple, we must be better people. We must raise our own personal standards. We must rediscover what the difference between right and wrong are, and invest ourselves in what is right. We cannot expect our leaders to lead a great country if we are not a great people, because we are the country. And we certainly cannot expect great leaders if we are not ourselves great people, because our leaders reflect who we are.
Don't mistake this as a charge to go fix whatever is wrong with your neighbor or your brother-in-law. No, you have the responsibility for YOU. It is your job to make yourself a better person. Let your neighbor worry about making himself a better person.
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Bush, John Kerry, Tom McCain, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, they are us. No more. No less. They represent our hopes, our fears, our generosity, our greed, our nobility, our ignominity.
During the last campaign, a series of ads ran dealing with the question of fetal stem-cell research, and the question was asked about certain representatives, "who are they to decide? They are not doctors or scientists, why should they have a say?"
That does raise an interesting question, who are they to decide?
Well, in short, they ARE the people who we have elected to decide. From my point of view, while I trust my doctor to deal with my health, and while I trust scientists to scratch the surface of the universe and look beneath, neither are well noted for, nor is it their job to look down the road of time in our society and see just where this path leads. That is what our congress is SUPPOSED to do. They are supposed to use their intellect and concern for the future of society and divine where this road will lead. Will it take us to new heights of enlightenment or will it take us into the depths of social slavery? Will it lead to perfect health for all or to the canibalism of the less fortunate for the benenfit of the privileged few.
Take a minute to understand that position. Our leaders are SUPPOSED to be our moral guides, our compass when things are beyond our grasp. That is why one of the most important decisions they have is the decision as to when to go to war. We certainly don't leave that to the Generals or the Admirals. They are charges with winning the war, but not with starting or ending it. (For the same reason doctors are not given the authority to assist suicides nor scientists the decision to clone human beings ... because the outcome of those decisions greatly affect all of society, not just the one person on the verge of death or the verge of duplication.)
Do you trust the leaders we have today to make those decisions? If you weren't able to answer yes, then you have a problem. Because, they ARE going to make those decisions whether you trust them to do it the right way or not. I suggest that you go back to step 1, and work on making yourself a better person. If we all do that, then maybe a few years down the road, we will be worthy of leaders who will be trustworthy to make the right decisions.
Buz
Simple, we must be better people. We must raise our own personal standards. We must rediscover what the difference between right and wrong are, and invest ourselves in what is right. We cannot expect our leaders to lead a great country if we are not a great people, because we are the country. And we certainly cannot expect great leaders if we are not ourselves great people, because our leaders reflect who we are.
Don't mistake this as a charge to go fix whatever is wrong with your neighbor or your brother-in-law. No, you have the responsibility for YOU. It is your job to make yourself a better person. Let your neighbor worry about making himself a better person.
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Bush, John Kerry, Tom McCain, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, they are us. No more. No less. They represent our hopes, our fears, our generosity, our greed, our nobility, our ignominity.
During the last campaign, a series of ads ran dealing with the question of fetal stem-cell research, and the question was asked about certain representatives, "who are they to decide? They are not doctors or scientists, why should they have a say?"
That does raise an interesting question, who are they to decide?
Well, in short, they ARE the people who we have elected to decide. From my point of view, while I trust my doctor to deal with my health, and while I trust scientists to scratch the surface of the universe and look beneath, neither are well noted for, nor is it their job to look down the road of time in our society and see just where this path leads. That is what our congress is SUPPOSED to do. They are supposed to use their intellect and concern for the future of society and divine where this road will lead. Will it take us to new heights of enlightenment or will it take us into the depths of social slavery? Will it lead to perfect health for all or to the canibalism of the less fortunate for the benenfit of the privileged few.
Take a minute to understand that position. Our leaders are SUPPOSED to be our moral guides, our compass when things are beyond our grasp. That is why one of the most important decisions they have is the decision as to when to go to war. We certainly don't leave that to the Generals or the Admirals. They are charges with winning the war, but not with starting or ending it. (For the same reason doctors are not given the authority to assist suicides nor scientists the decision to clone human beings ... because the outcome of those decisions greatly affect all of society, not just the one person on the verge of death or the verge of duplication.)
Do you trust the leaders we have today to make those decisions? If you weren't able to answer yes, then you have a problem. Because, they ARE going to make those decisions whether you trust them to do it the right way or not. I suggest that you go back to step 1, and work on making yourself a better person. If we all do that, then maybe a few years down the road, we will be worthy of leaders who will be trustworthy to make the right decisions.
Buz
Monday, June 11, 2007
The Part We Don't Like
In the last post, I said that there were two parts to the loss in societal morality ... licentiousness is the part that excites many, and that we, as a society are willing, or maybe even a little eager to live with.
What is the other side of this coin - the part we don't like? It is the decay in our leadership. We are thoroughly disgusted with the fact that our leaders promise us they will do this, and then they do the opposite. It is so ingrained in our society that we have a name for it, a "campaign promise", which is a euphemism for "say anything you want to get elected and then do what you had always planned on doing". (This is part of the reason that negative campaign adds work so well, we ignore what candidates tell us they will do, because we "know" they are lying ... the only thing that gets our attention is that the other person might be even worse than this one.)
How do this relate to the previous post? Simple. We, the American people are inch by inch, foot by foot, and yard by yard, losing our moral footing. As we do, we elect leaders who are like us. The more we want our "freedom" to indulge in personal immorality (sorry, I believe this is now called "pushing the envelope") the more likely we are to avoid candidates who take personal and societal morals seriously. Basically we don't want anyone to tell us that we can't do that which we want to do.
Have you ever heard someone say "don't judge me", "you can't judge me", or "you don't have a right to judge me"? I find it interesting that no one ever says that right after donating $1000 to the Red Cross, or after running into a burning house to save a child. No, they always say that after some shameful act. It would seem to me that they have personally judged what they did and have found it shameful in their own eyes, and then they are pleading for public acceptance to justify their deeds to themselves.
We have more and more members of our society demanding that we ignore or worse, condone, their immorality, and we, because of apathy, comply. Then, in return, we expect others to overlook ours.
So, what's the answer? How do we turn it around?
Buz
What is the other side of this coin - the part we don't like? It is the decay in our leadership. We are thoroughly disgusted with the fact that our leaders promise us they will do this, and then they do the opposite. It is so ingrained in our society that we have a name for it, a "campaign promise", which is a euphemism for "say anything you want to get elected and then do what you had always planned on doing". (This is part of the reason that negative campaign adds work so well, we ignore what candidates tell us they will do, because we "know" they are lying ... the only thing that gets our attention is that the other person might be even worse than this one.)
How do this relate to the previous post? Simple. We, the American people are inch by inch, foot by foot, and yard by yard, losing our moral footing. As we do, we elect leaders who are like us. The more we want our "freedom" to indulge in personal immorality (sorry, I believe this is now called "pushing the envelope") the more likely we are to avoid candidates who take personal and societal morals seriously. Basically we don't want anyone to tell us that we can't do that which we want to do.
Have you ever heard someone say "don't judge me", "you can't judge me", or "you don't have a right to judge me"? I find it interesting that no one ever says that right after donating $1000 to the Red Cross, or after running into a burning house to save a child. No, they always say that after some shameful act. It would seem to me that they have personally judged what they did and have found it shameful in their own eyes, and then they are pleading for public acceptance to justify their deeds to themselves.
We have more and more members of our society demanding that we ignore or worse, condone, their immorality, and we, because of apathy, comply. Then, in return, we expect others to overlook ours.
So, what's the answer? How do we turn it around?
Buz
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Global Warming
Do you believe in Global Climate Change?
The threat of Global Climate Change is not that things will heat up and turn us all to toast by next summer, nor is it that things will cool off this winter such that the snow we get will start the base of a glacier which will not melt for 10,000 years.
No, the threat of Global Climate Change is that it will raise 0.025 degrees this summer, and another 0.025 degrees next summer. This will keep going so that in a decade the temperature will have risen 0.25 degrees. Hardly something that anyone would notice. The oceans will get just a tiny bit warmer and the polar ice caps will melt just a little more than they freeze next winter. In 10 or 15 years, if the water is a bit warmer, we would probably enjoy swimming in it all the more.
In 50 or 100 years, we will just begin to see the difference, when the temperature is 2.5 degrees higer than it is today and sea level has risen by a foot. By that time, it may be too late to reverse the process. Some of the most fertile areas of the world may no longer support agriculture and starvation may be imminent.
We're funny, in a way. If someone told us that they were going to take a hammer and smash our thumb, it would anger or frighten us. But if someone told us that they were going to take a million cars an make our environment unlivable in 500 years, we would probably shrug and ignore them. We are more concerned about the small inconveniences which are happening now than the enormous tragedies which are some unspecified time in the future.
Something far more serious than the threat of Global Climate Change has already struck our society. We observe two different things and we don't tie them together. We are outraged at one and tittilated by the other. For the past 60 years we have undergone a Societal Morality Change.
Let me begin this discussion by saying that "YES, there have always been corrupt people in government, there have always been people cheating on their spouses, and there have always been murders". Just as even in the height of the "little ice age" which hit northern Europe in the 1700s, there were warm days.
However, we have come to a point in our society where we don't see the wrong in some immorality, nor do we see the connection between one form of immorality and another.
I will grant you that I am an old codger, so I learned the basics of morality in a different era than is prevalent today. However, I am disappointed by the ignorance which thinks that just because our level of technology has changed, the human psyche has changed. For 3000 to 4000 years, it has been considered imoral for one person to attempt to seduce another without the intent of marriage; today, we not only have a divorce rate of over 50%, we have people living together and having children without being married at all.
I can hear your comments now ... "don't be such a prude", "don't be so naive".
How about we apply those same comments to the doomsayers who tell us that Global Climate Change will destroy the earth. "Don't be so naive!"
"Ah, but they have proof. The water is warmer in certain parts of the world and undersea life is being affected."
I have proof. A lot of kids are being raised at the poverty level, dropping out of school and dropping out of life because of the broken homes.
"Ah, but the kids aren't saying that their problems are due to the broken homes ... it's stuff like peer pressure at school ... life is harder for kids than when you were a kid."
The fish aren't complaining about the temperature, either ... but it is harder to find food at time, and sometimes it is harder to breathe. Life is harder for fish than when I was a kid.
"But I want to do what I want to do with out somebody judging me and telling me I'm being immoral!"
Hey, I want to dump the oil I drained out of my car in my back yard with out someone telling me I'm polluting!
"But you ARE polluting!"
Just by your standards ... but you ARE being immoral.
"Just by your standards. And besides, lots of people, like the EPA, say that it is polluting to dump oil in your back yard."
Just as the standards of most civilizations going back nearly 4000 years tie marriage and sex and family together.
"Yeah, but what do they know ... that was a long time ago and things are different now."
Oh, you mean that having casual sex and using another human being simply to satisfy your own desires isn't the same disregard for another's humanity as it was 3500 years ago.
"Naw, it's not like that 'cause like they want it, too."
So, mutually using each other while denying the ultimate humanity of the other person is OK so long as you both do it?
"Well, something like that, I guess."
I rest my case. We have gone beyond immorality to the point where we don't even know what morality is.
Buz
The threat of Global Climate Change is not that things will heat up and turn us all to toast by next summer, nor is it that things will cool off this winter such that the snow we get will start the base of a glacier which will not melt for 10,000 years.
No, the threat of Global Climate Change is that it will raise 0.025 degrees this summer, and another 0.025 degrees next summer. This will keep going so that in a decade the temperature will have risen 0.25 degrees. Hardly something that anyone would notice. The oceans will get just a tiny bit warmer and the polar ice caps will melt just a little more than they freeze next winter. In 10 or 15 years, if the water is a bit warmer, we would probably enjoy swimming in it all the more.
In 50 or 100 years, we will just begin to see the difference, when the temperature is 2.5 degrees higer than it is today and sea level has risen by a foot. By that time, it may be too late to reverse the process. Some of the most fertile areas of the world may no longer support agriculture and starvation may be imminent.
We're funny, in a way. If someone told us that they were going to take a hammer and smash our thumb, it would anger or frighten us. But if someone told us that they were going to take a million cars an make our environment unlivable in 500 years, we would probably shrug and ignore them. We are more concerned about the small inconveniences which are happening now than the enormous tragedies which are some unspecified time in the future.
Something far more serious than the threat of Global Climate Change has already struck our society. We observe two different things and we don't tie them together. We are outraged at one and tittilated by the other. For the past 60 years we have undergone a Societal Morality Change.
Let me begin this discussion by saying that "YES, there have always been corrupt people in government, there have always been people cheating on their spouses, and there have always been murders". Just as even in the height of the "little ice age" which hit northern Europe in the 1700s, there were warm days.
However, we have come to a point in our society where we don't see the wrong in some immorality, nor do we see the connection between one form of immorality and another.
I will grant you that I am an old codger, so I learned the basics of morality in a different era than is prevalent today. However, I am disappointed by the ignorance which thinks that just because our level of technology has changed, the human psyche has changed. For 3000 to 4000 years, it has been considered imoral for one person to attempt to seduce another without the intent of marriage; today, we not only have a divorce rate of over 50%, we have people living together and having children without being married at all.
I can hear your comments now ... "don't be such a prude", "don't be so naive".
How about we apply those same comments to the doomsayers who tell us that Global Climate Change will destroy the earth. "Don't be so naive!"
"Ah, but they have proof. The water is warmer in certain parts of the world and undersea life is being affected."
I have proof. A lot of kids are being raised at the poverty level, dropping out of school and dropping out of life because of the broken homes.
"Ah, but the kids aren't saying that their problems are due to the broken homes ... it's stuff like peer pressure at school ... life is harder for kids than when you were a kid."
The fish aren't complaining about the temperature, either ... but it is harder to find food at time, and sometimes it is harder to breathe. Life is harder for fish than when I was a kid.
"But I want to do what I want to do with out somebody judging me and telling me I'm being immoral!"
Hey, I want to dump the oil I drained out of my car in my back yard with out someone telling me I'm polluting!
"But you ARE polluting!"
Just by your standards ... but you ARE being immoral.
"Just by your standards. And besides, lots of people, like the EPA, say that it is polluting to dump oil in your back yard."
Just as the standards of most civilizations going back nearly 4000 years tie marriage and sex and family together.
"Yeah, but what do they know ... that was a long time ago and things are different now."
Oh, you mean that having casual sex and using another human being simply to satisfy your own desires isn't the same disregard for another's humanity as it was 3500 years ago.
"Naw, it's not like that 'cause like they want it, too."
So, mutually using each other while denying the ultimate humanity of the other person is OK so long as you both do it?
"Well, something like that, I guess."
I rest my case. We have gone beyond immorality to the point where we don't even know what morality is.
Buz
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)