It'll Get Finished When It's Finished!

(I promised myself this blog wouldn't turn into a personal gripe page, but I personally don't give a shit what gets posted on it now.)

I think we all get a little bent out of shape on our purpose in life. Some of us may achieve great things, while others become the "anti-example" by which to live. No doubt, the times we live in are dicked up like a gangbang. But do we every truly admit to ourselves what we want out of life?

Sometimes, some important times, we have to give ourselves a gut check and take a little inventory on what we want. Lets use myself as an example: I enjoy video games, eating, sleeping, working out and getting drunk. I'd add "getting laid" in that equation but that would require me to "give a fuck" (nyuk-nyuk). In that little list, you'll note that I didn't include my occupation, and there's a reason for that. The truth of the matter is that none of us actually want to work for a living. Some of us aren't even fucking passionate about what we do, we'd like to think we are; we're not. But for those of us that really don't care about the end-state of our environment, our neighborhood or our fellow man, there's hope. Hope in the fact that there are others who do give a damn, and we should be gracious enough to stay out of their way.

But how? How do we help those people without stepping away from our double xp weekends on Call of Duty you ask? By simply being honest with them. I can assure you, many people would be beyond thrilled if you just admitted to them that you really don't care about their neighborhood watch, their food drive or their petition (unless there's something in it for you.) I should know, I drop the "no, I don't think that's really worth getting worked up over" spiel on a regular basis.  Be wary, however, of those who are so civic-minded that they want to drag you into their pile of horse-hockey.  These motherfuckers will do nothing good for your peace of mind and totally destroy your chances of getting to that next prestige level on whatever game you're playing online. 

The civic-minded volunteer is the worst type of individual. They give a hoot for the sake of giving said hoot, which is no reason to ever give a hoot unless someone is hooting up in your business. So be the smart field mouse and hide from these bird-brains whenever it can be managed. Couldn't their time be better spent masturbating or otherwise finding a way to go fuck themselves, I ask you? 

So, if you're lazy, are only motivated by that which will pay or entertain you, and only work because it keeps you in the life you're most comfortable living then take heart. You are closer to happiness than Mr. Save-the-Whales will ever be, and far closer to getting what you want out of life.

Question everything, or not; not my problem.

War is Inevitable? Says Who?

Having a fondness for political lectures, I've noticed another troubling pattern in the rhetoric of Right-leaning speakers to the tune of "war is inevitable." In most cases, I would brush this aside as another scare tactic employed to shake up the base in their faction. Unfortunately, it has become endemic and the rhetoric is slowly crossing party lines. The question is, how can we as a species abide this?

There are lots of things that are inevitable: The collapse of a star, the expiration of our lives and hell, the expiration of milk. Birds fly, fish swim, and we try to kill as many of each other as one can in their lifetime? Really? The impermanent nature of being is one we become acquainted with early in our childhood, though at such an age we are unable to articulate our opinions on the subject concisely. We understand that there are things we simply have no control over unless technological, economic and social advances manage to overcome them. But in terms of war, an event reliant on the perogative of the aggressor to take effect, it is hard for me to see the parallel.

When a person says "war is inevitable," it sends a clear message that it is no one's fault. The language, even in legalese, implies that no one is culpable. From the voter who cast their ballot for the warhawk head of state to the head of state himself, anyone involved can be held responsible, could they not? The question of whether or not we are going to admit where we as a people come to take ownership in this.

National defense spending in the United States, regardless of figures and times after the Second World War, remains the highest of any one nation on this planet. This tremendous and ever-increasing sum seems to be spurred on by the perceived inevitablity of war, but why is no one stopping to take a look at the root of the problem? John F. Kennedy may have said "It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war" but is he not the same man who said "Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings"?

Humbly though I submit my opinion, I would dare to say that war is a man-made problem, a dreadful invention that at this point in our history as a species, can destroy the world at the turn of a key and recitation of code. Keys, codes, buttons: All of these things are made by us, for us or more accurately, in spite of us. I challenge anyone to deny this; I challenge you! Could not the world be a better place were we to deny ourselves the indulgence of this dark fantasy? Can our curiosity for how much destruction we ourselves can wreak on our own planet not be sated?

But what of this dread-fascination? This death-preoccupation? I have seen it in religion too, as I can't shake the feeling that though many on the religious front may be expecting an apocalypse. Unfortunately, since I don't believe in such things, this appears to me as a self-fulfilling one if the wrong person gets their hands on the right means. Even in some polytheistic religions from antiquity, there are deities exhalted as patrons of war. Ares, Tyr and Mars to name but a mere fraction of the tie-ins between religion and war.

No, I say no to all of it. No to the foolishness of waiting for war. What is there to wait for? If the desire to see bloodshed is in the heart of men with the means to do so, it will be done. What we as a species must do is surpass this. War is not "inevitable," it is the perogative of a mere consequential few.

Gingrich's Twelve Steps To Rewritten History

Republican Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich has published a "draft" of his soon to be infamous "Presidential Comission on Religious Freedom," set to be finalized as an Executive order by September 27th, 2012. As a reinforcement to the guiding concept of "freedom of religion," it hopes to set in place a committee to oversee that freedom to worship openly is enforced. But does Gingrich realize how deep the Christian leanings of the nation, and the words of his proposal, actually are?
Published to Gingrich's campaign website on December 18th, 2011, the comission outlines twelve steps that, to put it lightly, partially increase the size of government by establishing a "working group" to go forth and ensure that freedom to worship is upheld in all aspects of our society. This is quite ironic, considering the Republican agenda to decrease the size of said government has been made apparent for decades, if only to refocus the size on issues relevant to the Republican Party. A major question is precisely who qualifies to serve on the working group? This, given that it is not outlined in any level of specificity that this writer can ascertain from reading.
A few varying degrees of political double-speak permeate the comission document, notably in the reference to the "Establishment Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" despite the fact that the ramifications of such a comission may very well require action from Congress. Another, following the Republican trope of interpreting and thereby asserting to know the will of the Founding Fathers, punctuates the document as often as a comma or period would in a letter. This is visible in the "Six Themes Summarize The Founders’ Vision For Church And State" section of the document (Federalist, Nationalist, Democratic, Libertarian, Philosophical and Theological.)
The final highlight goes into a laundry list of "low-points" in American History, characterizing them as issues that could only be resolved through religious morality. This, despite the fact that the true resolutions of issues such as the eugenics movement and slavery had been ousted not by religious intervention or hinging on a change of conscience, but by political means. Most especially slavery, despite the fact that Europeans could not support a country that perpetuated a law they had long since abolished was more of a contributing factor to the abolition of slavery than the fact that Lincoln appealed to the moral "conscience" of Americans. Through interpretation of the Founding Fathers intentions with "cherry-picked" quotes from those same men, there is also a laughable reference to Machiavelli's "The Prince," a book written with the sole intention of satirizing the Medici family's rise to power, however brief in quotation; not unlike using an episode of "All In The Family" to illustrate America in the early 1980s .
Though the intention to ensure religious freedom may be encouraged in the "spirit" of the document, Gingrich's "Presidential Commission on Religious Freedom" seems more bent on ensuring the free practice of the Christian faith, and contradicts itself at every sloppily executed turn. This writer would suggest to any Republican, regardless of faith (or lack thereof) to familiarize themself with this comission before taking one step (or twelve) towards supporting the Gingrich campaign.

(The actual draft is available here: http://www.newt.org/presidential-commission-religious-freedom)