Insane killer caught. Recent headline in our local paper. Was taken out for a field trip, decided to grab some freedom, escaped, did some stuff ( apparently none of which was illegal apart from escaping ), and then gave himself up. Yet he's still insane. I recognize that the reason for an insanity plea is a comprehensible lack of understanding the consequences of your actions; that any trial would be a futile act if it did not impress upon the convicted of the gravity of their deed, but..........
this guy been insane for some time; twenty plus years. This begs the question: were his present day actions indicative of an insane person, or the rational act of an irrational mind?
Maybe that's saying the same thing.
Metaphorically speaking, this seems a rational act in an irrational world. As I've indicated in previous posts, I'm not exactly enamoured of our present day ministrations, but it is what it is. In reading about our local insane killer's day off, the thought occurred to me how many others trapped; imprisoned, so to speak, by their choices in life wouldn't like to escape for a while to experience a taste of freedom. God knows I would; but that's just me.
If you been insane for the better part of your life, but you are still rational enough for a field trip; rational enough yet again to plot an escape, when then are you no longer insane, and do you then begin the process of paying your debt to society? Or is your time while confined as insane enough? It is, one would think, problematic, and evocative of why people are leery of persons who are " insane "; especially if that has allowed them to avoid prison. They are still incarcerated, but the impression is that being held for insanity is better than plain old prison.
I couldn't tell as I've quote avoided both up to this point. I have, in my finer moments, felt imprisoned by my choices at times, but I assume all people do now and again.
I have a field trip coming up, so I have to go.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The American character
In watching the ministrations of fury and folly that is our dyspeptic and near psychotic relationship with our government; particularly the jihad over health care, whether for or against, I must remark on the telling disconnect on what we think or believe ourselves to be, and what we really are.
Are we a pull up our boot straps, when the going gets tough; the tough get going, self reliant, can do people? Or was that our forebears? Are we less so? Are we more demanding of government, whether we're ambivalent about it or not, than those who trod before us?
Have we been so debilitated over government by all the bad press, republican hatred ( loathing; despising, whatever adjective you might ascribe to ), and sob stories that we, at once, are certain we're nothing more than lemmings led over the proverbial cliff while, paradoxically, fearful of having no one, or no institution to look after us?
The government does belong to the people. And whether the government does good or bad; represents all of us, or those able to exercise influence through lobbying or insider contacts; is efficient or non-functioning, is a byproduct of our oversight and participation. It is, whether we like it or not; our mess!
Whatever you may think of the good folks venting their spleens at the town hall meetings over health care, they do have a right to vent. They also ought to have the decency to sit down and shut up so others may vent their spleens. Evidently, based on the frenzied media coverage, this isn't happening. Rather than a spirited dialogue as to the nature and content of the bills the Congress is considering, we get to witness shouting matches and bizarre rants on the certainty of the governments plan to set up death camps for the elderly or any other non productive members of society who may burden our already over burdened health care system. There's a joke about that applying to members of Congress, but we won't go there. Seems unlikely. These are also the good folks who are certain that the gubmint is going to take their guns, that the UN runs the country, that good middle American folks will be run over by rapacious illegal immigrants who will suck every last dollar out of the public coffers first. Well, maybe not all of them; certainly some. It has also been pointed out by others that this wave of illegal immigration has been steady since 1492. I know a goodly number of folks who have many guns and none have had them confiscated or been forced to abide by pernicious and constraining laws.
Yet many of these same folks who are certain that the gubmint want to do great harm to them in their pursuit of happiness, are demanding that the gubmint forcefully, and through the full malice of the law, decide how others should pursue theirs. Judicial advocacy is good only when it is advocating what you may believe, and bad when it's for something you don't. So long as the great unwashed masses are not sucked into any overly distorted propaganda, most of this hand wringing happens on the fringes of society, as they say. Of course, history is replete with bad situations giving the fringe the power over the masses resulting in some of, if not the worst of, human terror. Remember, before the Great Depression, the Nazis were nuts on the right fighting the commie nuts on the left. Fringe groups ignored by the center.
That's not to say that the venters we see today are in the same boat as Hitler, although it's remarkable that republicans would liken Obama to him, but we risk losing the forest for the trees if we stand on the sidelines and allow their rants to shape the discussion on health care, particularly as it has no actual relevance to health care as so far written.
The fears about health care are, more over, revelatory as to our ambivalent feelings towards government control over it. Never mind that government already controls elder care which is happily roaring into insolvency. This is a byproduct of our inability to focus on what needs to be done before it becomes a crisis. So we'll wait until it is insolvent and then rush in as we did with the financial meltdown. Do we wait until health care itself reaches the point where it is unaffordable before we enact the necessary changes? I personally would not be surprised if it comes to that.
If so, then that answers our question. Doesn't it.
Are we a pull up our boot straps, when the going gets tough; the tough get going, self reliant, can do people? Or was that our forebears? Are we less so? Are we more demanding of government, whether we're ambivalent about it or not, than those who trod before us?
Have we been so debilitated over government by all the bad press, republican hatred ( loathing; despising, whatever adjective you might ascribe to ), and sob stories that we, at once, are certain we're nothing more than lemmings led over the proverbial cliff while, paradoxically, fearful of having no one, or no institution to look after us?
The government does belong to the people. And whether the government does good or bad; represents all of us, or those able to exercise influence through lobbying or insider contacts; is efficient or non-functioning, is a byproduct of our oversight and participation. It is, whether we like it or not; our mess!
Whatever you may think of the good folks venting their spleens at the town hall meetings over health care, they do have a right to vent. They also ought to have the decency to sit down and shut up so others may vent their spleens. Evidently, based on the frenzied media coverage, this isn't happening. Rather than a spirited dialogue as to the nature and content of the bills the Congress is considering, we get to witness shouting matches and bizarre rants on the certainty of the governments plan to set up death camps for the elderly or any other non productive members of society who may burden our already over burdened health care system. There's a joke about that applying to members of Congress, but we won't go there. Seems unlikely. These are also the good folks who are certain that the gubmint is going to take their guns, that the UN runs the country, that good middle American folks will be run over by rapacious illegal immigrants who will suck every last dollar out of the public coffers first. Well, maybe not all of them; certainly some. It has also been pointed out by others that this wave of illegal immigration has been steady since 1492. I know a goodly number of folks who have many guns and none have had them confiscated or been forced to abide by pernicious and constraining laws.
Yet many of these same folks who are certain that the gubmint want to do great harm to them in their pursuit of happiness, are demanding that the gubmint forcefully, and through the full malice of the law, decide how others should pursue theirs. Judicial advocacy is good only when it is advocating what you may believe, and bad when it's for something you don't. So long as the great unwashed masses are not sucked into any overly distorted propaganda, most of this hand wringing happens on the fringes of society, as they say. Of course, history is replete with bad situations giving the fringe the power over the masses resulting in some of, if not the worst of, human terror. Remember, before the Great Depression, the Nazis were nuts on the right fighting the commie nuts on the left. Fringe groups ignored by the center.
That's not to say that the venters we see today are in the same boat as Hitler, although it's remarkable that republicans would liken Obama to him, but we risk losing the forest for the trees if we stand on the sidelines and allow their rants to shape the discussion on health care, particularly as it has no actual relevance to health care as so far written.
The fears about health care are, more over, revelatory as to our ambivalent feelings towards government control over it. Never mind that government already controls elder care which is happily roaring into insolvency. This is a byproduct of our inability to focus on what needs to be done before it becomes a crisis. So we'll wait until it is insolvent and then rush in as we did with the financial meltdown. Do we wait until health care itself reaches the point where it is unaffordable before we enact the necessary changes? I personally would not be surprised if it comes to that.
If so, then that answers our question. Doesn't it.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Wither the Caveman
Evidently, I've been remiss in cataloging my peeves of late. I haven't bluntly stated my vehemence in more than a month. Therefore, with insouciant haste, I offer the following riposte:
I am not a man of my times. Shocking as that my sound, it is sadly true. While I have tried my best to follow the herd in how I look, operate, conduct myself, relate to others, counsel my children, maximize my materialism with all manner of modern dross ( although I will confess that there are some items that call to me ); that I remain resolute in the facility of the Capitalist model; the romantic model; et cetera, ad nauseum; I am, congenitally, disenchanted with this age I find myself condemned ( Is that too strong a term? ) to endure.
Well then, you may ask: what is your " Age ", Joyboy? If this one's not good enough, or right for you, which age is?
After much thought, and I am, if I may say so; a thoughtful man, I believe the age in which I would fit in best is...........................
Caveman. That's right, caveman. Hunter/Gatherer; one evolutionary step up from Neanderthal. Stone tools in hand; adorned in animal skins; roaming the savanna, the valley; wherever the hell I might be; for better or for worse.
But what about our age of plenty; the lack of want, be it food or shelter, or the latest flat screen TV? While I would miss watching baseball in HD, the seemingly endless pursuit of material goods foisted upon me by our insatiable consumerism seems utterly pointless after a while. How many TVs is too many? How many cars? Suits? Well, maybe not suits, unless you are a Suit. Anyway, you get the point. Or do you? ( It might be judicious to point out that in our land of plenty there are those who sadly still go without the basics. Does that make it better or not? )
So let us compare, shall we. Perhaps you'll come to see my point. Perhaps you'll come to understand that I'm in the last desperate throes of my mental free fall.
Foremost is work. While there are those who have fulfilling careers, the vast majority of us spend the best years of our live laboring in boxes, working for peanuts, enduring "managers" more predisposed to personal politics than the overall betterment of their charges who endlessly throw their mediocrity at us, so that we can retire, at some point, when we've used up the best of our physical and mental potential ( one would hope, but there's no guarantee of that ); to do what? I've never quite bought into the idea of the retirement village. That bucolic idle where all is golf and cards in the southern sun. Do you work till you die? Probably, after all those material goods have to be paid for. There is also the nagging suspicion that such things as health care, food, shelter will be more costly as we trudge along.
A caveman goes out, hunts, and gathers up the Earth's bountiful goodness. Sure there are certain limitations; one's abilities, the general gathering positives of the region in which you've settled, and the other carnivorous animals duelling with you for the day's catch. Yes, it's physically demanding, but guess what? That's actually what we're designed for; being out and about, not rotting in a chair, staring into the luminescence of your monitor, vacuously working through the latest batch of pointless emails. I'm fairly athletic, enjoy being outside, and like the idea of having the rest of the week off after I've made my catch. Which allows me to say that I've contributed to the common welfare of the tribe.
Which brings us to our political institutions. As a caveman I have my tribe. Maybe there's a strong man running the show; maybe it's a autonomous collective; maybe it's a loose collection of families and the occasional outlier. Who knows. What it's not, is a vast bureaucracy built for the express purpose of stupefying, befuddling, and frustrating the masses. Say what you will about Nation States, be they capitalist, socialist, communist, or totalitarian, inevitably they exist to subjugate by willful manipulation and thuggery, by demagoguery, or by the sheer force of their entrenchment in our everyday lives to wear us down. Even here in the US of A, try to live free of government; can't be done. Whether by the noblest of intentions or the malice and terror of the worst, we live in the age of vast government. Wherever you may roam; you are within the jurisdiction of some governmental body. Not so in caveman days. Certainly there are tribal boundaries; but they ebb and flow. Walk a while and you're on your own.
Alright, let's get down to business. I freely admit to what I'd be losing; government services; fire, police, a social safety net, whether stable or precarious, and a national identity. I receive all of these by participating in society, by working within established business or government norms, allowing me to earn, hopefully, enough to support myself and my family, assuming I have one, and to pay my share, however that may be determined by government will or fiat, in taxes to support the government and it's programs. I may, or may not, have health care coverage. For that I live within the strictures of modern society. I have the privilege of living in an age of phenomenal scientific and technical advances unknown to generations not long before us. I will no doubt live twice as long as I would as a caveman. If I get injured, or suffer a life threatening event, I can reasonably expect to be taken to a hospital where I, at least, have some hope of survival. I wouldn't have to live in a cave, and for the few who do, they've converted them to modern versions there of with all the conveniences we've grown accustomed to. I can travel vast distances in a relatively short time; if opportunity affords it, I can see the world. Certainly by those standards, we live in a wonderful age.
So what's my problem?
It makes no sense to me. Do I buy stuff I need? Or do I consume simply as a lifestyle? What's the point? Will what I buy last, or should I care? I can always buy more. It seems pointless. We pick vocations based on probable income ( yeah, maybe not everyone, but it's the seducer everyone knows is in the room ), assuming we even have that choice, in order to satiate a need to collect stuff that requires more and more room. Big houses to store our material goods, of which we have so much that most garages, be they 1, 2, 3, or more, often have no room for the cars themselves. All of which has to be disposed of at some point. Our gift to our children, so they may negotiate with one another over who gets the bounty, or more likely, the joy of getting rid of it. Wearily we drag ourselves to jobs, controlled by persons, or persons unknown, who one minute extol us of our unique value to the company, and then have us escorted off the property when we become unwanted or unneeded. A lifetime in a grind for the purposes of continuing the consumeristic flog. We give up our freedom, our time in the sun; literally; our time with our children. We all lead separate lives flailing away to gain something we cannot hold, splintering families, all off on their own, so at the end we can die lonely in a home with other lonely, dying consumers.
I don't want to be kept alive just because I can be. I don't want to be part of a big impersonal machine.
I know that as a caveman I'll probably die young. Be it sickness, injury, exposure; having a tiger rip out my throat and feast upon my carcass. People die of those things still, although the tiger thing is, I would think, fairly rare ( Like my carcass! ). I'd have my family because you couldn't survive without it. I wouldn't live in a world of mass genocide. Sure, the horde over the horizon may come after us, but they'd have to kill up close and personal. No 600 yard kill shots, and the terror of bombs screaming into your world meant to obliterate everything. I wouldn't be bombarded by politicians more interested in themselves and their " agenda " than the common welfare of all citizens. Self righteous blowhards disgracing themselves with fearful bromides intent on stirring up peoples fears and hatreds. If that means I'd have to give up baseball in HD, so be it.
I'll sit at the edge of my cave, surrounded by nothing more than the sounds of the world, looking up into the heavens sparkling down upon me. God can be with me as nothing more than the Universe and a small carved figure. And if the tigers get me tomorrow, at least I know my place in the world.
I am not a man of my times. Shocking as that my sound, it is sadly true. While I have tried my best to follow the herd in how I look, operate, conduct myself, relate to others, counsel my children, maximize my materialism with all manner of modern dross ( although I will confess that there are some items that call to me ); that I remain resolute in the facility of the Capitalist model; the romantic model; et cetera, ad nauseum; I am, congenitally, disenchanted with this age I find myself condemned ( Is that too strong a term? ) to endure.
Well then, you may ask: what is your " Age ", Joyboy? If this one's not good enough, or right for you, which age is?
After much thought, and I am, if I may say so; a thoughtful man, I believe the age in which I would fit in best is...........................
Caveman. That's right, caveman. Hunter/Gatherer; one evolutionary step up from Neanderthal. Stone tools in hand; adorned in animal skins; roaming the savanna, the valley; wherever the hell I might be; for better or for worse.
But what about our age of plenty; the lack of want, be it food or shelter, or the latest flat screen TV? While I would miss watching baseball in HD, the seemingly endless pursuit of material goods foisted upon me by our insatiable consumerism seems utterly pointless after a while. How many TVs is too many? How many cars? Suits? Well, maybe not suits, unless you are a Suit. Anyway, you get the point. Or do you? ( It might be judicious to point out that in our land of plenty there are those who sadly still go without the basics. Does that make it better or not? )
So let us compare, shall we. Perhaps you'll come to see my point. Perhaps you'll come to understand that I'm in the last desperate throes of my mental free fall.
Foremost is work. While there are those who have fulfilling careers, the vast majority of us spend the best years of our live laboring in boxes, working for peanuts, enduring "managers" more predisposed to personal politics than the overall betterment of their charges who endlessly throw their mediocrity at us, so that we can retire, at some point, when we've used up the best of our physical and mental potential ( one would hope, but there's no guarantee of that ); to do what? I've never quite bought into the idea of the retirement village. That bucolic idle where all is golf and cards in the southern sun. Do you work till you die? Probably, after all those material goods have to be paid for. There is also the nagging suspicion that such things as health care, food, shelter will be more costly as we trudge along.
A caveman goes out, hunts, and gathers up the Earth's bountiful goodness. Sure there are certain limitations; one's abilities, the general gathering positives of the region in which you've settled, and the other carnivorous animals duelling with you for the day's catch. Yes, it's physically demanding, but guess what? That's actually what we're designed for; being out and about, not rotting in a chair, staring into the luminescence of your monitor, vacuously working through the latest batch of pointless emails. I'm fairly athletic, enjoy being outside, and like the idea of having the rest of the week off after I've made my catch. Which allows me to say that I've contributed to the common welfare of the tribe.
Which brings us to our political institutions. As a caveman I have my tribe. Maybe there's a strong man running the show; maybe it's a autonomous collective; maybe it's a loose collection of families and the occasional outlier. Who knows. What it's not, is a vast bureaucracy built for the express purpose of stupefying, befuddling, and frustrating the masses. Say what you will about Nation States, be they capitalist, socialist, communist, or totalitarian, inevitably they exist to subjugate by willful manipulation and thuggery, by demagoguery, or by the sheer force of their entrenchment in our everyday lives to wear us down. Even here in the US of A, try to live free of government; can't be done. Whether by the noblest of intentions or the malice and terror of the worst, we live in the age of vast government. Wherever you may roam; you are within the jurisdiction of some governmental body. Not so in caveman days. Certainly there are tribal boundaries; but they ebb and flow. Walk a while and you're on your own.
Alright, let's get down to business. I freely admit to what I'd be losing; government services; fire, police, a social safety net, whether stable or precarious, and a national identity. I receive all of these by participating in society, by working within established business or government norms, allowing me to earn, hopefully, enough to support myself and my family, assuming I have one, and to pay my share, however that may be determined by government will or fiat, in taxes to support the government and it's programs. I may, or may not, have health care coverage. For that I live within the strictures of modern society. I have the privilege of living in an age of phenomenal scientific and technical advances unknown to generations not long before us. I will no doubt live twice as long as I would as a caveman. If I get injured, or suffer a life threatening event, I can reasonably expect to be taken to a hospital where I, at least, have some hope of survival. I wouldn't have to live in a cave, and for the few who do, they've converted them to modern versions there of with all the conveniences we've grown accustomed to. I can travel vast distances in a relatively short time; if opportunity affords it, I can see the world. Certainly by those standards, we live in a wonderful age.
So what's my problem?
It makes no sense to me. Do I buy stuff I need? Or do I consume simply as a lifestyle? What's the point? Will what I buy last, or should I care? I can always buy more. It seems pointless. We pick vocations based on probable income ( yeah, maybe not everyone, but it's the seducer everyone knows is in the room ), assuming we even have that choice, in order to satiate a need to collect stuff that requires more and more room. Big houses to store our material goods, of which we have so much that most garages, be they 1, 2, 3, or more, often have no room for the cars themselves. All of which has to be disposed of at some point. Our gift to our children, so they may negotiate with one another over who gets the bounty, or more likely, the joy of getting rid of it. Wearily we drag ourselves to jobs, controlled by persons, or persons unknown, who one minute extol us of our unique value to the company, and then have us escorted off the property when we become unwanted or unneeded. A lifetime in a grind for the purposes of continuing the consumeristic flog. We give up our freedom, our time in the sun; literally; our time with our children. We all lead separate lives flailing away to gain something we cannot hold, splintering families, all off on their own, so at the end we can die lonely in a home with other lonely, dying consumers.
I don't want to be kept alive just because I can be. I don't want to be part of a big impersonal machine.
I know that as a caveman I'll probably die young. Be it sickness, injury, exposure; having a tiger rip out my throat and feast upon my carcass. People die of those things still, although the tiger thing is, I would think, fairly rare ( Like my carcass! ). I'd have my family because you couldn't survive without it. I wouldn't live in a world of mass genocide. Sure, the horde over the horizon may come after us, but they'd have to kill up close and personal. No 600 yard kill shots, and the terror of bombs screaming into your world meant to obliterate everything. I wouldn't be bombarded by politicians more interested in themselves and their " agenda " than the common welfare of all citizens. Self righteous blowhards disgracing themselves with fearful bromides intent on stirring up peoples fears and hatreds. If that means I'd have to give up baseball in HD, so be it.
I'll sit at the edge of my cave, surrounded by nothing more than the sounds of the world, looking up into the heavens sparkling down upon me. God can be with me as nothing more than the Universe and a small carved figure. And if the tigers get me tomorrow, at least I know my place in the world.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
A ethereal wind
While the world works it's way through the death of Michael Jackson, with all it's sideshows, lurid or otherwise, there are those of us who have been mourning the loss of the man; the musician, for some time. The loss of opportunity, the wasting of resources, all the possibilities now surely gone, but that had long been buried beneath the celebrity and notoriety.
The question now is where does Michael Jackson belong in the pantheon of music, be it African-American, pop, soul; where is his place among the greats in music? Where does he belong? Compared to others, his discography is limited, but given that, does it compare in quality to his contemporaries, his predecessors, or to the icons some suggest he now joins? I think as far as his contemporaries are concerned, be it Prince, Lionel Richie, Madonna ( never thought I'd give the 80's that much....................thought ), or U2, he certainly eclipsed them by sheer volume and number. That he was dubbed the King of Pop, a crown worn in previous eras by Elvis and Sinatra, certainly speaks to his status in those days. But, musically, was he better, or more influential, than his contemporaries? Prince and U2 were more restless and creative; pushing themselves to be more than one dimensional, but then they weren't " pop " stars in the traditional sense, or more properly, moved through the popular firmament for a time, before returning to their own particular venues. Richie, suffered from the dominance of Jackson; Madonna appropriated the iconography and ran with it, producing albums in the idiomatic style of that particular moment in Pop.
What of his place with his predecessors? Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, Smokey Robinson, and the many other greats of Motown and Stax. He and his brothers came up through that time and obviously were influenced and mentored by that group. Does his work measure up to theirs? Is Thriller the equal of Marvin Gay's What's Going On? Thriller sold more, but what album by any individual or group is going to measure up to that? Is that the parameter that defines his place in history?
Is he among the great? Can he stand along side Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, or Ray Charles? Can he match their contributions to music; the songs, the styles, the impact on successive musicians; the weight of their legacies? I believe most discerning critics and historians of music would say no. Some of that is due to the category in which his music falls. Pop is, by and large, disposable; remembered mostly by those who age group is defined by it's time, and largely forgotten or unknown to others. It's like talking about the Beatles to a seventeen year old; he might like or appreciate the music; he might not, but he'll never understand the context of the time or the sensation, anymore than I would the Swing era, even though I truly enjoy Swing.
I do think that, for some of us; and I do include myself, there is a sense of what Michael Jackson might have created musically, had Thriller been a big hit rather than the monster he could never replicate. There's no doubt that he had a real feel for what he wanted to do musically, and success certainly can reinforce the belief that you can do no wrong, but the question that will never be answered was if that's all he really had; that Thriller was the culmination; that there wouldn't be anything better; that everything that followed would be a failed attempt at recreating the Thriller magic. Historically, you could say that his subsequent recording bear that out. They were good, but not great. Had Thriller not been the monster that it was, would Michael Jackson have moved on musically; creatively? Would he have had the opportunity to expand his musical palette; to try new thing and sound without being restrained by expectations, or was he, simply what he was; the best for a time, but only for that time, and then eclipsed by the next big thing.
The question now is where does Michael Jackson belong in the pantheon of music, be it African-American, pop, soul; where is his place among the greats in music? Where does he belong? Compared to others, his discography is limited, but given that, does it compare in quality to his contemporaries, his predecessors, or to the icons some suggest he now joins? I think as far as his contemporaries are concerned, be it Prince, Lionel Richie, Madonna ( never thought I'd give the 80's that much....................thought ), or U2, he certainly eclipsed them by sheer volume and number. That he was dubbed the King of Pop, a crown worn in previous eras by Elvis and Sinatra, certainly speaks to his status in those days. But, musically, was he better, or more influential, than his contemporaries? Prince and U2 were more restless and creative; pushing themselves to be more than one dimensional, but then they weren't " pop " stars in the traditional sense, or more properly, moved through the popular firmament for a time, before returning to their own particular venues. Richie, suffered from the dominance of Jackson; Madonna appropriated the iconography and ran with it, producing albums in the idiomatic style of that particular moment in Pop.
What of his place with his predecessors? Diana Ross, Stevie Wonder, James Brown, Smokey Robinson, and the many other greats of Motown and Stax. He and his brothers came up through that time and obviously were influenced and mentored by that group. Does his work measure up to theirs? Is Thriller the equal of Marvin Gay's What's Going On? Thriller sold more, but what album by any individual or group is going to measure up to that? Is that the parameter that defines his place in history?
Is he among the great? Can he stand along side Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, or Ray Charles? Can he match their contributions to music; the songs, the styles, the impact on successive musicians; the weight of their legacies? I believe most discerning critics and historians of music would say no. Some of that is due to the category in which his music falls. Pop is, by and large, disposable; remembered mostly by those who age group is defined by it's time, and largely forgotten or unknown to others. It's like talking about the Beatles to a seventeen year old; he might like or appreciate the music; he might not, but he'll never understand the context of the time or the sensation, anymore than I would the Swing era, even though I truly enjoy Swing.
I do think that, for some of us; and I do include myself, there is a sense of what Michael Jackson might have created musically, had Thriller been a big hit rather than the monster he could never replicate. There's no doubt that he had a real feel for what he wanted to do musically, and success certainly can reinforce the belief that you can do no wrong, but the question that will never be answered was if that's all he really had; that Thriller was the culmination; that there wouldn't be anything better; that everything that followed would be a failed attempt at recreating the Thriller magic. Historically, you could say that his subsequent recording bear that out. They were good, but not great. Had Thriller not been the monster that it was, would Michael Jackson have moved on musically; creatively? Would he have had the opportunity to expand his musical palette; to try new thing and sound without being restrained by expectations, or was he, simply what he was; the best for a time, but only for that time, and then eclipsed by the next big thing.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The paradox of Dr. Manhattan
I have, of late, been wading in the pools of the Watchmen. First, the film, then the book, and lately, I've been reading a book on the philosophy of the story and it's characters. I find it remarkable that a comic can contain such a variety of subtexts. Every character is seriously flawed, and either suffers from doubt, or is certain of their convictions; oblivious to moral hazard. To say the book flays the comic book super hero is an understatement; the book obliterates the genre. Altruism has no hold on these vigilantes, from the sociopath Comedian to the surety of Ozymandias. All act beyond the bounds of society, bent to their own profundities, all the while hiding behind the facade of protecting the common good.
The oddball of the group is Dr. Manhattan. He being the only one of them who actually possesses powers beyond any ordinary human. He is by definition the only one who can profoundly alter the world around him. Yet, he is captive to his human limitations. He seems trapped by these limitations that having once been human place upon him. Maybe these are inherent flaws in the story, but they bring up interesting aspects to the idea of a human coming into possession of power to which he must then acclimate. How do these human limitations conflict with his apparently infinite physical power?
These problems manifest themselves as he is being manipulated by Viegt ( Ozymandias ); driving him into self exile on Mars. Finding himself having to defend the ( mistaken ) belief that he was causing those close to him to contract cancer, he becomes defensive and literally takes off. Evidently cosmic power does not necessarily imply cosmic understanding. He also seems smitten with what he can do without actually facing up to what these actions mean to the people around him; or to the human race as a whole. If, in fact, he can manipulate matter on a subatomic level, then realistically there's no reason he couldn't then dictate to the world how it would behave. The point of nuclear weapons, on the face of it, would be of little use, other than to guarantee annihilation for the usurper. That Dr. Manhattan is an American seems to count only for a little while. The US houses him and his girlfriend, the Silk Spectre, and provide him with a place to carry out whatever it is he's into; other than his own disassociation, there's not much in the book about what he's up to. The film purports that he working with Viegt on the, unbeknownst to him, weapon with which Viegt carries out his plan to save humanity. Both in the book and the film, the main thrust of Dr. Manhattan's evolution is his disassociation from humanity. That this would happen seems self evident. Once released from the constraints of physical being; having to never worry about eating, sleeping, aging, dying; when you begin to see time as spatial and inter-dimensional; this is explained by his seeing the events of his life concurrently rather than sequentially, and seeing events to come, the idea that he would begin to move to a different kind of consciousness would be expected.
With this, naturally, would be movement away from the perceived present of those around him. They're still trapped in their time slot; he is not. They're doomed to die; he is not. He can move throughout the universe, free to discover it's mysteries; they are not. That he would begin to see them as merely points in a line rather than beings to relate to, is a forgone expectation. Freed from their immediacy, he can look at humanity as a history, as a fluid movement,and not be constricted by time and place.
Philosophically, Dr. Manhattan is seeking peace, or perhaps more prosaically, happiness. Having been freed of his human bonds, he finds respite in the universe; in it's timelessness; it's function, and it's order. The exact opposite of the meandering chaos of human endeavor. That he acquiesces to the twisted logic and aftermath of Viegt's murder seems more a point of departure for him; a means to an end, allowing him to free himself of any earthly responsibility and finally move on to his cosmic bliss.
The final irony is his contemplation of creating life.
The oddball of the group is Dr. Manhattan. He being the only one of them who actually possesses powers beyond any ordinary human. He is by definition the only one who can profoundly alter the world around him. Yet, he is captive to his human limitations. He seems trapped by these limitations that having once been human place upon him. Maybe these are inherent flaws in the story, but they bring up interesting aspects to the idea of a human coming into possession of power to which he must then acclimate. How do these human limitations conflict with his apparently infinite physical power?
These problems manifest themselves as he is being manipulated by Viegt ( Ozymandias ); driving him into self exile on Mars. Finding himself having to defend the ( mistaken ) belief that he was causing those close to him to contract cancer, he becomes defensive and literally takes off. Evidently cosmic power does not necessarily imply cosmic understanding. He also seems smitten with what he can do without actually facing up to what these actions mean to the people around him; or to the human race as a whole. If, in fact, he can manipulate matter on a subatomic level, then realistically there's no reason he couldn't then dictate to the world how it would behave. The point of nuclear weapons, on the face of it, would be of little use, other than to guarantee annihilation for the usurper. That Dr. Manhattan is an American seems to count only for a little while. The US houses him and his girlfriend, the Silk Spectre, and provide him with a place to carry out whatever it is he's into; other than his own disassociation, there's not much in the book about what he's up to. The film purports that he working with Viegt on the, unbeknownst to him, weapon with which Viegt carries out his plan to save humanity. Both in the book and the film, the main thrust of Dr. Manhattan's evolution is his disassociation from humanity. That this would happen seems self evident. Once released from the constraints of physical being; having to never worry about eating, sleeping, aging, dying; when you begin to see time as spatial and inter-dimensional; this is explained by his seeing the events of his life concurrently rather than sequentially, and seeing events to come, the idea that he would begin to move to a different kind of consciousness would be expected.
With this, naturally, would be movement away from the perceived present of those around him. They're still trapped in their time slot; he is not. They're doomed to die; he is not. He can move throughout the universe, free to discover it's mysteries; they are not. That he would begin to see them as merely points in a line rather than beings to relate to, is a forgone expectation. Freed from their immediacy, he can look at humanity as a history, as a fluid movement,and not be constricted by time and place.
Philosophically, Dr. Manhattan is seeking peace, or perhaps more prosaically, happiness. Having been freed of his human bonds, he finds respite in the universe; in it's timelessness; it's function, and it's order. The exact opposite of the meandering chaos of human endeavor. That he acquiesces to the twisted logic and aftermath of Viegt's murder seems more a point of departure for him; a means to an end, allowing him to free himself of any earthly responsibility and finally move on to his cosmic bliss.
The final irony is his contemplation of creating life.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The great cosmic joke, pt 1
Alright, now that I've reeled you in with my incisive wit, and deep penetrating intellect; it's time to run the gauntlet ( sorry, couldn't resist ) and throw out some thick gooey darkness at the end of town.
Life is a great cosmic joke.
The fun, of course, is we play it on ourselves. We can, or some can; as I don't believe this view is universally held, blame this on God. It is, after all, his house of cards. That we're seated at the back of the room; I don't feel, should be held against him ( you may insert whatever relevant pronoun you feel is applicable if you don't care for " him " ). We set ourselves down this particular lane; admonitions to the contrary, and we're doomed to see it to the end. I doubt we, as a collective, will one day hearken to a blinding vision, turn on a dime, and change course. And why should we; we've convinced ourselves of our inestimable value to the universe, and to deny that now would be somewhat hypocritical. We are Humanity, dammit! We carry the favor of God's eye. Our many sacred texts bear this out. That we have a hubristic finger in all these pies apparently is beside the point. God is on our side and he wouldn't abandon us, or play a cruel joke on us either. Would he? If we are created in his image, and we have a sense of humor, the depth and quality of which is remarkable ( assuming you are not a person of ill humor ); the obvious conclusion is that God does as well. As such, his may be cosmologically transcendent!
In an intellectual exercise; such as this, let us break our argument into three components; the cosmological, the biological, and the psychological.
Cosmologically, we are dust in the wind. By simply noting the size and scale of the universe, and our small, and by that I mean our incredibly small, little part of it; we are nearly infinitesimal. In cosmological time, our lives are nanoseconds; as was once proverbially noted, a blink in the eyes of God. The immense scale of the universe works against our notions of being special; one offs, if you will. As the universe is governed by the same laws regardless of location, and is made up of the same elements; as well as the same dynamics, the idea that there aren't many more carbon based life forms out there is self serving. There are many more of us out there, brother. That we struggle to bridge the time and distance inherent in a universe of this magnitude, as well as our biological limitations; the great impediment to our Star Trek fantasies, does not diminish the existence of others. The lack of evidence or contact is not, in and of itself, proof that no other sentient beings are out there. The cosmology of the great joke is probably the least diabolical, if not the greatest to overcome. We are what we are, where we are, and are bound by the immutable forces that govern the universe. Try as we may, we can only hope to understand the consistency of the soup we're in.
The biological conundrum is that, for some of us, the accumulation of knowledge and experience is juxtaposed by the inevitable disintegration of the body; including the brain, which is part of the body. That seems to be forgotten from time to time. In a society that fawns and obsesses over the physical, rather than revering the wisdom that presumably comes with age, there is great comedy in watching people desperately trying to defy the ossification of their cherished vessels. Surgery, creams, potions, appliques; all designed to forestall decay for a nominal service charge. This is high comedy. Our advertisements are filled with the lithe, the fit, and the young hawking products for the old, sedentary, and fat promising them a way to eternal life, or at least some bargain basement approximation of it. A good diet, exercise, moderation, and restraint are too much work. And while they will have an effect on the quality of your life; they may not have as big a desired effect on the superficiality of our visual selves. At one point in the mists of time, it was a compliment to say someone has aged gracefully. Given the bloating of the American public in this age of plenty, you don't hear that much anymore. Add to the fact that no one wants to get old anymore, and it's probably just as well. Of course, in the long run no of this matters. We'll get to that later.
Last, but not least, is the psychological. The iron clad belief that this all means something; that we're no just here out of cosmological and biological forces that we can't control. We're here to do God's work in whatever catechism we happen to believe in. We're born into circumstances we can't control, which has a predominant say in how our life will mature. Our life is shaped further by the actions of individuals we both know and don't know; for better or worse. That we are masters of our domain is mostly ephemeral. None the less, we continue to pray at the alter of the exception; that for everyone who toils in anonymity, a few will rise up to take their place in our histories and lore. It's very seductive. It plays to our vanity and greed.
The joke, of course, is that, cosmically, it matters not. As was famously stated, we fret and strut upon the stage til our part is over, to be played no more. Whether remembered or not. And remembrance is illusory as well. Some events and characters retain their place, but only a few. There can be but one Alexander. We have our histories, but they are incomplete and by human nature biased. The greatness of individuals is harnessed within memory of their time, after which it is in the hands of people to whom they are nothing more than pictures, words, and someone else's memories. It takes quite a character to truly impact human history. All the rest? Dust in the wind. I can only see my own family's face back to my great grandmothers. Anyone further back and I have no physical connection. Only what is passed down by those who knew or heard of them. What of all the human beings that have populated the earth from the beginning? Come and gone. Consumed by their needs and the vagaries of the age. We all simply pass through. The day will come that the dying sun's expansion will make the earth uninhabitable; later it will consume the earth as it dies. All our history; all the artifacts we leave behind go with it. Maybe we'll shoot it all into space, assuming the atmosphere isn't too filled with debris. Maybe we'll build an ark to ferry humanity to another world full of bucolic splendor. Maybe we'll kill ourselves off never having reconciled our ability to create with our darker impulses of destruction. Maybe.
Next we have a conversation with God. What does he think?
Life is a great cosmic joke.
The fun, of course, is we play it on ourselves. We can, or some can; as I don't believe this view is universally held, blame this on God. It is, after all, his house of cards. That we're seated at the back of the room; I don't feel, should be held against him ( you may insert whatever relevant pronoun you feel is applicable if you don't care for " him " ). We set ourselves down this particular lane; admonitions to the contrary, and we're doomed to see it to the end. I doubt we, as a collective, will one day hearken to a blinding vision, turn on a dime, and change course. And why should we; we've convinced ourselves of our inestimable value to the universe, and to deny that now would be somewhat hypocritical. We are Humanity, dammit! We carry the favor of God's eye. Our many sacred texts bear this out. That we have a hubristic finger in all these pies apparently is beside the point. God is on our side and he wouldn't abandon us, or play a cruel joke on us either. Would he? If we are created in his image, and we have a sense of humor, the depth and quality of which is remarkable ( assuming you are not a person of ill humor ); the obvious conclusion is that God does as well. As such, his may be cosmologically transcendent!
In an intellectual exercise; such as this, let us break our argument into three components; the cosmological, the biological, and the psychological.
Cosmologically, we are dust in the wind. By simply noting the size and scale of the universe, and our small, and by that I mean our incredibly small, little part of it; we are nearly infinitesimal. In cosmological time, our lives are nanoseconds; as was once proverbially noted, a blink in the eyes of God. The immense scale of the universe works against our notions of being special; one offs, if you will. As the universe is governed by the same laws regardless of location, and is made up of the same elements; as well as the same dynamics, the idea that there aren't many more carbon based life forms out there is self serving. There are many more of us out there, brother. That we struggle to bridge the time and distance inherent in a universe of this magnitude, as well as our biological limitations; the great impediment to our Star Trek fantasies, does not diminish the existence of others. The lack of evidence or contact is not, in and of itself, proof that no other sentient beings are out there. The cosmology of the great joke is probably the least diabolical, if not the greatest to overcome. We are what we are, where we are, and are bound by the immutable forces that govern the universe. Try as we may, we can only hope to understand the consistency of the soup we're in.
The biological conundrum is that, for some of us, the accumulation of knowledge and experience is juxtaposed by the inevitable disintegration of the body; including the brain, which is part of the body. That seems to be forgotten from time to time. In a society that fawns and obsesses over the physical, rather than revering the wisdom that presumably comes with age, there is great comedy in watching people desperately trying to defy the ossification of their cherished vessels. Surgery, creams, potions, appliques; all designed to forestall decay for a nominal service charge. This is high comedy. Our advertisements are filled with the lithe, the fit, and the young hawking products for the old, sedentary, and fat promising them a way to eternal life, or at least some bargain basement approximation of it. A good diet, exercise, moderation, and restraint are too much work. And while they will have an effect on the quality of your life; they may not have as big a desired effect on the superficiality of our visual selves. At one point in the mists of time, it was a compliment to say someone has aged gracefully. Given the bloating of the American public in this age of plenty, you don't hear that much anymore. Add to the fact that no one wants to get old anymore, and it's probably just as well. Of course, in the long run no of this matters. We'll get to that later.
Last, but not least, is the psychological. The iron clad belief that this all means something; that we're no just here out of cosmological and biological forces that we can't control. We're here to do God's work in whatever catechism we happen to believe in. We're born into circumstances we can't control, which has a predominant say in how our life will mature. Our life is shaped further by the actions of individuals we both know and don't know; for better or worse. That we are masters of our domain is mostly ephemeral. None the less, we continue to pray at the alter of the exception; that for everyone who toils in anonymity, a few will rise up to take their place in our histories and lore. It's very seductive. It plays to our vanity and greed.
The joke, of course, is that, cosmically, it matters not. As was famously stated, we fret and strut upon the stage til our part is over, to be played no more. Whether remembered or not. And remembrance is illusory as well. Some events and characters retain their place, but only a few. There can be but one Alexander. We have our histories, but they are incomplete and by human nature biased. The greatness of individuals is harnessed within memory of their time, after which it is in the hands of people to whom they are nothing more than pictures, words, and someone else's memories. It takes quite a character to truly impact human history. All the rest? Dust in the wind. I can only see my own family's face back to my great grandmothers. Anyone further back and I have no physical connection. Only what is passed down by those who knew or heard of them. What of all the human beings that have populated the earth from the beginning? Come and gone. Consumed by their needs and the vagaries of the age. We all simply pass through. The day will come that the dying sun's expansion will make the earth uninhabitable; later it will consume the earth as it dies. All our history; all the artifacts we leave behind go with it. Maybe we'll shoot it all into space, assuming the atmosphere isn't too filled with debris. Maybe we'll build an ark to ferry humanity to another world full of bucolic splendor. Maybe we'll kill ourselves off never having reconciled our ability to create with our darker impulses of destruction. Maybe.
Next we have a conversation with God. What does he think?
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tea anyone?
I don't know if I should celebrate our collective ignorance, or shrug, and accept that this is what we've become; for better or for worse. It's evident that a great many Americans do not know how their government works; do not have much of an understanding of economics ( and I don't profess to being Paul Krugman ), or how taxes are doled out. That's too bad, because there might be some real heat in these less than stellar times.
I live in Washington state; a great place to be rich. We have a regressive tax base, so everyone pays the same. Maybe that sounds fair, but with no state income tax, we rely on spending rather than income. For a state that considers itself progressive in most things, it's a real poke in the eye. The more money you have in this state the less you have to pay, as a percentage of your worth. Obviously you can spend more, but you don't have to. You can choose to pay what the poorest pay. The basics cost what they cost regardless of who's paying; food, housing, medical care; the things we need to survive. Sales taxes; property taxes; business taxes; that's our tax base, so no surprise when times get tough, when people lose their jobs, when the rest of us over-extend; the state's tax revenues drop like real estate valuations. One year we're in the black, the next we're down by billions; 9 over the next two years.
There goes money for education; there goes money for the less fortunate, for those in poor health. Even as more join their ranks; there's no money. History means nothing, even as it speaks to the direct benefit of education for the growth of business, the growth of innovation, the betterment of society as a whole. Yet the notion of more taxation equity is a non starter. The rich don't even need to lobby themselves; they have the Tea Party movement, such as it is, to lobby for them, Never mind that the great majority of these worked up folks aren't rich and would probably benefit from a more progressive tax base. It's already been pointed out that the country has been given a substantial tax break by the new administration, and that as a percentage of their income Americans are paying less than they have in decades.
It is, of course, the great American tradition to hate taxes and hew to our own individual wants. We inherently know what's best; when the chips are down we have confidence in ourselves. In and of themselves, those aren't bad things; in fact, it's what has made American great, and what has distinguished us from the rest of the world. But we seem resistent to the nature of the government we have today. It is not a small nimble organization. It's huge. We ask much more from it than we care to acknowledge. We expect it to be well organized and managed, yet we expect it to be there for us in time of need as well as want, even if those wants are counter-intuitive to our beliefs. Yet we allow it to be a pravaricator of small minded needs rather thanwhat best for the whole. If we believe in self reliance, then there's little need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; jobless benefits beyond what we put in to support them; which poses the question of whether there're needed or not if we are truly self reliant. No need for pensions and the like; we're smart enough to handle our own affairs far from the intrusion of big government.
That government fails us, or fails to live up to the perceptions that are our own, fall squarely on our own shoulders. We elect the people who represent us. It is their job to set the laws; derive the structure of the government, appoint those who will administer it, and judiciously tax to support its function. If government fails; it is our failure. You can't, one the one hand, claim self reliance and then expect the government to bail you out when you find yourself in the dumps; but we do. Or I should say some do. The sheer size of our economy, and it's inter-connectedness to our daily lives, as well as our government, is the reason behind our now massive indebtedness. If we were as self reliant as we'd like to believe, then we'd have let the chips fall where they may. The banking and lending industries would probably end up massively smaller. With job losses and consumer debt so high, spending would fall off the table, which in turn would create more business and job loss in those sectors that cater to our consumer lifestyle. Values plummet. The economy shrinks. A lot. Let me say that again; a Lot. That means a lot of people out of work with nothing to do. Historically that tends to be not so good for a stable society.
That's the problem. The lot. That the government has decided to spend far beyond it's means is nothing new. We as a society seem reluctant to pay for what we demand. We're attacked; we respond, yet when comes up to paying for it, we don't; we cut taxes instead. And for those who can most afford it. It makes no sense. It makes sense to pay for what you need. It makes sense to save for the inevitable crashes, in the good times, so the hard time are at least cushioned. Unfortunately good sense isn't politically expedient. There are any number of things that the government can do to cut the debt; restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reduce military spending to what we really need for 21st century security. Those are the big spenders; entitlements and the military. If you don't want to pay to cover those cost; you have to cut and restructure. Most of the bailout money will be repaid, and once the banks find their footing; the financial crisis will work itself out. The government will have to deal with it, as it has many times before. An ordered society isn't free, and doing your own thing has it's costs as well. Nothing is without cost. Bitching about it, while a temporary balm; solves nothing.
Either way; limited, overarching, or something in between; whatever government you want still has to be paid for.
I live in Washington state; a great place to be rich. We have a regressive tax base, so everyone pays the same. Maybe that sounds fair, but with no state income tax, we rely on spending rather than income. For a state that considers itself progressive in most things, it's a real poke in the eye. The more money you have in this state the less you have to pay, as a percentage of your worth. Obviously you can spend more, but you don't have to. You can choose to pay what the poorest pay. The basics cost what they cost regardless of who's paying; food, housing, medical care; the things we need to survive. Sales taxes; property taxes; business taxes; that's our tax base, so no surprise when times get tough, when people lose their jobs, when the rest of us over-extend; the state's tax revenues drop like real estate valuations. One year we're in the black, the next we're down by billions; 9 over the next two years.
There goes money for education; there goes money for the less fortunate, for those in poor health. Even as more join their ranks; there's no money. History means nothing, even as it speaks to the direct benefit of education for the growth of business, the growth of innovation, the betterment of society as a whole. Yet the notion of more taxation equity is a non starter. The rich don't even need to lobby themselves; they have the Tea Party movement, such as it is, to lobby for them, Never mind that the great majority of these worked up folks aren't rich and would probably benefit from a more progressive tax base. It's already been pointed out that the country has been given a substantial tax break by the new administration, and that as a percentage of their income Americans are paying less than they have in decades.
It is, of course, the great American tradition to hate taxes and hew to our own individual wants. We inherently know what's best; when the chips are down we have confidence in ourselves. In and of themselves, those aren't bad things; in fact, it's what has made American great, and what has distinguished us from the rest of the world. But we seem resistent to the nature of the government we have today. It is not a small nimble organization. It's huge. We ask much more from it than we care to acknowledge. We expect it to be well organized and managed, yet we expect it to be there for us in time of need as well as want, even if those wants are counter-intuitive to our beliefs. Yet we allow it to be a pravaricator of small minded needs rather thanwhat best for the whole. If we believe in self reliance, then there's little need for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid; jobless benefits beyond what we put in to support them; which poses the question of whether there're needed or not if we are truly self reliant. No need for pensions and the like; we're smart enough to handle our own affairs far from the intrusion of big government.
That government fails us, or fails to live up to the perceptions that are our own, fall squarely on our own shoulders. We elect the people who represent us. It is their job to set the laws; derive the structure of the government, appoint those who will administer it, and judiciously tax to support its function. If government fails; it is our failure. You can't, one the one hand, claim self reliance and then expect the government to bail you out when you find yourself in the dumps; but we do. Or I should say some do. The sheer size of our economy, and it's inter-connectedness to our daily lives, as well as our government, is the reason behind our now massive indebtedness. If we were as self reliant as we'd like to believe, then we'd have let the chips fall where they may. The banking and lending industries would probably end up massively smaller. With job losses and consumer debt so high, spending would fall off the table, which in turn would create more business and job loss in those sectors that cater to our consumer lifestyle. Values plummet. The economy shrinks. A lot. Let me say that again; a Lot. That means a lot of people out of work with nothing to do. Historically that tends to be not so good for a stable society.
That's the problem. The lot. That the government has decided to spend far beyond it's means is nothing new. We as a society seem reluctant to pay for what we demand. We're attacked; we respond, yet when comes up to paying for it, we don't; we cut taxes instead. And for those who can most afford it. It makes no sense. It makes sense to pay for what you need. It makes sense to save for the inevitable crashes, in the good times, so the hard time are at least cushioned. Unfortunately good sense isn't politically expedient. There are any number of things that the government can do to cut the debt; restructure Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid; reduce military spending to what we really need for 21st century security. Those are the big spenders; entitlements and the military. If you don't want to pay to cover those cost; you have to cut and restructure. Most of the bailout money will be repaid, and once the banks find their footing; the financial crisis will work itself out. The government will have to deal with it, as it has many times before. An ordered society isn't free, and doing your own thing has it's costs as well. Nothing is without cost. Bitching about it, while a temporary balm; solves nothing.
Either way; limited, overarching, or something in between; whatever government you want still has to be paid for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)