Winter Threads

“I have made this letter longer than usual, only because I have not had the time to make it shorter.”

-- Blaise Pascal 1623-62 “Lettres Provincials” (1657)

We're of like minds on the liability of being the world policeman. As for Obama being a dove, not so. As is becoming more and more apparent, he is a politician whose number one priority is getting reelected. Also, why defer to him?... Privy to what? For better or for worse, Assange has wikileaked much of the "detailed analysis" you speak of, which offers no good reasons for O.'s insane troop surge. His reasoning had nothing to do with strategic or tactical success, and everything to do with the fact no Dove has ever one a second term. Finally, yes, the "misery here at home" is on its way. But the "cuts in virtually all other areas," which I assume means social services" are what will hasten it, not forestall it. The repressed hostility of a middle and working class bound for the bottom (we're already seeing this with the Tea Party and various Libertarian movements) aren't going to passively suffer and bear while the corporate fat cats feast and debauch. Something will give.

The issue in all of this should be about Gun Control. It wouldn't hurt any of us to revisit Michael Moore's Oscar winning documentary, "Bowling For Columbine." As I write this (my desk is next to my closet), my trusty Remington 300, 12 gauge, semi-automatic, 5 shot (one slug, one buckshot, one birdshot and two goose loads) shotgun stands loaded next to me, as it has for the last 35 years. My point is not that I'm against guns, but who needs a 30 shot banana clip Glock? What hunter needs this, and what homeowner wouldn't favor his 12 gauge over a pistol in a confrontation with an intruder. Lastly, think about the human beings, with all of their foibles, that we meet as we walk through life. Would we really want everyone to be walking around with a loaded weapon on them. I, for one, think not.

Given the Machiavellian notions of war cycles being inevitable, as you say Mr. X, "the destiny of things," what country would possibly say we'll give up on developing nuclear weapons, especially to a country (us) that has tens-of-thou...sands of them. Also, the nonchalant tone that we're "long overdue" for some "bad stuff" belies a certain assumption that America always comes out on top. The worm is turning, my friend, and every empire has its twilight. As Marx noted long ago, and as a look at history affirms, commerce and market forces always dictate who wins and who loses. There is a New World Order coalescing, a bad storm on the horizon, a new paradigm. What Bush failed to do was put us in a global position where the forces that are now displacing the United States as the ultimate world power might look kindly on us, where the countries we're at the mercy of won't hate us and our high tech cruelties (unmanned drones) and our low tech immoralities (human torture). But he didn't, and our children will reap the whirlwind.

The 2nd amendment, hmmmm? That's the one by the FOUNDING FATHERS, right? Aren't they the ones who wrote "We hold these truths to be self evident , that all men are created equal." Damn, they forgot to put the word "white" between the "all" and "men" (forget women). after all, the reason they could party in Philly, and attend the Constitutional Congress, is because their slaves were back home tending to their plantations. Sincerely - Sally Hemmings

I think you folks are around my age, 50-60ish -- old enough to remember the most boring topics when we were younger. I'm talking about those stories when the dude relates a long-winded tale about how high he got (snore). Also sex stories (snore). Don't get me wrong, I like to get high, and fuck, sometimes together. But talking about these subjects is downright BORING. I see discussions about gun types and kill ratios as fitting the category of just do it don't talk about it: The politics of gun ownership and its social ramifications, yes; but my guns bigger than your gun, no. I noticed not a peep about my FOUNDING FATHERS post. Chikinshitz!

Irrelevant? Sounds like a Tea Bagger. I agree the Founder's ideas must be taken in context. What's scary is when you have people in influential positions, like Supreme Court Justice's Antonio Scalia and Clarence white, that see the Constitution as something to be taken literally. Nothing wrong with being rich, Bob, there are just some things money can' buy, like talent. In that regard, it's really too bad that some rich folks, like Rush, Palin, and Glenn can't use their money to buy a personality. Now get to work.

True. But time should in no way inform our aesthetic judgment. Whether it takes a second or a decade has nothing to do with beauty or sublimity (the difference between those concepts has a long tradition). Some would say painting is less mi...metic than photography. One of the assumptions made about photography is that it is less subjective than painting. I disagree with this for the very reason you mention: the camera is directed by the hand, just as the brush is. To me, being a good painter requires more skill than being a good photographer, although they can both be artistically beautiful.

re: the ideology/science dichotomy. I too grappled with this in my response. The big question here is how do we define IDEOLOGY? I see them (science & religion) as polarities, also. The conundrum that pops up, then, is how d...o we explain the aspects of consciousness and human experience that science can't explain? In ruminating on this, consider my positions: I AM AN AVOWED AND UNAPOLOGETIC ATHEIST!!! The godz and god-systems man has constructed have inevitably been used to justify the very worst atrocities the human race has historically perpetrated on itself (the Crusades, Inquisitions, early European Missionaries, Irish Catholics and Protestants, and fanatic Jihadists). SO! Please provide your definition of an ideology, does it have to do with the suffix, ...ism, does it have to do with all isms?
Peace, brother.

Science requires imagination; religion requires faith. I suppose faith could be defined as a kind of imagination, but, unlike science, it is an imagination derived from received concepts that require absolutely NO ORIGINAL THOUGHT. We accept religious beliefs and take them as faith, or gospel, if you prefer, because we have been told to.

Images, Top to Bottom: Schorr, Picasso, Bendickson, and Meyer