Archive for October, 2009

Pumpking versus Barak Obama

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009

DCP_0186When Pumpking was a young cat, he was a pacifist. I saw him once attacked by a feral; although twice the size of the feral, he only cried and would not lift a paw, let alone claw someone. Then UPO, the cat sovereign of all the cats of the household, died. Pumpking was UPO’s natural heir, the biggest male of all the cats, no one doubted his ascendancy. Nevertheless, the girls started bitching, claws drawn, hissing, spitting, and in general, the cat population in the house was in turmoil. Pumpking, the pacifist, took them one by one and beat them up. Within a couple of hours, harmony was reinstated, and all the cat boys started adoring Pumpking and the girls respected him.

 For a couple of days he ate first, and even though there was plenty of food in many plates, he ate alone while everyone else was watching and drooling. Only when he finished his meal, did the others dare come to eat. A few days later, Pumpking allowed everyone else to eat first. To this day, he watches over his subjects and cares for everyone’s wellbeing. Of course, he is far from being a pacifist; whenever he deems it necessary, in spite of my objections, he claws whoever he thinks deserves it.

What happened to the pacifist? I asked Pumpking, how come he changed? He said, circumstances changed, so he too needed to change.

 “But you were a pacifist, you had ideals, ‘no clawing, no matter what’ was your motto. Your ideal was, ‘do not hurt another cat.’ Why did you change that?” I asked.

 “I didn’t,” he replied. “I prevented them from hurting each other and ultimately, themselves a lot more by hurting them a little. You know, as king, I have to be pragmatic.”

  “You are saying that being pragmatic is to give up on one’s ideals?”

 “That depends on the ideals,” Pumpking explained. “If said ideals are extreme, they are not pragmatic. I have a household to run. Sticking to extreme pacifistic ideals with cats who do not share the same ideals will create chaos, and they will hurt each other much more than I hurt them. Imagine a community of pacifists, who will not fight, no matter what. Imagine that this community is run over by another, barbaric nation, who wants to wipe them out. If they maintain their pacifistic ideals, they will be wiped out and with them, the pacifistic ideal. So to preserve the ideal for a time, when it will gain consensus, they must fight.”

 “So you are saying that you have compromised your ideals in order to preserve them? Sounds kind of paradoxical, don’t you think?”

 “Look at your world leaders. It’s OK they get elected with lip service to some ideals. When they are elected however, if they do not become pragmatic, if they do not show power and thereby gain respect, they are thought weak, and then they will be manipulated.”

 “How?”

 “By being paid lip-service, by holding him to his ideals and meanwhile dragging out time to do what they want. And then, this idealist in the leader position will try to achieve agreement with other nations because he does not believe in bullying, and his opponents gain more time to do what they want.”

 “And then?”

 “In the end, he will have to use force, but now, he will have to use much more force and he will hurt many more. He could have avoided that by using a little force to set things right in the beginning. Wanting to be politically correct and airing ideals of ‘let’s talk about it, let’s reach concession’ made him manipulable. So either barbarism wins or pragmatism.”

 “What about the ideals? Aren’t they worth living for?”

 “Meow, if pragmatism wins, with it, ideals will survive, even as some future goal. However, if the ideal wins in the short term, it is most likely that it will be its own terminator like the pacifistic ideals that allowed the barbaric nation to exterminate the community of pacifists.”

Reality shows versus spirituality

Sunday, October 11th, 2009

What’s so interesting in reality shows? What’s so interesting in watching a bunch of people doing nothing, just being mediocre? Is it a justification to be mediocre? To gain acceptance in one’s own eyes? “Hey, look, they are just like me, and they are on TV, so it’s OK to be a bum.” Like the great majority of scientific research done about uninteresting and unnecessary issues, such as comparing the nutritional value of organic and non-organic cucumbers and reaching the conclusion that both are cucumbers, reality shows confirm the boring obvious, without an iota of originality. Like most mainstream science, unoriginal hairsplitting gains the grants and of course, the researches funded by corporations as their marketing strategies. Of course, a cucumber is a cucumber, and of course, the research did not relate to the toxic effects of cucumbers drown in pesticides. No wonder that a system encouraging mediocrity will rarely produce real original science.

 

On the other end of the scale we have the comics complex where the omnipotent and omniscient hero after severe tribulations, succeeds to save the world in the last second. Gilgamesh, Oedipus and Beowulf have been exchanged with Batman and Rambos – the cheap versions of the Campbellian hero – seemingly creating the same kind of catharsis in the viewer. Modern spirituality, or rather, the self-help genre could be the derivative of this comics complex. It offers subjective Superman-like achievements in the spiritual dimension, not unlike the Catholic redemption offered through the sale of indulgences in the early 16th century. That of course does not mean that real spirituality no longer exists, only that you won’t find it on sale alongside with achieving enlightenment in three easy steps.

Is the Goldstone Report a politically correct way to say, “What a shame Hitler didn’t finish what he started?”

Wednesday, October 7th, 2009

The Goldstone report reminded me that many years ago I was sitting on the lawn with my dog, Lady. A small child came by with his mother and kicked Lady in the face. Lady squirmed and moved away. The child’s mother didn’t do anything. I asked her, what would she have done, if my dog bit the child as a reaction to having been kicked in the face? She said, I would kill the dog. Why not educate your child instead? I asked, the dog was sitting minding her business, your child attacked, so isn’t the dog entitled to defend herself? She said, no, if “it” did react, she would have killed the dog.

Why did the Goldstone Report remind me of this story? Because after Israel moved out of the Gaza strip and passed it over to the Palestinians, the Palestinians kept sending daily rockets to Shderot. And when Israel reacted in self defense, the Goldstone Report asserts that like Lady, Israel has no right to defend its school children from Palestinian rockets. Of course, Europe has great affinity with Zionist hater Islam that reverberates with its inherent thousand years old anti-Semitism. To this day, although much of Europe whispers, “what a shame Hitler didn’t finish what he started,” they do not state it loud and clear because it is not politically correct. Instead, they create a Goldstone Report, which says it loud and clear and in a politically correct fashion.