My too often nonsensical and forever unenlightened reflections on people and life and everything else I understand as well as I understand everything else. Not well at all, in other words. Love thy neighbor, is my motto. Unless something better comes along. Make sure to say so when you find it.
An analogy occurred to me, today, of how logic generally unravels in real life. Long after wiser heads have gotten hold of it. Like you and I. Knotheads or wise heads. Who knows. You tell me.
It's like a knot. Or an electrical cord. That you have to unravel to make any use of the original cord, or rope, or what not. To organize it. And keep it from getting all tangled again.
At first it's just tangled. And you don't know what to do, exactly. Except for do whatever to get it untangled.
But, eventually, either you understand the knot enough to get it untangled. Or you don't. And if you don't, it becomes quite apparent. To yourself, as much as to anyone else. Because you can't get the knot untangled. No matter how hard you try.
Life works much the same way, I think. Either you understand the knot or you don't. And if you don't, you won't ever be able to get the knot untangled. No matter how frustrated you are with the knot.
This little nugget o' nothin' I've learned from experience. Meaning, screwing it up plenty.
So does everyone, I'm sure. So I'm not saying anything new. And so will the political world, I'm sure. Just as we always have in the past.
In fact, it's becoming crystal clear to me, now, that this is how 99% of our wisdom has been unraveled. I'd say 100%. But then I'd be just too sure of my own.
Because not a damned soul, me especially, has gotten to where we're at with unchallengable genius, that's for sure. Except for Betty White. Who kills small children with her genius. And's got a mean muffin, I hear.
As honest a description of what's gone wrong with Iran as I've seen. And why noone has the courage to propose something better. Sleepwalking with Iran
"I can't figure out who is actually directing U.S. policy toward Iran, but what's striking (and depressing) about it is how utterly unimaginative it seems to be. Ever since last year's presidential election, the United States has been stuck with a policy that might be termed 'Bush-lite.' We continue to ramp up sanctions that most people know won't work, and we take steps that are likely to reinforce Iranian suspicions and strengthen the clerical regime's hold on power.
To succeed, a foreign-policy initiative needs to have a clear and achievable objective. The strategy also needs to be internally consistent, so that certain policy steps don't undermine others. The latter requirement is especially important when you are trying to unwind a 'spiral' of exaggerated hostility, which is the problem we face with Iran. Given the deep-seated animosity on both sides, any sign of inconsistency on our part will be viewed in the worst possible light by Iran. Indeed, a combination of friendly and threatening gestures may be worse than the latter alone because tentative acts of accommodation will be seen as a trick and will reinforce the idea that the other side is irredeemably deceitful and can never be trusted.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration's approach to Iran is neither feasible nor consistent. To begin with, our objective -- to persuade Iran to end all nuclear enrichment -- simply isn't achievable. Both the current government and the leaders of the opposition Green Movement are strongly committed to controlling the full nuclear fuel cycle, and the United States will never get the other major powers to impose the sort of 'crippling sanctions' it has been seeking for years now. It's not gonna happen folks, or at least not anytime soon.
We might be able to convince Iran not to develop actual nuclear weapons -- which its leaders claim they don't want to do and have said would be contrary to Islam. I don't know if they really believe this or if an agreement along these lines is possible. I do know that we haven't explored that possibility in any serious way. Instead, the Obama administration has been chasing an impossible dream.
Furthermore, the U.S. approach to Tehran is deeply inconsistent. Obama has made a big play of extending an 'open hand' to Tehran, and he reacted in a fairly measured way to the crackdown on the Greens last summer. But at the same time, the administration has been ratcheting up sanctions and engaging in very public attempt to strengthen security ties in the Gulf region. And earlier this week, we learned that Centcom commander General David Petraeus has authorized more extensive special operations in a number of countries in the region, almost certainly including covert activities in Iran.
Just imagine how this looks to the Iranian government. They may be paranoid, but sometimes paranoids have real (and powerful) enemies, and we are doing our best to look like one. How would we feel if some other country announced that it was infiltrating special operations forces into the United States, in order to gather intelligence, collect targeting information, or maybe even build networks of disgruntled Americans who wanted to overthrow our government or maybe just sabotage a few government installations? We'd definitely view it as a threat or even an act of war, and we'd certainly react harshly against whomever we thought was responsible. So when you wonder why oil- and gas-rich Iran might be interested in some sort of nuclear deterrent (even if only a latent capability), think about what you'd do if you were in their shoes...
...Why is U.S. policy stuck in this particular rut? In part because this is a hard problem; one doesn't unwind three decades of mutual suspicion by making a speech or two or sending a friendly holiday greeting, and sometimes success requires a lot of perseverance. But I think there are two other problems at work.
The first is the mindset that seems to have taken hold in the Obama administration. As near as I can tell, they believe Iran is dead set on acquiring nuclear weapons and that Iran will lie and cheat and prevaricate long enough to get across the nuclear threshold. Given that assumption, there isn't much point in trying to negotiate any sort of 'grand bargain' between Iran and the West, and especially not one that left them with an enrichment capability (even one under strict IAEA safeguards). This view may be correct, but if it is, then our effort to ratchet up sanctions is futile and just makes it more likely that other Iranians will blame us for their sufferings. Here I am in rare (if only partial) agreement with Tom Friedman: Maybe our focus ought to shift from our current obsession with Iran's nuclear program and focus on human rights issues instead (though it is harder for Washington to do that without looking pretty darn hypocritical).
A second explanation is some combination of inside-the-Beltway groupthink and ordinary bureaucratic conservatism. For anyone currently working in Washington, a hard line on Iran and defending our longstanding policy of confrontation is a very safe position to support. No one will accuse you of being a naive appeaser; you'll have plenty of bureaucratic allies, and you'll retain your reputation as a tough and reliable defender of U.S. interests.
By contrast, any government official who proposed taking the threat of force off the table, who publicly admitted that sanctions wouldn't work, who acknowledged that we probably can't stop Iran from getting the bomb if it really wants to, or who recommended a much more far-reaching effort at finding common ground would be taking a significant career risk. And you'd be virtually certain to get smeared by unrepentent neocons and other hawks who favor the use of military force. So there's little incentive for insiders to contemplate -- let alone propose -- a different approach to this issue, even though our current policy is looking more and more like the failed policies of the previous administration.
Although I obviously can't be certain, I don't think there will be an open war with Iran. I think that enough influential people realize just how much trouble this would cause us and that they will continue to resist calls for 'kinetic action.' (Of course, I also thought that about Iraq back in 2001, and look what happened there.) But U.S.-Iranian relations aren't going to improve much either, and we'll end up devoting more time and effort to this problem than it deserves. But who cares? It's not as if the United States has any other problems on its foreign-policy agenda, right?"
You know what occurred to me, this morning?
The irony of the current period is that what motivates so much of our policy, these days, in every arena, is the fear of being outdone by the bad guys. Being Al-Queda lite, as it were. And having the bad guys outdo us in the process.
But the reality is that as long as we go down this sad, failed, foolish path. We are Al-Queda lite. We are exactly what they say we are. We are the pussified version of Al-Queda, Kim Jong Il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe and the Chinese Communist leadership all wrapped up in one.
Our operating logic, right now, is the same. Get your way through fear. We're just bigger pussies than they are about getting our way.
All because we don't have the more honest courage to call bullshit on that operating logic.
It's the logic that operates under all of this. Always has. For everyone. Including Al-Queda.
Because the truth is that underneath all that bravado and macho posturing is the cowardice and fear of looking weak. Which, itself, is what real cowardice and weakness look like. Ask Adolph Hitler. The guy who lost WWII, by the way, if you're keeping count.
Real men don't strut. And they don't bully people to get their way. Real men give a shit about other people. Because it's the right thing to do, that's why.
Why is it that given a thorough understanding of human beings' capacity for destruction and self-destruction for no good reason at all, Twain chose to tell jokes?
Why would a man profoundly aware of the ugliest tendencies of human nature choose to laugh at them rather than cry for the poor bastards?
Because the punchline, which is funny as all hell, when you finally get the joke, as much as it ever was tragic, is that if they're not gonna stop, losers, they're not gonna stop.
And there's not a damn thing you can do about a species bound and determined to consume itself in its own foolish pride.
Except for laugh at the jackasses when they fall on their asses. And give 'em an idea and some hope to get back up, when they get around to wiping the snot off their noses and doing just that.
Damned shame, this human race. So much potential. So little to show for it.
It all began when Andrew Sullivan began talking sense again and moving away from the postmodern darkness.
First, Frankl lays bear the foolishness of the current political period.
Why Victor Frankl is the master. The one book my dad remembered from college, the last time I talked with him. And for good reason.
The cynics are wrong. And Victor explains well, here, and as ever single smidgeon of empirical evidence in the world should make perfectly clear to anyone with their eyes open, at this point.
This Harry Reasoner documentary has excellent observations about human nature.
Harry's right. Problem is group sainthood just is how all people operate, too often. All of us. Not just the hippies. In fact, the hippies did their bit to help move us more away from all that. Beams and splinters and all that. Without even a shred of doubt in our wisdom. The sign of true wisdom, apparently. Or perhaps vanity. Same as it ever was.
The cynicism is not only wrong. It makes things worse. As Victor well argues. Because without thinking of how we should be, we cannot be what we could be. Which is exactly what has happened in the last 10 years, in particular. But, really, is, tragically, so much of human history.
And our fate is more of the same. Until we choose differently. Until we choose to be better, for real. The only path to honest progress.
Everything else is a means of frustrating honest progress. For everyone involved.
I like the way Jack said it better, personally.
The path to progress, you wonder. Freedom or repression?
Mark Twain knew. John Stuart Mill did too. So did Lord Acton, Baron de Montesquieu, Voltaire, Mary Wolstonecraft and everyone else who made our free world possible.
Perhaps everyone else has outthunk them?
Perhaps that isn't vanity. Perhaps it's progress. Damn the stinkin' consequences.
Or, perhaps, as it turns out, you, too, are human. As subject to original sin, especially the deadliest of sins - pride - as anyone else. Perhaps there are no saints among us. Perhaps there really is noone without sin.
Perhaps that means you, too, Captain Infallible. Leaping human nature with a single line of bullshit.
It's a bird. It's a plane.
Awwww. It's just lovable old Grover.
And who doesn't love Grover?
Jesus Christ, that's who. And the liberal democratic world, apparently.
Liberal democracies. Hatin' on furry monsters since the dawn of furry monsters.
The best commentary on the news and politics I've ever heard, period.
I've listened to this song at least 20 times, now, on the way up from Wichita.
I made my peace with this song that if people do not want to stop the madness they do not have to. And as long as we all rationalize it, it will never go away. Ever.
Is there a goddamn thing discussed there I wouldn't teach?
Obviously not. Because it's all true, dagnabbit.
So why the political back and forth?
Because so many of us are crabby little children. Can't just have honest, thoughtful, respectful, discussions about politics. Even when there is zero real debate about anything we're debating.
Oh, and if the state board of education says that I have to teach something, is that the final word on any dang thing I teach?
Obviously not. The point of a liberal education, for anyone who managed to stay awake for it.
My conscience is the final word on everything I teach. Which is exactly as it should be. That's why we get a liberal education. For those who took it seriously.
After a conversation with a friend about perspective and the need for it in the sports and steroids debates, it occurs to me.
That the same is true for all of it.
Every last bit of it.
We are a fucking mess. Humanity. Constantly bickering about every damn thing like somehow our opinions are more infallible than they could ever possibly be. Myself included. Big index finger pointing right in my own direction, right now.
Go watch some baseball, this summer. Stop taking your opinions so seriously, goofball.
I'm talking to myself, there. I do it often. The neighbors are beginning to talk.
I spend a lot of time talking with the kids about how decency and honesty pay.
But the truth is that it's not the incentives, and certainly not the punishments, that keep us honest.
A certain Nazarene comes to mind.
Same as it's always been.
Some people are just willing to do what it takes to love thy neighbor, to do good and to be more honest, despite the incentives and punishments otherwise.
And that's what keeps us honest. And always will.
And all of us know that deep in our hearts. No matter how cynical we get.
Private business owners should be able to discriminate against serving or hiring people they don't want to serve or hire. Even if I believe with all my heart and soul that they shouldn't. And not only should they have the right to do it. They do it now, as Rand points out. Law or no law.
You want to turn away paying or better qualified folks out of your stubborn ignorance, Einstein, have at it.
No paying or qualified or even unqualified person of color has a single itsy-bitsy smidgeon to fear from you. Not just because who wants to do business or work for someone who would think like this. But because how in the world could such a person maintain a healthy, reliable, worthy business, at all, long term?
They couldn't is the answer. Bigots might find ways to keep their doors open. But, long term, in a world that recognizes the stupidity of such a notion, they will most assuredly be swallowed up in the great marketplace of common sense.
Civil rights progress occurred with a change in hearts and minds of people, as King argued well, in leadership of that movement. White, black, and all the rest. Not a fact of law. The law was needed for things legal, like voting rights and discrimination by government entities (by the government entity with honest jurisdiction).
The law was the single most oppressive fact in the lives of African Americans in American history. A fact that is patently clear when the left decides to get honest about anything, these days.
The law kept black people in chains. The law kept black people from reading. The law kept black people from owning property. The law kept black people from making a living freely in the world. The law kept black people from voting. The law kept public facilities separate but equal. And the law was what protected anything an ugly majority wanted. Same as it ever was.
And it is that same law that progressives have decided is the Great White Hope today.
The real progress we have made in America and around the world on matters of race has occurred, largely, as a matter of change in hearts and minds.
And most people, and most white people, in particular, since they are still a statistical majority in America, but black folks and brown folks and all folks of all sorts of colors and creeds, will agree, when Rand starts making that argument more plain.
On this issue, I think more people identify with Rand's dilemna than Rachel likely realizes.
And Rand is right about the politics, as well. Painting government regulation of racist speech or behavior, like painting gay marriage, as extreme is dirty politics. It's not honest discussion. Especially when the right side of the question is being bullied.
It's the reason why folks like Rand Paul who try to engage politics more honestly deserve more respect than bullies like Rachel Maddow. Who still deserve to be able to get married. No matter what bullies to her right have to say about the matter.
Americans will likely identify with Rand more than Rachel, on this question. Many Americans may feel that gay marriage is extreme, as well. But, over time, that will not be the case. Because giving people the right to marry who they choose it is the right thing to do.
And the heart of this debate between Rachel and Rand is:
Do Americans (and most people) change for the better because the law tells them so? Or because it's the right thing to do?
Not only is Rand right on the merits of this question.
It's good politics, if he thinks about it for a second.
Because most Americans likely identify with Rand's argument, here. At a personal level. Black folks, too. Even if they, similarly, would be sheepish to articulate it so.
Leftwing and rightwing bullies will lose these battles. Just as religious and imperial bullies lost similar battles over the long term of human history. No matter how many people they murdered and intimidated in their wake.
Because they're wrong about humanity, that's why.
"...all experience hath shewn," as Jefferson wrote, "that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
Cynics thought these words would fail to move a nation, too. But, they were wrong. And that eventually proved to be the case. Because people got tired of being bullied otherwise.
And more Americans are like Rand, tired of being bullied on these matters, than Rachel or most bullies on the right and left appreciate.
Lord Acton was right. And so was Twain.
And there's not a damn thing that bullies on the left or right can do about. They won't even be able to bully, long term.
Because, eventually, no one will trust them, at all.
No matter how they try to bully and spin otherwise.
The more activists, journalists, and people in government frantically try to prove just how important they are to every issue they get they get their egos wrapped up in.
And the more they fail, repeatedly, without end, to actually resolve any of those issues.
The more they demonstrate just how irrelevant they are to the lives of most people.
And the less people trust or turn to them to resolve those issues.
And the sad thing is that there are a few things that government really is necessary to address because no other institution literally can address those issues as well. Criminal justice and national security, in particular.
It's ironic, isn't it?
They buzz around like busy little bees. Loudly proclaiming just how important they all really are. And they fail, again and again and again, to do any of the jobs they set before themselves.
And all the rest of the country can conclude, rightly, is just how unimportant they are to most things of importance.
Ego. Big fat, insatiable ego.
I know. I know what comes immediately to mind. Joe Biden. It's true. But it's all the rest of them, too. Believe me.
And all for naught.
Because all Americans can do is look at this enormous and ridiculous spectacle - governing officials taking on every issue that tickles their fancy and failing to really resolving any of them - and come to the quite logical conclusion that these fools can't be trusted to do a damned thing of any import.
Even if most Americans had no clue that was the logical conclusion when they started.
Your English teacher was right, killer. Irony. The world is full of it. It's full of something.
"Eventually, 200 people joined the group, organizing activities 35 times between 2007and 2009, Yao quoted his client as saying. Ma himself participated in 18 sessions. Members decided on their own where to meet, Yao said. Among the 14 men and eight women arrested were white-collar workers, taxi drivers and salesclerks.
His trial highlights the vast social changes that China has undergone in the decades since it embraced economic reform. 'Sex liberation stymied by law,' trumpeted a front-page article in the official China Daily, which ran an in-depth piece that questioned whether China's laws on sexual behavior are lagging behind the times.
Chinese attitudes toward sex have changed dramatically during the last 20 years, said sociologist Li Yinhe, China's most prominent sex expert. Even a generation ago, holding hands and kissing in public were virtually unheard of. These days, studies indicate that 60 to 70 percent of Chinese have had sex before marriage, up from 15 percent in 1989.
'In the past, any sex activity outside marriage was unacceptable among people and could be punished,' said Li, a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
China used the so-called charge of 'hooliganism,' a catchall term that criminalized everything from premarital sex to dancing with members of the other sex and listening to Western music. During the early 1980s, a woman was sentenced to death for participating in secret dance parties, according to the China Daily.
But with rising prosperity and an easing of government controls on personal freedoms, China has shifted toward a more progressive view on sex, though attitudes remain much more traditional in the countryside than in urban centers. Sex motels cater to college students who rent by the hour, pornography is widely available on the Internet, and radio and TV shows devoted to sex advice are highly popular.
Even public views on the once-taboo topic of homosexuality have changed, Li said. Sodomy was decriminalized in 1997, while a survey she conducted two years ago found that 91 percent of people believe gays should not face discrimination in the workplace.
The immense growth of the Internet in China has played a factor in giving niche groups a space to operate, she said. The largest online site about group sex, Happy Village, has more than 380,000 registered members.
When Ma's case surfaced publicly, Li, along with other social commentators and academics, came to his defense. Though 'partner-swapping' is against social norms, 'just violating social convention isn't violating the law. As long as activities don't harm anyone else, one has a right to participate in them,' she wrote in one blog post.
A prominent campaigner for sexual rights, Li even drafted a proposal to scrap the crime at the March session of the National People's Congress. It was submitted but no action was taken.
'Most people don't like Ma's activities. But most people also believe Ma should not be sentenced. People are more tolerant and they think that the authorities should not interfere in such things as long as it's not against someone's will,' she said.
Ma has received some public backing. An online survey taken by Phoenix TV showed that 70 percent of 2,000 respondents believe he should be acquitted. A 2006 survey by the Institute on Sexuality and Gender showed that 40 percent of 6,000 respondents believed group sex should not be a crime, while most of the remainder felt it was immoral but that the penalties should not be so severe.
Even some of Ma's students have weighed in, posting their support on the popular Internet forum Tianya.
'We support him,' wrote one student who identified himself as David. 'How about those corrupt officials who secretly have mistresses? There are so many other issues in people's lives. Why don't (government officials) solve those instead of dwelling on this case?'
But others have been equally scathing in their criticism of what they view as a shocking crime. Group sex 'should face a crackdown with a heavy hand. This case proves the law was necessary,' wrote the Jiangsu Legal News, a Nanjing-based newspaper.
Regardless of the outcome, Yao said the case has challenged the government in highlighting the importance of individual privacy.
'I think because of this trial, many more people will realize the privacy issue. The case is about the government's intervention in privacy. It's about the protection of citizens' rights. People have the freedom to decide what to do with their body,' Yao said."
Progress does not mean you're right all the time, genius.
That's the opposite of progress. Otherwise known as willfull ignorance.
Think about it, professor. It's a logical impossibility.
Bullshit comes in all flavors and varieties. But it still stinks when you put in a cone.
Someone might want to tell the guys with the scoops.
"The other day, upholding the sacking of a black Christian for declining to provide 'sex therapy lessons' to gay couples, Lord Justice Laws ruled that 'law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds is irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary.' Actually it’s the law of Lord Justice Laws that is increasingly 'irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary.' Or as George Orwell, in Animal Farm, formulated it: all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. In the land of Laws, a gay is more equal than a Christian. A Muslim is more equal than anybody. A black man is more equal than a white man, unless the white man is gay and the black man a Christian. An eco-zealot is more equal than an Anglican. Not long before Lord Justice Laws’ decision on the 'irrationality' of legal protection for Christianity, Tim Nicholson, a 'Head of Sustainability' fired for questioning his property management group’s environmental policies, sued for wrongful dismissal under 'Employment Equality (Religion And Beliefs) Regulations.' He wound up with the best part of one hundred thousand pounds after Mr. Justice Burton ruled that Mr. Nicholson’s faith in anthropogenic global warming was a 'philosophical belief' on a par with religion. So the Employment Equality (Religion And Beliefs) Law protects belief in apocalyptic 'climate change' but not in Jesus...
...As for Muslims, in December Tohseef Shah sprayed the words 'KILL GORDON BROWN,' 'OSAMA IS ON HIS WAY' and 'ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD' on the war memorial at Burton-upon-Trent. But the Crown Prosecution Service decided his words were not 'religiously motivated.' Phew! Thank goodness for that, eh? So a week or so back he walked out of court a free man, except for £500 in compensation to the municipal council for cleaning off his non-religiously motivated 'ISLAM WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD' graffito.
I am currently slogging my way through a rather stodgy 650-page tome called Extreme Speech And Democracy. On the back is a question from Christopher McCrudden, professor of human rights law at Oxford: 'What are the appropriate limits to freedom of expression in societies that wish to be democratic, multicultural, and committed to the human rights of all?'
Whether or not you regard that as a legitimate query, it’s certainly an irrelevant one. Because whatever you decide are the 'appropriate' limits, by the time they percolate down to the transgendered liaison officer patrolling Workington shopping centre they’ll be reliably inappropriate. As I always point out in retailing the latest idiocy from Canada’s 'human rights' fanatics, none of the above are 'right-wing' in any sense that Steyn or Rumsfeld or Cheney would recognize the term. Mrs. Duffy is a lifelong Labour voter; Mr. Newman is one of those pox-on-all-their-houses types; the property company that fired Mr. Nicholson is so wretchedly politically correct it employed him as 'Head of Sustainability,' a title of near parodic bogusness. Yet all fell afoul of Lord Justice Laws’ 'irrational, divisive, capricious, arbitrary' laws. Because it’s hard not to. Because once you establish the principle that the state has the right to police ideas, sooner or later one of yours will catch their eye. I say 'principle,' but that’s not really the word. The spirit is more aptly caught by a new joint initiative by the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission, the Manitoba 'Human Rights' Commission and the Treaty Relations Commission of Manitoba to “promote and enhance the learning experience relative to human and treaty rights for all people living in Canada and around the world.' No idea what that means, but, as the CHRC press release says, this is the first time that these three useless taxpayer-funded sinecures have come together to 'further their cause.' Since when do government agencies have ideological 'causes'? And what happens if you disagree with their 'cause'?
As for the 'balancing act' that Professor McCrudden urges between individual rights and broader responsibilities, only a truly free people have the incentive even to seek it. The more you haul nobodies off to the cells for putting up a poster or quoting the Bible, the more a timid conformist populace will keep its head down, mind its own business, and avoid broader social engagement—or at any rate non-alcohol-fuelled engagement. Big Government is dismantling civic identity, and the slow-burn bonfire of liberties in Europe and North America will eventually consume us all."
He's right. The home of the brave, and really the homes of all free peoples, has been cowered into the home of the timid and their frightened little schoolyard bullies.
Fuck that shit, I say.
These colors don't run, bitch. Find somebody else to push around, dicks.
The Missouri Legislature lived up to its well-earned reputation of a regular gathering of notorious jackasses, recently, renaming a stretch of Mark McGwire Highway to Mark Twain Highway.
Mark Twain would get a hearty laugh, I'm sure.
Jim Caple says it better than I could in his column ways back in March about the plan.
"You don't know about me without you have driven on a road by the name the Mark McGwire Highway in St. Louis; but that ain't no matter anymore, on account the Missouri Senate voted to rename it for Mr. Mark Twain this week. They had been talking about this ever since the book "Juiced'' was made by Jose Canseco. He told the truth mainly, but there were some stretchers in his book, like him and me taking a dead cat to the graveyard and running off to be Pittsburgh Pirates and injecting syringes full of steroids into each other in a cave. But that is nothing. I never seen anybody but lied one time or another, without it was Ozzie Guillen.
Anyways, the Missouri legislature named that piece of highway for me after I hit 70 big taters to break the record of 61 made by Roger Maris many years before. When I done it, reporters from all over the country took to following me around from city to city like I was the lost dauphin of France, writing stories about me being almost a god out of scripture just cuz of how I hit so many round-trippers and all. They said my circuit clouts practically saved the game, what with all the fans who been turned off before by the players' affair and the commissioner canceling the 1994 World Series and Ken Burns "Baseball'' series. The way everyone went on, it was like going to your own funeral and standing in the back of the church listening to folks who was no relation all praying and sobbing about what a wonderful soul you was and how lucky they was to have knowed you and how you made everyone everywhere happier. Not that no one could attend their own funeral, without signing with the Pirates.
The thing is, I pretty much whitewashed them all, the reporters and the fans and everybody. I was taking steroids -- just to keep healthy, mind -- but no one never cared a bit at the time. They seen how big me and my acne was and knowed I took androstenedione, but they didn't mind none. All they wanted to talk about was all them round-trippers. Fooling them was easier than an owner getting taxpayers to pay him to build him his own stadium by fibbing how it will create jobs.
Only one day, they all turned against me. All of a sudden, they decided steroids was bad and I was going to hell or jail or Kansas City for taking them. I don't know why; maybe it was the Widow Douglas stirring them up or the U.S. Congress subpoenaing me to testify. All I know is all them people who went on and on about me saving the game in 1998 when they must have knowed I took steroids now said I done ruined it. Well, I was blindsided. It was like afloating on the river, bound for Cooperstown and enjoying a smoke on a corncob pipe and watching the stars in the heavens with your best friend all peaceful like and then having a steamboat run you over and smash up your boat and leave you for dead on the river bank. Or like being a Cubs fan.
Well, I snuck off and lived alone on an island and didn't talk to no one for awhile, not even Congress. I was practically a hermit, sort of like Milton Bradley. But now I am back in baseball with my old manager, Skipper Tony, learning his Cardinals how to hit. But I will take a blood oath (which is different than a blood test) that I won't have nothing to do with those steroids anymore. I learnt my lesson. I just think maybe I can give something back to baseball after all it gived me. And maybe I can make people remember that I wasn't such a bad egg after all. That I was friendly and helped kids and made people feel happy and hit 49 home runs as a rookie before I was on the juice.
I certainly ain't doin' this for the money. Thanks to all them taters I hit, I got more money than a body could tell what to do with, lessun he had a vengeful ex-wife and bad judgment, which was definitely the case with Canseco. That is why he wound up doing time in jail and appearing on reality shows. I don't know which was worse, though if I had to guess I would say boxing one of the ex-"Partridge Family" kids is about as low as a player can sink. Without it was ratting on your teammates in a book.
I also hope the state House votes to not change the highway name. It seems to me that if you name a road for someone, you shouldn't a go and change it without he does something real low down and despicable. I mean, Pete Rose still has a street named after him but that's a story for another book entirely."
The Missouri Legislature has obviously never read any Mark Twain. The man's whole life was dedicated to getting people to accept themselves for their failures, not rub their noses in it.
It's like having a Stone a Prostitute Fundraiser for Jesus. It makes no goddamn sense. Except to anybody with no goddamn sense.
The Missouri Legislature should consider changing the name of the Three Stooges Highway to the Missouri Legislature Highway. It's a more appropriate switch.
And would better acknowledge the Legislature's appreciation for the legacy of their favorite son. Both of them.
And the ever shortening distance between their heads and their posteriors.
This is what progress looks like. No matter what your grandma told you.
Homeboys Industries make the American press corps look like the Special Olympics.
And it facilitates responsibility and is real progress in a way that no ideology or political party or religious affiliation or any other group even comes close to demonstrating.
The heart of it:
Compassion. With a big C, motherfucker.
The only road to honest courage. You big sissy.
And those who tell you otherwise are liars, liars, pants on fire.
I just have to share this because I've enjoyed the shit out of this ad. And it's sparked a lot of interesting class discussion.
The campaign is all kinds of crazy consumerism. But it's a good time and sweet as all shit, you gotta admit. The future is gangster, baby.
Jesus, as I remember, talked about loving everyone. Not just the poor. Or the rich. Or the saints. Or the sinners. And he certainly didn't say a damn thing about jailing, or threatening, or shaming everyone in sight. In fact, I'm pretty sure his message was about loving people and not casting stones.
Do you got what it takes to take responsibility and love thy neighbor?
If not, perhaps you can just enjoy the tight beats.
Maybe drink with your pinkie up, every once in awhile, like the rest of my crew.
"In moments when we are presented with a sore provocation, the temptation is to respond with unrestrained fury. But wanton indulgence of anger usually ends up compounding foolishness with lunacy.
You can fight fire with fire. As a rule, though, it's better to use water."
If stupidity was dollar bills, America, and the world, be rich, bi-atch.
It's finally occurred to me, deep in my bones, that there really is no other endgame for democratic politics than a liberalized future. Meaning a future of greater liberty.
The major empires of the world tried exactly the kind of logic that both major parties and ideologies have taken in the last 10 years. The logic of might makes right. And the infinite manipulations around that and trying to look like that is not what they are doing.
And the consequences became so tragic and obvious, that they simply could not continue down the same path. The rise of Hitler and Stalin being the most obvious. And Communist imperlialism and the ugly rationalizations of power geopolitics being the longer term tragic consequence.
And the illiberal policies, of the right and left, in the last decade, and every player in the circles of power, will suffer the same fate. Without question, at some point. With a world of unnecessary tragedy, all in the name of fruitless ego, as a consequence.
The most enduring principle in politics, as in life. What comes around goes around. And all assholes get their due.
And, after a time, people get tired of what's coming around.
The real question that all of us need to ask ourselves is, "Will I be proud of my behavior and my contributions, when that day comes?"
Because whether we will or we will not, the world will become freer right underneath our noses, as George Orwell intimated.
And there's not a damn thing to be done to control it otherwise.
If you are not familiar with Homeboy Industries, get to know them, homey.
Father Greg Boyle's successful efforts to help former gang members turn their lives around are a light for all of us who live our lives in darkness. Homeboys Industries
And what real progress looks like.
Note to the small-hearted. You are wrong, gangster.
This kind of compassion is what real progress looks like.
Whether you have the courage to acknowledge that or not.
"There are millions of parents out there who don’t have enough money for private school but who have thought just as sensibly and care just as much about their children’s education as affluent people do. Let’s use the money we are already spending on education in a way that gives those parents the same kind of choice that wealthy people, liberal and conservative alike, exercise right now. That should be the beginning and the end of the argument for school choice."
This has always been the essence of this debate, for me. As a child from a poor family, I have always loathed the snottiness of educated and not-so-educated members of various elites and parties who could not fundamentally respect my choices and the choices that families like mine would make because of some arrogant certainty that they knew better. Because they said so, that's why.
It's not only unwarranted. The older I get, the more I recognize the pretense of it. Generally, meant to serve the interests of the same snots.
School choice is a good idea because peoples' choices, especially in the most intimate and important matters in their lives, should be respected. Period.
Here's the Cliff's Notes version, by my lights, of the stakes for the humanity in this current political era:
Was Hitler right or not?
Is humanity largely a mass of sheep easily and necessarily cowered by intimidation of a leader powerful enough to cower them?
Or are people generally worthy of our faith, capable of learning from mistakes, capable of working with one another reasonably with genuine respect and appreciation for differences and disagreements, which serve to enhance their options for better thinking and action, and best served by a government that fundamentally respects their freedom?
What we all need to do is to find the courage to answer that question honestly, without excuses for our cowardice.
I am without a shadow of a doubt confident about what my answer to that question is.
Do you realize what a big statement this is to everyone in Arizona about how seriously they should take that bullshit law? And the kind of loyalty that these guys have for one another?
Never underestimate the power of principled badasses from underdog schools. And teams from gorgeous southwestern cities.
Because they will smoke your spurs long before you realize that you are fucking toast.
Note to the smallhearted:
This is what courage looks like. When you get done pretending that you have it, you might consider actually demonstrating some.
Arizona always treated me well. And folks like Steve, the big-hearted folks, were the ones that made that happen.
I think I just found my NBA team. Can't do worse than my Royals.
Though, like everyone I love, I'm loyal to them, too.
In an age, like all ages, when compassion has become a dirty word. These folks help us clean up that legacy.
Jesus 101. For those who take his message, and the principles of all major religious traditions, more seriously than their egos. It was his signature message, when those who lack his courage and strength, take a moment to consider the beams they carry.
Did you here them take responsibility for their failures? Refreshing change of pace, huh?
Note the contrast with the current era. In every walk of life.
That's what real progress looks like. No matter the protestations of those with less love in their hearts.
When bullies remind you that they could be bullying you much worse, if they pleased, on any issue that they see fit, remind them, nicely, to go fuck themselves. Because that is exactly how bullies and illiberalism have functioned since the beginning of time and the world over. The Iranian mullahs have made it into a theology. As did our own Judeo-Christian adventures in illiberalism. And virturally every culture has tried the same since the beginning of organized human existence.
And we left those ways behind for a reason.
Freedom and compassion are and always have been the values that make us great. They are what distinguish us from our illiberal past and illiberal cultures the world over.
It is our freedom and compassion and a wiser, more courageous notion of human nature that liberal values offer that make us stronger and better as people.
What we are doing today is what we have been doing since the beginning of humanity.
Choosing between our more honest and compassionate strength and our more self-centered and petty-minded weakness.
Wanna know a secret?
There is no such thing as too liberal. Or too free. Or too compassionate. Or any of the rest.
There is only a thoughtful, more decent, and honest application of these values and our missteps and failures. That's it. The rest is excuses by the less thoughtful and decent among us to excuse their own cowardice and much more profound failures of humanity.
Obviously, we need policies that make sure that we cannot hurt one another with impunity. And policies that constructively facilitate genuine responsibility when we do hurt one another. And contain those, in the meantime, who are honestly dangerous to others.
There is no world where more recrimination, aggression, punitiveness, and mean-spiritedness makes the world better. Never has been. Never will be. No matter our protestations to the contrary.
And the places where despotism and terrorism fester should be evidence enough for that conclusion.
America was conceived so that legacy could be thrown off for good. There is no reason we should be treating that logic like it is our birthright when, in fact, it was the very past we were casting off to offer something better.
Something freer. Something more decent.
Something to make us genuinely proud to bear that name American.
