Cindy Sheehan

Well, I sometimes read the websites, and today was an interesting one. Cindy Sheehan, considered the "face of the anti-war movement", has resigned from the Democratic Party. Funny things, she seems, along with many other people, to think that the Party should act as though they had been voted into the majority because the people wanted an end to the war. I don't know why she or anyone would thing such a thing- unless it was because that was what happened after they campaigned as the Only Solution To This Mess.

Certainly, it was not based on their record. Let us review a few "high" points:

Voted to give Bush War Powers.
Repeatedly voted to fund the war despite not having an accounting of where the last enormous sums of money went.
Some sat on the secret panel overseeing the NSA wiretapping of citizens.
Ran Kerry as a hawkish presidential candidate.
Voted overwhelmingly for the Millitary Commissions Act of 2006.
Non-binding resolution.
Maleable "conditions" attached to the budget.
Dropping any timetables.

This brings us up to date. I skipped a lot here- this is all just top-of-the-head stuff.

So, Ms Sheehan got fed up. Now she is being villified as an "attention whore", among other slurs, by the very people who counted on her presence to bring attention to their cause. Only their cause was not her cause, and she finally caught on to that. Her cause is justice- though she, as many, looked to the wrong Party to gain any of that. Their cause is The Party- a capitalist party to the war. Their idea of goals? Making sure Iraqi oil fields are opened to US companies for exploitation. Her idea of goals? Stopping this war.

One mother who wanted answers- Why did my son die?

A worthy question. Deserving of an answer.

Haiku of frustration

The pain in my ass.....
Why do I talk to these dense
Libertarians?

Seriously. I know it's good to get out and encounter different views- in some cases so as to refine your own views, in some cases in the interest of "know thine enemy", in some cases just for the sake of getting out for human contact. But, really, now. I have to wonder why I do this to myself, this trying to engage in reasoned argument or debate with some people is truly futile. Possibly they work for the aspirin company and are paid a hefty wage as Headache Farmers.

Brief History of Disbelief (2004)

I watched the three-part series by Jonathan Miller recently. Most of it was enjoyable, all of it made me realise I still have a lot of reading to do. (Hobbes, many of the Greek philosophers, etc.)Excitement built as he neared the atheism of the Russian Revolution, only to be deflated as all of three minutes (if that) was spent in (again, as usual) perpetuating the lie that Stalinism equated with communism (which is, of course, taken as an equation with socialism). I do not suppose I should have expected much, but given the intelligence and diligence of the rest of the programme, I did. This was, though a rather large letdown, the only one.

Setting that aside, the series was quite good, including brief interviews with such people as Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Arthur Miller, and many others- philosophers, scientists, and lay people. Jonathan Miller traced atheistic thought back to the afore-mentioned ancient Greek philosophers (Epicure among them), and did a good job of parelleling the history of disbelief with that of belief, as well as the story of his own atheism. It seems that throughout the ages, philosophers of various bents have recognised religion for what it is- (wait for it) the opium of the masses.

Speaking of which, the actor (Bernard Hill) they had voicing the quotes of such luminaries as Homer, Freud, and Thomas Paine, did an excellent reading of the entire paragraph wherein "the opium of the masses" first appeared.

This is a flawed piece, but it is a good start on the subject.

How things sneek into books and some other stuff

I was delighted a few years back to be reading one of the Series of Unfortunate Events books by Lemony Snicket and coming across a section wherein the pre-verbal Baudelaire child, Sunny, is heard to exclaim "Bushcheney", which is interpreted as "a person who is very bad and intentionally so" (to paraphrase, as the book is packed away). Last night I finished Peter Corris' The Coast Road, in which private investigator Cliff Hardy muses on the war in Iraq and the lies which brought it about (while being shot at, clubbed a few times, and otherwise endangered. He's a man's man, you know, but also a thinking man's man).

Evidence of thinking is very encouraging sometimes.

Speaking of thinking- I was nominated by Edie of Annotated Life for a Thinking Blog Award. Thanks, eh?!

So- here are the rules,

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to *****5 blogs***** that make you think,
2. Link to The Thinking Blog explanation so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme,
3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote.


I have to say that I don't read a lot of blogs, still being new, and all, but the ones I do are:

Lloyd of DaddyLloyd . This is his "serious" blog. His other blog, which I also like, is not as serious, and downright funny. This one, though, is very personal. He's a Canadian stay at home dad, and has been amusing me for years in other places around the web (Canadian World Domination, rest in peace!). Admirable, stand-up fellow (who also does stand-up).

I am going to have to send this one back in Edie's direction- to Annotated Life. She's the one who got me into this whole blogging thing. Why? Because I could see that intelligent thought existed, and was wonderfully articulated. Thanks for the encouragement, thanks for the shedding of the light on Socialist Subjects.

Let us call her "Itty". She makes me think. Returning to art school post-baby-bearing, and showing excellent progress. A frustrated artist reloaded. We seldom agree on anything, but darn it, the woman can draw.

So....The next is a repeat from Edie's list, really, as I am travelling in similar circles.... Which may or may not remove me from the actual awarding, but hey, it was an honour to be nominated.

Pictures, Analysis, and Art, by Scott. He knows when to caption, how much, and when not to. Not an easy line, but he's always on the best side of it. I was very happy to finally find his spot.

TEXT And here we have a blank space...I will claim my award when I actually have read enough of a fifth blog to qualify. I mean no disrespect, I just need to stay in more with the computer, right?

------
I watched the first part of A Brief History of Disbelief today. It reminds me that I have to read a lot more books. But it was also comforting. Eventualy I'll write out my own story of coming to atheism. The word, "atheism", is one about which I agree with the presenter of the show in that it is an inadequate word for the state of disbelief or godlessness. It defines in a negative, when I feel quite complete without believing in god, and felt weird while trying to believe. We need a new word here.

The most comforting parts of it were the snippetts of "man on the street" interviews with people who said (presumably in answer to the question, "Do you believe in God?") "No." I paraphrase, of course and again- the variety of reasons given were straightforward, though. I am thinking that the reason this was the most comforting part is that, no matter how many Wise Men and Women of History share your view, it's always nice to know that you are not alone in the general populace right now.

Being an atheist and non-famous is a bit more difficult than being a famous atheist- you have no fame to fall back on when people suddenly do not love you because of your Heathen Ways. You are not insulated from the effects of real life coming down on you because you lose your job or have been beaten up for your "lack" of faith. Your voice does not carry the Authority of Fame- "What do you know? What have *you* ever done?" I suppose, in more extreme times and places, your disappearance would not be as noticed as, say, John Lennon's, or Richard Dawkins'. It can be lonely and a bit frightening- should I tell *this* person? What about *them*? It's ridiculous to have to weigh such things so seriously, yet here we are.

So, anonymous atheists on the street of all ages, we are not alone. Of *that* much we have proof. More than (ahem) some people can say.

Prayer Surge Part Two

I do not only blog, o, no, I also take part in a variety of forums (by variety, I mean three). I posted the article about the Prayer Surge at two of them, and the replies were largely positive. To the idea of praying, that is. Well, a lot of people pray, we all know that, but I wondered for a couple of days if I was just a weirdo for being annoyed/angered by the very idea. I held off of posting about it on one particular forum for a while, but finally could not stand it any more and so....

I am trying to decide what bothers me most about this so as to compose a coherent reply to the majority (overwhelming) saying that "It couldn't hurt" and "Well, obviously humans are doing a *great* job solving the problem". I think that the very idea is just absurd, of course, but I should be used to the absurd, so why am I so angry about it this time? I mean, really, roll-my-eyes-and-gnash-my-teeth angry.

Maybe it has to do with people dying and the obscenity of praying for the safety of the very people these Praying Soldiers are there to bomb, shoot, and make disappear. Maybe it's the over 3,000 dead US soldiers and how young the vast majority of them were (most younger than me, most young enough to have been a child of mine) and how they were trained (badly) to shoot people before themselves being blown up or shot or however they died too young and for a lie.

Maybe it's the prayer itself and the blindness of people not seeing that when they say "Confuse the wicked, O Lord, confound their speech. . . . Destructive forces are at work in the city; threats and lies never leave its streets," they could well be taliking about the wicked who lied and got us into this mess, them into this mess, that *they* are now the destructive forces at work in the city, and that further threats and lies are forthcoming every time I open the paper.

A combination? Is this just a straw too heavy on top of so many other bales?

------

So, that's what I wrote, and still there is the feeling that I am sort of alone on this one. Well, at least one person objected, let history show.