Peace music

The former post was about cultural differences.  This post is about things that bind us.     Parallel to the saying that religions divide people, whereas spirituality unites people:   Some feel that politics divides, and culture (f.i. music) unites.   (Also see the explanation in the movie ‘I am legend’ about Bob Marley’s view to inject positivism into the world by means of music.)

Which is why I’ll post the two currently popular summerhits in this minuscule country.   One Dutch/Flemish, one French/Walloon.   After today, enough talks and rants about politics for at least a month.

A bitch called Kharma

Agreeing with your friend’s dimwitted plan to perform an utterly useless stunt -> 10 good Kharma credits

Agreeing with your other friends to lay down in third or fourth position -> 5 good Kharma credits

Realizing way too late that the wannabe stuntman is overweight and the ramp is laughably insufficient ->  2 tons of Bad Kharma from last three years of screwing up without thinking, about to be unloaded on subject

Pondering dilemma’s as a hobby

Firearms in the house.  It’s one of the many dilemma’s that life presents us with. 

If you decide to pack heat, you will have a better chance at defending yourself, in case you detect an armed burglar inside the premises.

However, chances on a gun-related accident happening in your household are even higher than your chance on catching a burglar red handed whilst being able to use the firearm for your protection.

But if you don’t get some firepower, you will be completely defenseless, in case of a catastrophe, involving riots and/or civil war.   After all, violence is a social reality to take into account.   Disasters at some point will happen, sometimes with devastating consequences for organized society.   And there seem to be more illegal guns on the streets, especially with the complete lack of border control on the European mainland.  And with the criminal activities of the less than law abiding part of immigrants.    (I still assume that’s a minority among the immigrants.)

If you have a firearm around the house though, there’s a distinct possibility that it will someday be used unnecessarily, in a situation that might have been resolved differently.   Perhaps by your kids.  (Wouldn’t be the first kid to take a gun to school to settle an irrationally escalated conflict.)

Abiding gun safety rules can provide a safe path between the abyss on the right hand side, and the swamp on the left hand side.  But then again people are fallible.   

And on a larger scale, higher popularity of firearms, would result in an increased death-rate.   (Or would they ?  There are probably statistics to be found for just about any possible hypothesis.)

…  when all is said and done, I personally tend to think – in the light of Darwin’s theory of evolution – it’s wise to adapt to an environment that shows signs of more violence.

(Found a virtually non related but funny cartoon: )

Busy day

4 hours of training, after regular job hours.  Excel finance…

Man, that software has so many levels and possibilities.   Way passed the boring formatting options, and the standard formula’s, and the ‘advanced excel options for autistic nerds with a sexlife’… and way more interesting than the mythical Excel flight simulator, hidden in there somewhere. 

There’s even an interactive ’10-dimensions’ simulator.  So you can surf a graviton-wave in 10 D while riding a cyborg whale that can’t shut up about superbowl statistics.     And then there’s that crazy macro in cell XXZ4400 , that is activated when you type in blasphemy, and then sends a bolt of lightning through the mouse.   And the ’V-look up undisclosed FBI files’ formula is pretty interesting stuff too.  I didn’t know Jim Morrisson was the 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll and that the original lyrics to the song were ‘This is the end, … Kennedy’    Nor that Dr. Phil is a residivist cannibal who is wanted in 34 states.

Or maybe I dozed off and dreamt some of it, I’m not sure.

Edge of Darkness

Entertaining and exhilarating movie about a subject that might seem thoroughly worn out: that of a father avenging the murder of his child.  Especially questionable in the midst of a setting that has equally been explored to the point of exhaustion: the powercrazy government officials, in a corrupt bed together with an obscure political campaignsupporting firm, bent on financial gain, averse to any moral consideration.

But this movie quickly finds new and creative ways, to make both the story and the background work.  The bad guys underestimate the fact that the avenging angel happens to be a policeman (and a combat veteran), with access to a much better class of means, resources, contacts and experiences than the average citizen.  (Who, in real life in such circumstances would quickly be FUBAR).    Combined with the very fortunate fact that the spook / independant contracter hired by the corrupt officials,  in charge of damage control, by a stroke of good (?) fortune suddenly does develope a conscience, along with some sympathy for the griefstruck father….   This results in odds that are more evened out than the bad guys expected.

It’s the old story of good versus evil.  (‘Morality’, ‘doing the right thing’, ‘standing up for what you believe in’ vs financial gain of an elite & the hypocracy of (some) political candidates.   The tension field of individual human rights vs collective -interests concerning national security and military, strategic goals.  

A moral highground in reality would indeed be very, very hard to define.  But there is something like a fine line separating us from the abyss of blatant injustice.  And the trick is to somehow keep your eye on that line.

What is most troubling, is that all of the clever scheming scenario’s, seem so damn plausible.   As if we’ve grown attached to the idea, and expect this to be the common policy that we can expect from all of the government(s) who are the major players in international politics.

Aside from all political and philosophical considerations, it’s simply a good movie, with lot’s of action.  And it’s easy to identify with some of the characters. 

Edge of Darkness (2010) Directed by Martin Campbell, featuring Mel Gibson and Ray Winstone (Beowulf), a.o.

‘ “To the carnival” is what she said’

Edna Million in a drop dead suit
Dutch Pink on a downtown train
Two-dollar pistol but the gun won’t shoot
I’m in the corner on the pouring rain
Sixteen men on a dead man’s chest
And I’ve been drinking from a broken cup
Two pairs of pants and a mohair vest
I’m full of bourbon, I can’t stand up

Hey little bird, fly away home
Your house is on fire, children are alone
Hey little bird, fly away home
Your house is on fire, your children are alone

Schiffer broke a bottle on Morgan’s head
And I’m stepping on the devil’s tail
Across the stripes of a full moon’s head
And through the bars of a Cuban jail
Bloody fingers on a purple knife
Flamingo drinking from a cocktail glass
I’m on the lawn with someone else’s wife
Admire the view from up on top of the mast

Hey little bird, fly away home
House is on fire, children are alone
Hey little bird, fly away home
House is on fire, your children are alone

I said hey little bird, fly away home
Your house is on fire, your children are alone
Hey little bird, fly away home
House is on fire, your children are alone

Yellow sheets on a Hong Kong bed
Stazybo horn and a Slingerland ride
“To the carnival” is what she said
A hundred dollars makes it dark inside
Edna Million in a drop dead suit
Dutch Pink on a downtown train
Two-dollar pistol but the gun won’t shoot
I’m in the corner on the pouring rain

Hey little bird, fly away home
Your house is on fire, your children are alone
Hey little bird, fly away home
Your house is on fire, your children are alone

//

Cuckoo’s egg in politics

Or how to reform the system of political parties

Overhere, there’s some concern about the rize of  ‘antipolitical’ attitude among the public.   I presume that may be the case in other democratic countries aswel.  The perception of an inefficient governement and untrustworthy politicians, causes many voters to boycot the election in some way. 

In countries where there’s no obligation to vote, that results in low voter turn up. Overhere, it causes voters to vote for less serious parties, or to systematically vote for the opposition, no matter which party is governing.  As the opposition usually consists of extremist parties, this is troublesome.  And it blurs the actual intent of the voters.  Do they agree with extremist opposition ?  Or do they only want to sanction those in office ?

One of the reasons for this behavior is: lack of choice.  Parties represent a hotchpotch of different ideas and views, concerning a wide variety of issues.  Which is supposed to form a somewhat coherent and consistent ideology, or program. 

Voters often agree with some of the viewpoints, and disagree with others.  Which makes it hard to choose one party over the others, and causes you to go for the party which offers the best match.   Or the least damaging program.

This phaenomenon restricts the political participation of the citizens.  Some consider this is a good thing, because it rules out extremist decisions of a coincidental majority.  But the downsides are (as said), anti-political tendencies, and in my view an inefficiënt inertia.  An indecisive sluggishness of society.

An example: 

The ecologists also advocate a multicultural society f.i.   And by doing so, they drive off a lot of potential supporters who are concerned about the environment but who would rather restrict immigration to more manageable proportions

Another example:

The rightwing extremists have monopolized the issues of public safety and law & order.  But by voting for them, you appear to support their beliefs about deportation of immigrants.

There’s currently no way to avoid radical choices, unless you turn to some gray midfield of central parties which have the monopoly of sterile compromise and eternal postponement.

Indeed, organizations (like political parties) tend to be focussed on their own survival, and become the goal instead of the means.  Which means a political reformation will not come from there.   And there’s currently really no alternative, because of the serious downsides of civil war and revolution.  So a change should not be sought there either. 

The sollution is a party that is focussed on – or rather designed for – change.  A special type of party, which could lay a cuckoo’s egg in the nest.  Cuckoo’s have leverage to change the whole progeny. 

I’m thinking about a party, consisting of a limited number of representatives.  And each one of them represents a different conglomerate of views.  A systematic division within the party itself, as it were.  According to some matrix of views.    (F.i. If you vote for ‘Mr. A’, you support taxcuts for companies.  And less funding of environmental programs.   If you for for ‘Mr. B’, you also support taxcuts for companies.  But you want more governemental funding of environmental programs.    And so on. 

This could prove to be rather complex, because if you start multiplying possibilities with one another, mathematically, there are quite a few combinations.   But, some choices rule out others.  Because you still need a minimum of consistence.  You can’t vote for higher unemployment benefits, combined with more public works, and a stable number of civil servants … and at the same time expect to pay less taxes f.i.

It could work.   And it could provide an alternative choice, that proves to be a better approximation of what each individual thinks that should be done by the government.

(Other than the comparisson with the cuckoo, good old Randall Patrick McMurphy reminded me of resistance against the establishment, in a manner which isn’t as crazy as you might think.)

Greece Debt Crisis

So the little man there needs to work a few years longer and expect a reduced retirement income. 

On the one hand, it seems logical that a social security system, which is designed for a certain life expectancy of the retired workers, is mathematically destined to falter, when the lifespan of the retired gradually expands.   The ratio of economically active people vs inactives is crucial.

On the other hand, inequality of wealth and income is out of proportion.  And most likely, an economic system is drained at the top, much more than it is at the bottom.  Accumulated financial reserves to grant every citizen enough comfort probably exist, beyond retired workers’ meager incomes and savings.  How about confiscating some yachts or private jets.

Moral issues rant Volume XIII – Racist friend

I used to sing along with this song, in total agreeance.  Then gradually, as I encountered more and more people with whom I got along, but who didn’t share my ideology, and/or political beliefs…  my view on this subject changed.

I now think that it’s best to remain friends.  Because that way you can at least try to have some positive influence.  By pointing out the flaws in prejudist generalizations and racial bigatry.  Better that than adding to the polarization into extremist fractions.

Plus… as you mature, you realize at some point that matters aren’t black and white.  Figuratively speaking.  I’m still anti racist.   It’s not right to judge people on appearances, or ethnic/religious background etc.  

You can judge people on their actions and or beliefs though.  And sometimes dangerous, backwards, or injust beliefsystems coincide with social segregation.  To point that out, isn’t racist, but common sense. 

People f.i. who hunt down and kill albino children because of some voodoo belief that their bodyparts will give them power, are beyond redemption, and don’t deserve respect or understanding.   Same goes for people who f.i. stone young women to death for showing a glimpse of emancipation and self-determination.  And for organized societies that choke (up to the point of mass-murder) certain ethnic minorities by constraining them and depriving them of everything they need. 

Medieval brutality and sadism should be fought, no matter where it occurs.  Without fearing to be stigmatized with some ‘political incorrectness’ stamp.

21 grams

’21 grams’ is a great movie, directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, featuring Sean Penn, Naomi Watts & Benicio Del Toro a.o.  It approaches issues of life and death, by means of the dramatic events in the individual lives of the characters. 

The title refers to the weight of the human soul.  Apparently, some Massachusetts variety of Dr. Mengele – MacDougall – back in 1907, did some research on the physical proof of the human soul.  And he measured that on the moment of death, the human body suddenly loses about 21 grams.  Which according to the hypothesis, could be the soul, ‘the spark that links us to our creator’.  Flowing back to the mothership as it were.

http://www.perdurabo10.com/id787.html

Very interesting.  Ofcourse, there are bound to be other explanations.  Even more than we know, since mankind only has a very limited knowledge and therefor an incomplete grasp on reality.  Perhaps those 21 grams have something to do with life being some sort of electrical current, or force, which in itself adds a factor to the gravitational attraction between bodies with mass.  Gravitons with a certain charge, either losing that charge, or leaking into another dimension, after a powercut in this dimension.   (The layman’s protoscientific jumbling of somewhat interrelated terms & phenomena.)

Or perhaps 21 grams is the weight of a person’s guarding angel, flying off when it’s no longer needed.

Or 21 grams could be the physical weight of the mental share that each individual has in the collective guilt of all the evil in this world.

Or perhaps, the thought of Roseanne Bar in itself weighs 21 grams, and once a person has seen her, that image can’t be wiped from the subconscious memory until the hard disk is deleted.  At which point the weight of the mind picture is lifted.