Illusions
I’ve been on a tear about Anarchy lately, and people who espouse it in general, and lest anyone get any ideas about me that are offbase, let me say this:
I work damned hard not to have preconceptions or illusions about anything. It’s impossible not to bring your own prejudices to the table at some point, but in order not to close your mind completely you have to try very hard to have no illusions.
Frinstance: I do not suffer under the illusion (or for that matter the delusion) that George W Bush is the cat’s meow. I’m as anxious to criticise him when he fucks up as anyone. I think a lot of traditional conservatives feel the same way. I’m also right there to congratulate him on a job well done, such as the job he’s done of keeping the terrorists at bay since 9/11.
When Slick Willy was in office, I pointed out his fuckups at will to anyone who would listen- but I also gave credit where credit was due- his signature on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 was a big step in a good direction.
Likewise: I am, by my convictions, vehemently opposed to abortion. If I could flip a switch and end it forever, I’d say, let’s do it! but I am not in any way deluded by the idea that there will ever be a perfect world, because only in a perfect world would a child ever be unwanted. And so since there have been abortions in one form or another for a very long time, and not a damned thing I do is going to stop that from happening, I am of the considered opinion that a woman desiring an abortion should be able to do so in a safe and legal manner so that she might live, unharmed, to possibly have a child she wants, and be more whole. And of course the concept of abortion to save a woman’s life is considered acceptable to the church. It is much more responsible to attempt to prevent pregnancy- by whatever methods available- than to bomb abortion clinics, for instance.
The issue of gun control is another one of those circumstances. I looked at this for a long long time. If there was someone who could show me a legitimate reduction in murder of accidental death by ANY kind of gun control, I’d be all for it- but logic and common sense make it clear that private ownership and use of firearms deters far more crime than it allows.
There are few issues on which I’m agnostic. I do have some fairly strong opinions on just about everything, but I don’t have any of those opinions carved in a great big pillar of granite.
Well, that’s not exactly true. I think it’s evil to commit harm on a child. I think it’s wrong to willfully destroy someone’s innocence. I believe that if you see suffering and you don’t make some effort to diminish it, it is as if you caused the suffering yourself. I believe you give the respect you get. Maybe those things are written in stone.
There’s a lot of things I have to learn. Almost everything, in fact. But I keep my eyes open.
One of the things i find, as i watch human nature (and that is the most fascinating subject, to me) is that the more strident someone is about their particular ideology, the more likely it is to be bunkum. I’m not particularly strident about our Representative Republic, because it often sucks goat asshole, as it does now. But I also see it as preferable to anything anyone else has put forth, and so far, only Roberta has been able to be civil about it. I have tried to engage her at her blog, which has caused a shitstorm, so I stopped, and I don’t blamje her for not wanting to come here. If someone could convince me in terms I can understand that Anarchy hs merit, I would be the biggest (by volume) anarchist in the world, but so far, all anyone else has to offer is rancor.
Likewise, if there were Muslims who could convince me that islam was a religion of peace, I would be fighting right alongside them, (No, the irony of that statement is not lost on me) if I could be convinced that Apple computers were superior in any way that was useful to me, I’d be doing this on one now, etc. etc. etc.
I’m a pretty simple guy. (duh, read the blog) but I know this: If it looks like a duck &etc.
My instincts have yet to prove wrong.
14 comments Og | Uncategorized

Regarding abortion:
Real doctors cure people of their maladies. Fertility and pregnancy are not maladies, pathologies, nor are they any kind of disease. They are a blessing, and a sign that the body is working right. They are not problems to be corrected.
The Catholic Church has always condemned any directly intended abortion. The removal of an ectopic pregnancy, on the other hand, is not a directly intended abortion. It is not an “abortion to save the life of the mother,” it is an operation that results in the death of the child as an unwanted side-effect of the surgery that saves the life of the mother, and simultaneous with the act of saving the life of the mother.
A couple of the tenets of the principle of double-effect: the evil consequence must not be willed, but only accepted as an unfortunate consequence of pursuing a good. Another is that the good sought must not flow from the evil effect. In other words, killing the child is not how the mother is saved: the mother is saved by surgery which unfortunately results in the death of the child.
You wrote: “The more strident someone is about their particular ideology, the more likely it is to be bunkum.”
Doubtless what people said about Jesus and the Apostles in their zeal for the truth.
I don’t think Jesus OR the apostles ever resorted to name calling and character assasination to prove their point. Which is my point.
Having been in the seminary for six years, I know a thing or two about the Catholic church’s stand on abortion. There are instances in which a normal pregnancy- NOT an ectopic one- must be terminated to save the life of the mother. It’s rare but it happens, and the Church is OK wiht it.
I’d be hard pressed to disagree with you. I used to be a liberal, and so I found myself dealing with logical disconnects frequently – how could I support this issue and be against related issue “B?” So, I’m always open to the opportunity to change my thinking.
“The more strident someone is about their particular ideology, the more likely it is to be bunkum.â€
I’d agree with that up to a point. It’s been my experience that the “supporter” is usually full of themselves and shit besides, which makes their view suspect to me.
Plus, I haven’t commented on the whole anarchy/Roberta issue til now – I tend to agree with you about how people are basically self serving, and when civilization’s restraints are removed, they will not act in a socially constructive manner. Just watch a stop sign in the middle of nowhere unseen and tell me how many people obey the law to the letter. I’m just as guilty, too.
I stand behind you.
Dick! I just had a big bowl of bean soup; dangerous place to be.
Og, I’ll stand shoulder to shoulder with you in defense of all which is held dear.
If you don’t mind though, I won’t stand behind you. Dick has that quadrant covered, and I’m not quite that self sacraficing.
Which, I suppose, is but another proof that anarchy is bunk. There are limits to my goodness.
/snark
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
It’s not so much that i don’t want to come here, Og; I don’t see that we’ve got a debate — and I’d rather swap stories than debate, anyway.
My flavor of anarchy says we already live in one exactly as much as we choose to: compliance with the various and sundry laws, regulations and other edicts of the State is a matter of choice. It’s not like there’s a policeman or soldier following me around, keeping me from jaywalking or speeding or mugging the elderly for lunch money. Nor do I refrain from most of those prohibited things (“Leadfoot X,” they call me) because there’s some fool law about it.
Lucky you, there’s fairish congruence between my notions of right action and the laws of the land. …Thing is, most people are that way; if it were simpler to shoot the ones that aren’t, most if not all of the “essential functions” of government would not be needed.
Dick, “the man who knows no fear” (or is it blocked-up sinuses?), may stand squarely behind you. As for me, I will be askance to one side (Tis hard to cover ones comrade’s back, if your eyes are watering.)
Seriously, I bet most folks (who frequent here) have more often then not, the same things (or close enough not to split hairs over) on their respective “Stone Etchings”.
Thanks for the ping, Og! Sure takes care of a lot of guess work…
“My flavor of anarchy says we already live in one exactly as much as we choose to: compliance with the various and sundry laws, regulations and other edicts of the State is a matter of choice. It’s not like there’s a policeman or soldier following me around, keeping me from jaywalking or speeding or mugging the elderly for lunch money. Nor do I refrain from most of those prohibited things (â€Leadfoot X,†they call me) because there’s some fool law about it.”
That’s how it is in Italy. Lots of laws that most everyone ignores. You’d have great difficulty in finding anyone there that would label it as “anarchy” (regardless of how you personally like to flavor it). They simply see micromanaging laws as an insult to their intelligence.
Oh dude… You just shit, didn’t you?
(Holds nose and runs away)
I’ve deleted yet another asinine comment from one of the above commenters based on the ignorance it betrays. I’m not interested in having any more battles of wits with the unarmed.
Oh, and in case that feckless fool comes back and makes another comment, here’s a little thing he might want to understand, because he does not currently
“Deliberately We have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired nor intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions – granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.” Pius XII, Allocution to Large Families, Nov. 26, 1951. (17) As i said.
Ms X: you do have some great stories, like La-a, whcih I will carry with me to my grave. And it still leaves me curious: You have your marbles all together, and you act right, why on earth would you assign yourself a label that associates you with dorks like Mr Beck and associates?
A well thought out post, Og. Though I will stand *next* to you rather than behind…