Justifications For Colonialization Due To Western Superiority

It's easy for me to understand how one civilization thinks it is better than another, because it's easy to see how an individual person thinks they are better than everybody else, and that's why groups are so horrible- they magnify the problems of all the individuals within them until the horde is so convinced of its superiority that it makes of itself quite a nuisance.

The only thing worse than a person is a group, because it's in groups that people tell each other what they've decided they already want to hear so loud and so often that they're all convinced.



Today I was reading in A Study of History, (Arnold Toynby, ed; D.C. Somervell) and some specific reasons were given concerning the superiority of Western Civilization.  On page 36, there are several indicators of Western superiority.

People are so busy trying to either pretend like there is no such idea or that it's wrong that we don't even talk about the obvious.




The whole world is now involved in one economic system of the West's designing, and the lines on the map that define nations are the result of decisions and definitions made in the West as to where and what constitutes a country.  The United Nations is in New York, which had to give up being the capital of the United States so it could vie for the title of capital of the world.  How do you think it's doing in this quest?

Even in this book, this amazing truth of economic and political dominance is called only a "superficial view."  I'm not going to call it superficial, because people all over the world are using terms and concepts defined in the West to define themselves.  We made the maps people, let's not underestimate this.  People all over the world aren't of course, necessarily using an alphabet that I'd recognize to contemplate these truths, but they probably are, and lots of them are speaking English while they discuss it.  And I'd add that the whole world now goes along with a Western conception of time; whether we call it A.D. or C.E, the division marker is the life of Christ.  And the whole world likes many things about Western Pop culture also.  So even if people all over the world aren't aware of it, they are going along with a dominance that started in the West that is now global.

Whether you think this is good, or whether you think this is evil, or whether you don't think of it as either one; let's all just agree that it is.

While the economic and political maps have now been Westernized, the cultural map remains substantially what it was before our Western Society started on its career of economic and political conquest.  

If we start with the presumption, as this book does, that the whole world is made of five societies, then we do have to admit that entire continents have been ignored in the study of history.  But that doesn't mean that these deep and lasting lines of demarcation don't have a lot to teach us. .

When we Westerners call people 'natives' we implicitly take the cultural colour out of our perception of them.  We see them as wild animals infesting the country in which we happen to come across them, as part of the local flora and fauna and not as men of like passions with ourselves.  So long as we think of them as 'natives' we may exterminate them or, as is more likely to-day, domesticate them.

This is rough.  No wonder many don't want to look behind the curtain and see what's really there.

Then there are three specific justifications listed for the belief that Western Civilization is better than anybody else's or maybe even the only real civilization; which will be subsequently proven wrong.

These are really interesting.

p. 37

The assumption that there is only one river of civilization, our own, and that all others are either tributary to it or else lost in the desert sands- may be traced to three roots : the egocentric illusion, the illusion of 'the unchanging East', and the illusion of progress as a movement that proceeds in a straight line. 

I'll add a few other illusions.  We divide the world into East and West, and that's helpful but we all have to admit that dividing one big thing into two and thinking we now understand it, is a really really big generalization.  We divide religion into monotheism and polytheism, and maybe that's what we're actually defining when we try to force every part of the globe into one of two categories.

I almost don't want to add it here, but there's really only one natural category of two that I think of as helpful and that is male/female.  Some people pretend like it's a sliding scale, but there really are two categories here, unlike race or class.

But let's be real.  If we divide the world into two, that may tell us something, but East/West or more recently North/South really just means us and them, doesn't it?



I look forward to reading about 'the unchanging East' which I assume to be a way of us saying we are progressing, while them aren't.

I can't stand the idea of progress as a movement in a straight line.  That is so stupid to me and I see it assumed so often.

Hypercrisy

I just had a great conversation with someone.

They are constantly doing something- and we just had a conversation, filled with passion, about how they hate it when people do that very thing.  She went on and on about how other people do this, and I did not say that she does it all the time.

I listened and thought.

It reminds me of when I went somewhere and the leader of the group told us all to be quiet, and then spoke through the whole presentation even when the guide told her to hush.

I don't think this is hypocrisy.

These people care very much about an issue and they don't realize that they're doing it too.

I've read several places that the only things that really bother us are issues that relate to ourselves in some way.

For instance, if I call you green, and you've never felt green, you really won't care; but if I call you fat...


If I start paying attention to the issues that really bug me, I'll learn something about myself.

Egypt In A Study of History by D.C. Somervell, ed Arnold Toynbee

A Study of History 1947
Arnold Toynbee's Abridgement of D.C. Somervell's Work
Oxford University Press


p. 30

The Egyptiac Society.  This very notable society emerged in the lower valley of the Nile during the fourth millennium B.C. and became extinct in the fifth century of the Christian Era, after existing, from first to last, at least three times as long as our Western Society has existed so far.  It was without 'parents' and without offspring ; no living society can claim it as an ancestor.  All the more triumphant is the immortality that it has sought and found in stone.  It seems probable that the Pyramids, which have already borne inanimate witness to the existence of their creators for nearly five thousand years, will survive for hundreds of thousands of years to come.  It is not inconceivable that they may outlast man himself and that, in a world where there are no longer human minds to read their message, they will continue to testify : 'Before Abraham was, I am.'  

Wow.  What writing.  You know, I really wanted to see the Pyramids, and I did.  And I loved seeing them from the air before landing in Cairo, and I loved how from different vantage points of walking or riding a camel or a horse or looking at them up close or from in front of the Sphinx.. they seem more or less alike in size and seem to lie in various alignments... After all, don't you need to see them from the backs of more than one pack animal?  But I don't think even I would have written that they might outlive man and use a reference like I am in my writing.

This book studies civilizations, using the term societies, and starts with the idea that there are five:  Western, Orthodox Christian, Islamic, Hindu and Far Eastern.  

To attempt to get a handle on how societies work, the book intends to study the nineteen societies that have ever existed:
Western 
Orthodox which includes Byzantine and Russian
Iranic
Arabic  (Iranic and Arabic have now combined into Islamic)
Hindu
Far Eastern which includes Chinese and Korean/Japanese
Hellenic
Syriac
Indic
Sinic  
Minoan
Sumeric
Hittite
Babylonic
Egyptiac
Andean
Mexic
Yucatec
Mayan 

Alright, they really don't say that only nineteen civilizations have ever existed.  But as you can see there are some generalizations going on here and in order to study what a society is, we're going to look at 19 of them.  At first it seems that there are entire continents left out of the thesis.  But then it's explained what is meant by a civilization and the idea starts to become really interesting.

It was 1947 and much of the century's optimism at its advent had cooled after a couple really big wars.  Yeah, it's hard to imagine how today many people don't think of those wars as being recent. 

I shudder.  

The author intends to study civilizations, in contrast with primitive societies; of which there are legions.  And I can't wait to read along.  Most of the best books have maps, but this one has appendices including one that folds out.  Oooh.  Aaah.

I don't see any maps though.  

A co-worker brought the book to my attention.  We're always talking about the facts that few people know history and that the history we know has already been digested and regurgitated beyond recognition before it is fed to us one spoonful at a time.

I think we're at the fruit stage.  If the baby food isn't sweet enough we won't eat it.  As Dr. McGee at TTB.org says in his commentary on Micah, "They want the bottle, and they want the bottle to be warm and sweet."  

This book states that although it is issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which was founded in 1920, it is perfectly understandable that if there are any opinions in the book about international affairs, that it's not the Institute's fault.  

The Institute, as such, is precluded by its rules from expressing an opinion on any aspect of international affairs; opinions expressed in this book are, therefore, purely individual.

Okay.  That clears it up. You want something to be one way, so therefore, we're going to just come out and say with great certainty that it is.

Alright.

As it says on page one in the Introduction:  "Historians generally illustrate rather than correct the ideas of the communities within which they live and work."  I suppose this work will pretend not to do that.

We'll see if this will be a work I will read, or a work I will skim.

Yes and No

I'm still working on an exercise in which I am to say either yes or no.

This sounds simple and I suppose it is, but I don't see the forest for the trees here.  It's like asking a fish what it's like to be wet.  He knows.  But he doesn't know that he knows.  He can't tell you what it's like to be wet because he's never been dry.  Or maybe he doesn't even know "wet" because he hasn't been dry.

I'm not sure about the fish.  But I hope you'll stop by often to feed them at the top of the blog.



So there's this whole book of exercises, and I'm staying on this one until I get better at it.  I'm working on saying yes and saying no.

I was on my way to McD's and there was a young lady; long weave, slow gait, who wasn't exactly in the road; but you know when you're driving and you think- hmm, I know pedestrians have the right of way, technically and ethically, and legally- but I'm glad I'm paying attention here because if I was a little harried I might not even see this person who is taking their life in their hands by walking so close to were cars are whizzing by.... Well that's what I was thinking.

I know, I know.  People drive too fast and don't pay attention too much, and are usually just a little too late and a little too preoccupied, but that point will be lost on both the driver and the pedestrian at the time of their meeting if that involves a death.  So I was thinking that maybe this young lady wasn't making the best life choice by walking so close to where cars drive in a parking lot.  This one has a deceptive design anyway that makes it a little too busy for a parking lot anyway.

I got inside the McD's before she did and after I ordered, up at the counter, she asked me if I had a dollar.

Well, here was a chance to practice saying yes when I mean yes, and saying no when I mean no.

There was no way I wanted to give her a dollar.  Yet, I want to be generous.  Giving her a dollar without wanting to give her a dollar is one option, but there are more options.  

I didn't answer her.  I didn't say yes and I didn't say no.  I think I said "Let me see if I have a dollar" while thinking that I didn't, and definitely not wanting to give her one if I did.

I opened my wallet and we both see that I have a ten.  I say I don't have a dollar.  She says I only have a ten.  I think how familiar it is for her to know that, and to say it.  Then she asks me if I want to buy her some cookies.

There's another noticed opportunity to say yes or to say no; right there.

I don't want to buy her any cookies.  I'm not sure why I don't want to, but I don't.  I really don't think  it has much to do with her walking too near the road because maybe if I thought she was in danger of being near her last meal maybe I would have condescended to her wish; or wanted to get the girl the number 4 combo and some cookies.

I didn't say yes and I didn't say no.  I said "Not really."

So I'm still going to stay on this exercise for awhile.

Just Like God

Today I heard a little story about a man who was a legend for his people; David.

He wanted to build God a house.

David was in his palace of cedar and he was probably feeling a little crunchy.  God has a tent and I have all this.  Hmmm, let me see.  What can I do for God?  Maybe he remembered some songs he had played on his harp or got it out to see how well his fingers remembered some of them.


What can I do for God?  Did I hear that right?  Unfortunately we hear that all the time.


You can't do anything for God.  I guess it's a nice thought, but it just shows a real lack of understanding.

There was a little correction made after this, by God to David, but God was nice about it.  He was really really nice and generous to the little man who wanted to help out.

It kind of went like this:

A house, huh?  

Okay, let's talk about a house.

I took you from the backside of nowhere and gave you this city on my planet from which to rule a kingdom.  When you think of palaces and houses, maybe you think I need one since when you were out in the fields, nearly forgotten even in your own family, you thought it would be nice to have one of your own.

And now you have more than you imagined and you turn your attention from wars and women to think of me.

Well, let's talk about me and what I've done.  Speaking of things you can't know, I've laid the foundation for a real big house, not only on this earth.  Sure, there's going to be a great Temple where you picture one, and that's nice.  People will remember it a long time and it will inspire many.  In fact, for about two millenia people will think of this city I gave you as the center of the world, specifically because of that house that you want to build me, but won't build me, that's going to sit up the top of that hill.  But the house, a dynasty that I have begun to build through you will bless all the world and bring together eternity and history; because it's going to connect people and God.

You want to build me a house and that's exactly the thing I will do through you, but so much more important than you can think.

You keep thinking nice thoughts, David.  I'm going to continue with what I was doing, and I'm even going to use you.  

I not only made the world, but I'm going to save it too.  And yes, you can help. 

 

 

 

 

Diana Ross To Join The Cast of Empire

You heard it here.

That silly lion needs to move over and make room for the Empress.  Somebody needs an Emmy.

I want to see an opening like she did with Ain't No Mountain High Enough, bursting through the movie screen.  Miss Ross can be talking/whispering, up there on the stage with a full orchestra and dancers in white tails that lift her up and set her down and do a little tap dance with their white tipped canes, and some in the crowd are eye-rolling:

If you need me,
Call me,

No matter where you are,
No matter how far...


And by the time she gets to the point in the song where she actually sings the title phrase, everybody's on their feet dancing, regardless of age or color or level of street cred.

Back in the office, somebody who was dancing along with the crowd as hard as anybody in Studio 54 the night before, but now wants to back-pedal, is saying that the diva has "sang the same song" for twenty years and says that of course middle America has always loved her, but she's just not black enough.

The speaker doesn't know that Miss Ross is behind them, having just entering the room and lightning is about to strike.  Everybody stops for the calm before the storm.

Does she explode?  No.  She calmly explains what black is, from someone who knows it.

"You see, when I was a little girl in the projects people started telling people like me that we simply weren't light enough.  They didn't always say it with their words but I heard them loud and very clearly."

And when she was part of a matched set dressed in gowns selling white bread, the world was suddenly fine with it.  "They were fine with us.  Maybe not with all of us, but at least the world was suddenly fine with three of us."  And now looking back, the whole thing might seem funny.  But when there were no black people on tv, and when there were no movies starring black people, and certain people couldn't drink out of certain water fountains or go into certain restaurants, somebody had to come along and make America look.  "And who do you think they were looking at?  I've been called a lot of things by a lot of people.  But I'm just me.  And I'm right here.  Here and now.  What some of you young people don't seem to understand is that the only place you can ever start is the very place that you are.  I'm going to take my shoes off, but don't get scared.  I'm not going to throw one of them at you.  These heels are killing me.  Now, can we get back to work?"

Edith Wharton's The Children

I'm reading again one of my favorite books that is by one of my favorite authors.  The Children by Edith Wharton was written in 1928 and apparently it was an instant hit.

I see from IMDB.com that there's a filmed version with Kim Novak and Ben Kingsley.  The combination of stars is intriguing by itself.

Characteristically for me, and completely un-understandably, I can't remember how it ends.  So I'm reading a book that I really like, and enjoying the turn of phrase and the setting and the idea of how the jet-set life affected the youngest of their crowd- and yet I don't remember the plot.

I'd love to cast the film; particularly the discussion after lunch in the Moroccan tent, attended by all the parents but the lion tamer.

Most books should have at least one member of a circus in attendance; but no clowns please.

What Are You Reading?

Strangers seem to think that if I'm holding a book that this is an invitation to speak.

I suppose they don't realize that I'm reading a book because I'd rather do that than speak to strangers.

Nobody walks up to a stranger with a cell phone or a laptop or a tablet and asks them what they're reading.  But people want to talk to me about whatever book I have, even when I'm sitting silently reading.  Somebody might try to look out of the corner of their eye at someone else's screen, but there is a presumption of privacy and the curiosity is not overt.

This isn't the case with a book.  "What book is that?"  Then they want to tell me about a book that they like.

I feel this is so random.  It's like walking up to someone I don't know and saying "You have a shirt on?  I have one on too!  My favorite shirt is green.  You should get a green shirt."

God Is Love - We're Not

In the perpetual missing of the mark that defines humanity, we're currently slanted over to the side instead of admitting who and what we are.  There was a time when people admitted how cruel people can be.  Now I think we try to pretend like evil is way over to the side somewhere; but not right in the middle of each of us.  But the new problem isn't new at all.  We want to be the center, and better than we are.  We want to do what we want.  And right now, that means we want to be like God.

Wanting to be like God sounds great, doesn't it?  But God is love, and we're not.

In his commentary on 2 John 1, J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org puts it this way:

This idea, of love, love, love today, that you're to love everybody that comes along: I don't find that in the Word of God.  Now God so loved the world.  But He never asked me to love the world. In fact, I'm told "love not the world;" the things in the world, and I understand that to be the culture, civilization; this man-made thing that man has set up in the world today and has come down through the centuries.  But I also understand that God is not saying to me, "I want you to build up some sort of sentimental feeling toward the lost, and love them, and then bring the Gospel to them.  God says to me, as we saw in the book of Jonah, God says "I love them.  I want you to give the Gospel to them and when you give the Gospel to them, then you will learn to love them."  

 The problem isn't that we don't love everybody.  It would be great if Christians loved everybody.  But Christians were never asked to love everybody.  We're asked to love each other.  The problem is that we don't love each other and therefore no one can tell we're Christian.

We're also told to love others as ourselves, but sometimes that's a problem too; if we don't love ourselves.

People are waiting around for feelings to come instead of doing what we're asked to do.

40 Days In Paradise

I was listening to the Saturday Questions and Answers by Dr. J. Vernon McGee at TTB.org on September 12, 2015 and the idea came to me for a book - 40 Days In Paradise- a biography of the criminal killed at the side of Jesus.  Paradise was spoken of here as a completely understandable garden, also known as the bosom of Abraham that ends into the unknown heaven which comes after.  The idea was, not as I think of it, that the thief went to heaven with Jesus, but that there was a place people went before Jesus went to open up heaven, 40 days after his death.  I suppose the book would be 40 days of anticipation, in between the earthly life and the heavenly one and I wonder what this guy would know of eternity from that place?

Blog as Diary

I just saw four movies that I enjoyed very much.  So I'm reminded of a time in my life when I kept a list of which movies I had seen, who with, the date and the location.  It was a nice list that I probably have kept somewhere, in some box, of a couple pages, and then stopped filling out- maybe I kept it for about two years.  I'm not sure.  I liked having a reference point that I rarely referred to, but could have if I had wanted.  I enjoyed that level of record keeping.  And I liked how each line was written at a separate time, so maybe the ink was a different color or the writing was reflective of my state of mind at the time.  And as the page got some wear, I liked it even better.  Starting a little later, and until I stopped doing both at the same point, I started keeping a list of the books I read too, with the year of publication and the date I finished it, and the author's name.  I'm not sure if the movie list included the year the film was released- I was often seeing films that weren't new as well as many that were.. but I don't think it did.

This was in college when I'd go to the dollar movie very often, but also watch films on campus that were from all different time periods.

It seems like a nice thing to be able to refer to; a list of movies I've seen or books I've read.  There's a lot of them.  I find that it's rare to not be sure if I've seen it or not.  I pretty much remember if I've ever read or seen one.  But what I find odd is that if I didn't like the plot particularly, I remember it in much detail.  If I liked a book or a movie, it's easier for me to get into it again because I don't remember as much about what happens.  That seems odd to me, but I think it's great to watch a film again, or read a book again, and enjoy it because it still has some surprises.  Watching a movie I didn't like again is horrible.  I'd rather look out the window for two hours.  For some reason, I generally finish them, even if I don't like them.  

Someone once said to me, "You keep a list of every movie you see, but don't even write down the day your cousin was born!"  Well, that made no effect upon me because why would I consider what somebody else wants a list of?  If you want a list of every birthday or marriage, good for you.

I had a roommate that saw many many movies with me, and the possibility of being proven wrong got me started listing them.  There was a movie I didn't like, and it came onto the tv sometime after I had seen it in the theater.  I came home and my roommate was watching the end of the movie and he said he liked it. I told him that we had seen it together and we both had hated it, and he said that he had never seen it before.  So I started writing it down.

Later, I remembered who had hated that film with me in the theater; and it wasn't my roommate.

Me And You And Everyone We Know (2005) and Mahogany (1975) and Griff the Invisible (2010) and Far From The Madding Crowd (2015) are the films I enjoyed recently.

I think the people that don't like Mahogany are divided into two groups.  There are a few people in the world, more vocal than I'd like, you just don't like Diana Ross.  It pains me to type this, but there are a few people who are like that.  For whatever reason, they just don't see her as the entertainer of the 20th century.  I don't know what their problem is, but they seem to think that Mahogany is her fault.  Well, she and James Dean are the only people in history who are considered movie stars who only made three movies, so that alone is a great distinction.  But she also belongs to the group of actors who were nominated for Academy Awards in their first film role.  This is a big deal.  She might not be your favorite, but her place in history is assured without your consent.

Just look at her.

The other people who don't like Mahogany are people who don't realize what movies were like in 1975.  Mahogany is a movie that fits right in with the era, except the love story is between two black actors.  Other than that, it's just as silly, entertaining and interesting as any other love story from that time.  It's not a treatise on urban decay in the New World contrasted with the decadence of Old World Rome dressed up for the disco age.  It's a movie.  And it's really fun.

Griff and Me and You And Everyone We Know were delightfully quirky, until their pleasantly predictable endings, and I think I'd like to see them again sometime, as I have Mahogany several times.

When I was ten or about, The Wiz was being made into a movie.  And I loved The Wizard of Oz.  It was one of only two films that I had seen repeatedly, because as far as I remember, it was one of the only movies one could count on being shown annually; I think at Christmas time.  At Easter, The Ten Commandments was shown, too.  And I still love that one also.  But other than that, once a movie was played, who knows if you'd ever have the opportunity to see it again.  I remember waiting for Christmas specials, because they were sure to be repeated once a year also, but in most cases, if you missed TV, you missed it, other than sitcoms which were available as reruns, but not in any particular order.

I still think that maybe The Wizard of Oz is the greatest film.  It certainly defies description.  People don't even think of it as a musical, but as a fantasy or a kid flick.  The acting was pretty standard for the time, but now it seems like something that fits in only with that fantasy world.  But it's a favorite of so many adults and so many references have made it into our culture that it's clearly the winner for anything from the 30s with any current cultural relevance.  Snow White and Gone With The Wind and It Happened One Night have had lasting effects, but The Wizard of Oz has no peer for anything produced then that's still in the public's consciousness now.

It was probably 1976, because The Freedom Train was touring with artifacts from American history, including one of the pairs of ruby (sequined) slippers.  And a Diana Ross movie was coming out.  And we cousins were asked to pick from these two options.  Well, I just couldn't.  I had to see both.  And I did.  I'm trying to look back at that Christmas break and figure out why I thought Diana Ross was the biggest movie star in the world at the time.  I had barely heard of Lady Sings the Blues, and I hadn't seen either that or Mahogany at the time.  Those movies were for adults.  But I had it in my head that of all the living movie stars, Diana was the biggest.

I must have seen the commercial for Mahogany on tv.  That's the only thing I can think of that would have given me my 10 year old conception of Diana Ross.  Then I saw The Wiz and I loved it and wondered why Diana wasn't the star I knew she could be.  She sounded great, but she looked so... normal.  She was trying to be an everywoman, and I wanted glamour.  I don't think she's done anything without glamour since.

Can't you feel a brand new day?

Easy Virtue - Far From The Madding Crowd

I enjoyed the movie version of Thomas Hardy's Far From The Madding Crowd (2015) based on the book from 1874.  I was pleasantly surprised to see that the value of a woman's virtue was depicted in a way that I believe was appropriate in that society.

The men all wanted to get in her pants, and she was delightfully repelled and attracted to them in various ways, and it reinforced what I believe; that people are always the same in every age- but society surely isn't.

I expected upon meeting Bathsheba Everdene, that she would not remain dene for ever, or even for the rest of the move.  But she did, in her way.  She didn't like convention.  But the assumption of everyone seemed to be that she wasn't going to crawl into bed with anybody unless she was married.  And that wasn't the assumption about the other woman.

I guess the distinction was between women and ladies.

Disney Kid

It's a great privilege to be able to go to Disney World whenever I want.

People think of it as a place for families and a place to spend whatever nickels they haven't spent throughout the year on their annual vacation- to justify the dreariness of their lives by taking a break.  But I think of it as a place to explore for me to find solitude amidst the madding crowd.  And I rarely spend a nickel- except for the admission.

Yesterday someone on a boat said that the boat transport from one crowded place to another was a nice reprieve from the business of either destination.  She's right.  The boat leisurely glides along a canal as manicured golf courses, unspoiled Florida acreage and kitschy amenities, filled with frolicking tourists at a respectable distance, roll by.

I saw a dead hippo, I think....  I'm trying to consider any other reason to see a big brown/pink hippo's bulk turned on its side so that two of his spindly legs were showing.  No comment was made and I didn't want to point it out in consideration of very small children in the safari truck.... This one girl, maybe eight with huge glasses, kept repeating whatever the guide said, as if she was also very interested in whatever animal was mentioned.  But the little one mostly stared up at her Momma as we went by exotic animals on display.  I think she enjoyed the sounds of the words and looking up at Mom.

I saw seven giraffe- what's that, a legion or a grace or a bamboozle?  No, off course, there's the word- it was a tower of giraffe....  and I saw the customary flamboyance of flamingo- where are they going to go, even as the tourist birds crowd their space... and there were two baby gorilla.  The whole whoop, band or tribe was out front right by the windows where the Dad used to hold court alone, guarding the entrance to his protectorate.  The two babies were between adults but allowed to play in any way they wanted, rolling around and becoming aware of how their limbs worked and the similarities and differences of oneself and a similar other.

I also say a lady who couldn't fit through a turnstile.  The cast member kindly pointed out how to walk around it, and the poor thing teared up silently, and recomposed herself a couple times during the trip.  On the bus, which also provides a nice reprieve from jostling, the fathers were very concerned about their active children bumping into people they didn't know.  Some Japanese tourist, maybe 23, rested her head barely perceptively on my shoulder in sleep and I wondered why those Dads think that they are responsible for every movement of a happy kid's meanderings.  Would the sky open up and God proclaim the man a bad father if a four year old accidentally touched somebody they didn't know?

Sometimes I think that parents shouldn't even bother to keep track of the kids at all, and just go do whatever they want, and then at the end of the day, somebody could just make sure that each family goes home with the same number of kids that they brought with them that day.

Out With It

Out With It


They're not even playing anymore.  We're fed just like the cattle.  We've got food full of hormones and antibiotics that fatten us up, and help us live longer, but have we not noticed that our diet makes us wander through the chutes a little slower?

Then we're sold the pills, and this keeps us buying those and other products longer too.



Yesterday I was reminded once again that we're always thirsty.  Why are we always thirsty?  You and I know that civilization had to start along rivers because biology like ours requires fresh water often.  But right on the cup I received, in the nice corner establishment that offers free water, which very few people drink, were some big red letters as a reminder to keep purchasing the nutrient-free beverages that make us want more and more food, and more and more sugary liquids, and make us "need" more and more pills.



One ad says "Stay Thirsty, My Friends" as if we have to be told this.

But check out what the cup the fast food joint gave me says:

Don't forget to be

THIRSTY WHILE YOU'RE HUNGRY,

Folks.

I didn't even add the caps for emphasis.

I suppose now that everybody's famous for fifteen minutes, the best way to hide what you're doing is just to come out with it and say it outright.