I know people who ascribe to the teachings of the late (and unlamented, by me anyway) Aleister Crowley. Crowley, a British scholar of the occult and other things "magickal," created a belief system he called Thelema. He summarized his teachings thusly: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
I always have been uncomfortable with that as a guiding principle for life. Until I started reading a series of articles in this week's Omaha World-Herald on a superficially unrelated topic, however, I could not clearly say why. Now I can, so I will.
The articles, which are to conclude this-coming weekend, tell in chronological order the story of one Jim O'Gara, erstwhile attorney and consummate fraud artist, who wreaked pure havoc all over the Midwest and left a tangled mess of debt, divorce, and fraud victims in his wake. He got disbarred for (among other things) lying in affidavits to the court. He obtained a grand total of well over $ 1 million from banks and private investors by fraud, including forging his then-wife's signature on loan guarantee paperwork. (Her father, the original developer of Westroads shopping mall, was quite rich . . . and so was she, until she married O'Gara. She wound up bankrupt and got a divorce after O'Gara defaulted on the loan for which he had forged her signature--a loan she knew nothing about until she was served with the court papers notifying her of the judgment against her.) He bought a thriving, well-established furniture-crafting business and ran it into the ground in only 3 years. He hid its tangible assets from creditors and lied about that under oath. He generally conned his way through the court system, getting naught but slaps on the wrist from courts in several jurisdictions because O'Gara managed to con friends and family members over and over to speak out on his behalf.
While I do not yet know the ultimate outcome of O'Gara's story, I think he will finally pay for his crimes. The World-Herald articles have included enough foreshadowing to suggest it, at least. That's what separates reality from Aleister Crowley's teachings.
In the real world, humans are social beings. We live in societies. We create societal institutions to protect us from the things from which we cannot protect ourselves. In the real world, you can do any damn thing you like, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences. But in Crowley's world, you can do any damn thing you like, period. There are no consequences. You are to serve yourself and your own self-perceived needs, wants, and desires.
It's upside down. It raises the individual above the whole. It's a recipe for anarchy and chaos. Now don't get me wrong. I do not believe everyone must live in perfect lockstep, conforming "or else." The title of this blog establishes that. And I am a great believer in protecting the rights of the minority against the tyrannies of the majority. Just because most people believe something doesn't make it true, right, or correct. After all, when asked, a great majority of Americans consistently state that "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is enshrined in our US Constitution . . . instead of correctly identifying it as being the cornerstone of classical Marxism.
But as I said, we are social beings. And the problem with Crowley's belief system, oddly enough, is the very same as the problem with Marxism (as Karl designed it, not as it has been misused by the totalitarian governments claiming to implement it), to wit: who decides? In the real world, we social beings work though our social institutions and come to consensus. Often, this is not without acrimonious contention (even to the point of shooting wars), but we do work it out. In Crowley's world, as with classical Marxism, the individual's judgment of his own circumstances is raised above everything else. So what do we do when one individual takes advantage of that to his gain and others' detriment? The real world has answers (e.g., "don't do the crime if you can't do the time"). In Crowley's world, nothing happens. The individual is all. If anyone gets run over in the process, too bad for him.
Who knows? I may be wrong about this. Crowley may very well have instituted larger controls on the individual's behavior. Frankly, however, I found what I read of Crowley's writings so disturbing that I could not delve deeply enough into them to discover any such larger controls. If I am wrong, and am shown to be wrong, I will stand corrected. But I don't think I am wrong. Larger controls would be antithetical to Crowley's statement of The Law. In any event, I am totally certain I do not want to live in a world that lets predators and psychopaths like Jim O'Gara justify their behavior in victimizing the rest of us with no adverse consequences to themselves.
[Which leads me to an observation about those who claim passing a law to stop something will do not good, "because criminals will continue to break the law." Laws do not deter. Many laws are broken by people who have no idea those laws even exist. In the real world, we pass laws so that we have a societal mechanism for dealing with people who break those laws. We cannot prevent bad things from happening to people. We can make amends or provide some compensation to those who have suffered as a result.--Ed]
[Which leads me to a related observation as to why I am an iconoclast in the first place. I reject "isms," and political correctness to boot, for the reason that the people pushing those agendas impose their notions of what is good and right and proper on the rest of us without any regard for the sensibilities of the people being imposed upon--or for those of the people being affected by said imposition.--Ed.]
The real world is most certainly not perfect. The line between the rights of the individual and the rights of the larger social whole is amorphous at best. Nor is it always drawn in the correct place. But the real world is much preferable to a system that would loose people like Jim O'Gara on the rest of us without giving us any recourse against the predators amongst us.
* * * * * * * * * *
Postscript: How to Identify a Psychopath
[from the Psychotherapy Checklist for Clinicians, created by psychology professor Robert D. Hare]
Is someone you know: glib and superficial? Egocentric and grandiose? Deceitful and manipulative? Impulsive? Lacking in remorse, guilt, and empathy? Lacking behavior self-controls? Lacking a sense of self-responsibility? Addicted to excitement? Demonstrating early behavior problems and adult anti-social behavior?
That someone may be a psychopath. Exhibiting some of these traits is not by itself conclusive. But it does raise red flags all over the place, and you should be very careful in any dealings you must have with such a person.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Monday, September 25, 2006
Misuse Of Logic III
[Now that I have a trilogy, I ought to get a movie deal.--Ed.]
I heard just a few moments ago that Dubya is challenging the collective conclusion of the heads of the 16 involved intelligence agencies that the US invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe. What he said, as aired in the snippet of his speech shown on the NBC Nightly News, was "I've heard this theory that everything was fine until we went into Iraq."
Whoa, Nelly!
That is NOT what the intelligence report concluded. No one ever said everything was fine until we went into Iraq. Good Lord! One does not have to be a biblical scholar to know that various factions in the Middle East [I nearly just typed "Muddle East," which actually is a more accurate description . . . --Ed.] have been fighting each other for over 5,000 years now.
What the report concluded was that matters now are worse than before our invasion--and that our invasion played a direct role in making those matters worse.
Which leaves me with this question: is Dubya evil (i.e., Machievellian in his misuse of logic), or is he just plain STUPID?
I don't find any comfort in either choice, frankly.
If there's another, more comforting option, please tell me. I am not sure we collectively are going to survive until we can throw the bums out in 2008.
I heard just a few moments ago that Dubya is challenging the collective conclusion of the heads of the 16 involved intelligence agencies that the US invasion of Iraq has made us less safe, not more safe. What he said, as aired in the snippet of his speech shown on the NBC Nightly News, was "I've heard this theory that everything was fine until we went into Iraq."
Whoa, Nelly!
That is NOT what the intelligence report concluded. No one ever said everything was fine until we went into Iraq. Good Lord! One does not have to be a biblical scholar to know that various factions in the Middle East [I nearly just typed "Muddle East," which actually is a more accurate description . . . --Ed.] have been fighting each other for over 5,000 years now.
What the report concluded was that matters now are worse than before our invasion--and that our invasion played a direct role in making those matters worse.
Which leaves me with this question: is Dubya evil (i.e., Machievellian in his misuse of logic), or is he just plain STUPID?
I don't find any comfort in either choice, frankly.
If there's another, more comforting option, please tell me. I am not sure we collectively are going to survive until we can throw the bums out in 2008.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Another Misuse Of Logic
A recent contributor to the Letters to the Editor page of the Omaha World-Herald contends that our use of torture in fighting the war on terror is not wrong, because even if we stopped, "the terrorists would not be appeased."
Perhaps. But that misses the larger point. We as a country, even though we have the biggest arsenal and are uniformly considered the remaining superpower in the world, cannot afford to "got it alone."
Everybody needs friends and allies. If our government's official policy continues to be we can do whatever we like because our cause is good, we make the following potentially fatal errors: (1) we lose the moral high ground. If we don't stand for something better, and act consistently with what we say we believe, we ARE no better--and thus offer the world nothing unique that merits our continued survival. (2) We alienate the people who otherwise would gravitate toward us and help us. After Hugo Chavez called Dubya "a Devil" in his speech at the UN, no one in the UN challenged him or otherwise stood up to defend us. Domestic politicians who normally have no use for Dubya had to carry the torch for the USA--and even though Charles Rangel (HR, D-NY) spoke out strongly against Chavez's remarks, what Rangel said really came down to "you have no right to criticize him--that's our job." [A real domestic politics triumph for Rangel. He is being patriotic, because "discord stops at the border." We present a united face to the world. But he still didn't minimize his political differences with Dubya, either. Brilliant!--Ed.]
I just hope that the gang of Dubya doesn't go so far in damaging the USA's moral leadership standing with the rest of the world that no one can bring us back. Note that I am not holding my breath.
Perhaps. But that misses the larger point. We as a country, even though we have the biggest arsenal and are uniformly considered the remaining superpower in the world, cannot afford to "got it alone."
Everybody needs friends and allies. If our government's official policy continues to be we can do whatever we like because our cause is good, we make the following potentially fatal errors: (1) we lose the moral high ground. If we don't stand for something better, and act consistently with what we say we believe, we ARE no better--and thus offer the world nothing unique that merits our continued survival. (2) We alienate the people who otherwise would gravitate toward us and help us. After Hugo Chavez called Dubya "a Devil" in his speech at the UN, no one in the UN challenged him or otherwise stood up to defend us. Domestic politicians who normally have no use for Dubya had to carry the torch for the USA--and even though Charles Rangel (HR, D-NY) spoke out strongly against Chavez's remarks, what Rangel said really came down to "you have no right to criticize him--that's our job." [A real domestic politics triumph for Rangel. He is being patriotic, because "discord stops at the border." We present a united face to the world. But he still didn't minimize his political differences with Dubya, either. Brilliant!--Ed.]
I just hope that the gang of Dubya doesn't go so far in damaging the USA's moral leadership standing with the rest of the world that no one can bring us back. Note that I am not holding my breath.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
On The Uses and Misuses of Logic
Or, Mr. Spock, Where The Heck Are You When We Need You?
Since yesterday, I have stumbled across two egregious misuses of logic I'd like to bring to your attention . . . in the hopes that we can all learn from, and avoid making, such faux pas in the future.
First, US Representative Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., is running an ad claiming her challenger, Democrat Chris Miller, is "wrong on security and wrong for America" because Miller wants to "waste valuable time" waiting for a warrant when terrorists are planning attacks on us over the phones. This actually is not so much a misuse of logic as it is a misrepresentation of fact--nevertheless, it is wrong, and deserves to be revealed as such. FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) allows warrantless wiretaps for up to 72 hours. Anyone who cannot get a warrant in 3 days is either totally incompetent or unjustified. Johnson's claim that Miller is "weak on security" is out-and-out wrong. Indeed, Miller would be justified in running a reply ad that says Johnson is weak on maintaining the proper separation of powers our Constitution requires and thus Johnson has no business being in Congress.
Second, and perhaps a bit more frivolously, the Oregon Ducks upset the University of Oklahoma Sooners in college football last Saturday. The instant replay officials erroneously allowed an incorrect call on the field to stand. Oklahoma had a 5-point lead with about 1 minute to go; Oregon tried for an onside kick and was awarded possession of the ball even though an Oregon player, the first one to have touched the ball, did so in less than the 10-yard distance the rule on onside kicks requires. Under the rule, Oklahoma thus should have been awarded possession . . . and could have run out the clock and won the game. Instead, despite clear video evidence showing Oregon violated the rule, the officials gave Oregon the ball. Oregon thereupon scored a touchdown and won the game by 1 point.
Now several Oregon fans are saying that even though the officials obviously got the call wrong, the Sooners still could have stopped the Ducks from scoring, so the bad call is no big deal and it's not wrong for Oregon to claim victory.
At least this misuse of logic has the color of plausibility. Nonetheless, it is wrong. It fails to account for the normal human reaction of being in a stressful situation and getting disoriented for a critical few moments when confronted with something shocking. You cannot separate the bad call from the OU players' reaction to it and from what thereupon ensued.
Besides, it's really irrelevant. The bad call on the field should have been overturned, period. What happened after it was not overturned would not have happened but for the failure of the officials to correct their on-field mistake in the first place. It's a very good thing the PAC-10 suspended the officiating crew for a game and is looking into its policy of using only PAC-10 officials for PAC-10 home games. [I hope the PAC-10 has the guts to do what obviously needs to be done, which is to change that policy, in the interest of avoiding even the appearance of favoritism/impropriety.--Ed.]
Furthermore, Oregon fans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to justify the unjustifiable. I know I would be.
Since yesterday, I have stumbled across two egregious misuses of logic I'd like to bring to your attention . . . in the hopes that we can all learn from, and avoid making, such faux pas in the future.
First, US Representative Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., is running an ad claiming her challenger, Democrat Chris Miller, is "wrong on security and wrong for America" because Miller wants to "waste valuable time" waiting for a warrant when terrorists are planning attacks on us over the phones. This actually is not so much a misuse of logic as it is a misrepresentation of fact--nevertheless, it is wrong, and deserves to be revealed as such. FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) allows warrantless wiretaps for up to 72 hours. Anyone who cannot get a warrant in 3 days is either totally incompetent or unjustified. Johnson's claim that Miller is "weak on security" is out-and-out wrong. Indeed, Miller would be justified in running a reply ad that says Johnson is weak on maintaining the proper separation of powers our Constitution requires and thus Johnson has no business being in Congress.
Second, and perhaps a bit more frivolously, the Oregon Ducks upset the University of Oklahoma Sooners in college football last Saturday. The instant replay officials erroneously allowed an incorrect call on the field to stand. Oklahoma had a 5-point lead with about 1 minute to go; Oregon tried for an onside kick and was awarded possession of the ball even though an Oregon player, the first one to have touched the ball, did so in less than the 10-yard distance the rule on onside kicks requires. Under the rule, Oklahoma thus should have been awarded possession . . . and could have run out the clock and won the game. Instead, despite clear video evidence showing Oregon violated the rule, the officials gave Oregon the ball. Oregon thereupon scored a touchdown and won the game by 1 point.
Now several Oregon fans are saying that even though the officials obviously got the call wrong, the Sooners still could have stopped the Ducks from scoring, so the bad call is no big deal and it's not wrong for Oregon to claim victory.
At least this misuse of logic has the color of plausibility. Nonetheless, it is wrong. It fails to account for the normal human reaction of being in a stressful situation and getting disoriented for a critical few moments when confronted with something shocking. You cannot separate the bad call from the OU players' reaction to it and from what thereupon ensued.
Besides, it's really irrelevant. The bad call on the field should have been overturned, period. What happened after it was not overturned would not have happened but for the failure of the officials to correct their on-field mistake in the first place. It's a very good thing the PAC-10 suspended the officiating crew for a game and is looking into its policy of using only PAC-10 officials for PAC-10 home games. [I hope the PAC-10 has the guts to do what obviously needs to be done, which is to change that policy, in the interest of avoiding even the appearance of favoritism/impropriety.--Ed.]
Furthermore, Oregon fans should be ashamed of themselves for trying to justify the unjustifiable. I know I would be.
Monday, September 18, 2006
A Salute To Phineas Taylor
I understand that Target Stores Inc. has entered into a marketing agreement with some chi-chi Beverly Hills designer. For the first time, Target is allowing its logo (the ubiquitous red bull's-eye) to be put on merchandise not sold in Target stores. You know, on jeans, purses, jewelry, and other accessories. And yes, the collection is called "Target Couture" . . . and yes, it's pronounced "tar-zhay."
So rich and silly people like Paris Hilton are paying lots of money (the purses are going for several hundred dollars each) to promote the logo of a store in which they would not be caught dead shopping. A little frivolity in the world is not a bad thing, but frivolousness is quite another thing altogether.
Isnt it wonderful that the 19th century can still be relevant to the 21st? P. T. Barnum was right about two things: (1) no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public; (2) there is a sucker born every minute.
Phineas Taylor, I salute your wisdom!
So rich and silly people like Paris Hilton are paying lots of money (the purses are going for several hundred dollars each) to promote the logo of a store in which they would not be caught dead shopping. A little frivolity in the world is not a bad thing, but frivolousness is quite another thing altogether.
Isnt it wonderful that the 19th century can still be relevant to the 21st? P. T. Barnum was right about two things: (1) no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public; (2) there is a sucker born every minute.
Phineas Taylor, I salute your wisdom!
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The World Is Getting Entirely Too "In Your Face" For Me
This has nothing to do with anything, but am I the only person in the world who is offended by both the title of the new fall show "Ugly Betty" and by the Dairy Queen commercial for its chili double cheeseburger that ends with the woman telling her male significant other to "pull my finger"?
Hardly anyone seems to grasp the concept anymore that subtlety has its uses, and that you actually can get more attention by being "low key" than by being "in your face."
Why else do you think women who are considered sexy tend to speak in a breathless whisper?
OK, I admit it. I tend to speak in a breathless whisper, but I am not sexy. I'm just out of breath.
Even some of my favorite programs are on occasion too intense for me. Whenever "Meerkat Manor" shows a dead/dying baby meerkat, I have to look away--and even then, I often cry. I am too soft-hearted for this world, I guess.
And Notre Dame just got its collective butt kicked by Michigan. No wonder I'm so upset!
How can it be the middle of September, with college semesters already into their fourth week, college football games of major importance already airing on TV, and the afternoon high temperatures still getting into the 80s? And as if that all weren't bad enough, some local businesses actually put signs up this week predicting that Nebraska would LOSE to USC tonight.
That is simply unheard of around here. I wonder whether anybody in Lincoln was so daring. Probably not, but one never knows . . .
Maybe it's not so much that I am too soft-hearted as it is that I am suffering a major disconnect from this strange conjunction of events.
I know I don't at all feel like putting up my Halloween decorations yet, and the stores are already cramming Christmas down our throats.
I heard the other day that Dubya says America is in its third Great Awakening of religious fervor. I know that he and Iran's President Ahmadinejad share the belief that the "End of Days" is coming . . . although I am quite sure their takes on its details differ radically from one another's.
If Nebraska manages to upset USC tonight, I just might have to agree with them that the End of Days is coming. Soon.
Hardly anyone seems to grasp the concept anymore that subtlety has its uses, and that you actually can get more attention by being "low key" than by being "in your face."
Why else do you think women who are considered sexy tend to speak in a breathless whisper?
OK, I admit it. I tend to speak in a breathless whisper, but I am not sexy. I'm just out of breath.
Even some of my favorite programs are on occasion too intense for me. Whenever "Meerkat Manor" shows a dead/dying baby meerkat, I have to look away--and even then, I often cry. I am too soft-hearted for this world, I guess.
And Notre Dame just got its collective butt kicked by Michigan. No wonder I'm so upset!
How can it be the middle of September, with college semesters already into their fourth week, college football games of major importance already airing on TV, and the afternoon high temperatures still getting into the 80s? And as if that all weren't bad enough, some local businesses actually put signs up this week predicting that Nebraska would LOSE to USC tonight.
That is simply unheard of around here. I wonder whether anybody in Lincoln was so daring. Probably not, but one never knows . . .
Maybe it's not so much that I am too soft-hearted as it is that I am suffering a major disconnect from this strange conjunction of events.
I know I don't at all feel like putting up my Halloween decorations yet, and the stores are already cramming Christmas down our throats.
I heard the other day that Dubya says America is in its third Great Awakening of religious fervor. I know that he and Iran's President Ahmadinejad share the belief that the "End of Days" is coming . . . although I am quite sure their takes on its details differ radically from one another's.
If Nebraska manages to upset USC tonight, I just might have to agree with them that the End of Days is coming. Soon.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Please Don't Give Me That Old Time Religion
I'm with Leonard Pitts, Jr.: literalism has no place in interpreting the Bible. In an op-ed column recently published in the Omaha World-Herald, Pitts recounted an email exchange he had with a reader named Al, who informed him that criticizing the death penalty was criticizing God. Al went on to note that this was not a good thing.
Pitts responded by noting that the Bible also condemns to death people who curse their parents and people who commit adultery. Al's response to that was that those people should be put to death too, "if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter."
Pitts dryly added that people like Al scared him. Me, too. [Well, I have my reasons for thinking that condemning adulterers to death might not be a bad thing, but I am willing to take a larger view in light of the greater social good. Financial thumbscrews are punishment enough for adulterous swine.--Ed.] [That last was said half in jest, to all you literalists out there who do not get my sense of humor.--Ed.]
Pitts' main objection to interpreting the Bible literally is that the people who insist on it so that they can, for example, condemn homosexuals, will not even admit it applies when quoted passages from Scripture exhorting us to "love our enemies," "turn the other cheek," and not "store up treasures on Earth."
In other words, he rightly points out that too many literalists/fundamentalists miss the forest for the trees. The larger message of redemption as carried in the New Testament comes by "sacrifice, redemption, and love," in Pitts' own eloquent expression.
He even broke the news (to me, at least) that the venerable Billy Graham has of late rejected the extremes of both left and right, and has chosen instead to accept God as "a loving mystery." He quoted Graham as saying that people of faith can absolutely differ on the details of theology: "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking over the years."
Amen! I have maintained for a long, long time that on the one hand there is God, and on the other there are the churches and the Bible and other works of man, and there is no inherent contradiction in accepting The One while at the same time rejecting the other.
Pitts concluded by noting that Exodus (35:2) condemned those who work on the Sabbath to death. He said he'd like to ask people like his email correspondent, Al, where his church's leaders stood on that one, but he was afraid to--implying he feared the answer.
I don't blame him.
Pitts responded by noting that the Bible also condemns to death people who curse their parents and people who commit adultery. Al's response to that was that those people should be put to death too, "if one wishes to accomplish God's will in the matter."
Pitts dryly added that people like Al scared him. Me, too. [Well, I have my reasons for thinking that condemning adulterers to death might not be a bad thing, but I am willing to take a larger view in light of the greater social good. Financial thumbscrews are punishment enough for adulterous swine.--Ed.] [That last was said half in jest, to all you literalists out there who do not get my sense of humor.--Ed.]
Pitts' main objection to interpreting the Bible literally is that the people who insist on it so that they can, for example, condemn homosexuals, will not even admit it applies when quoted passages from Scripture exhorting us to "love our enemies," "turn the other cheek," and not "store up treasures on Earth."
In other words, he rightly points out that too many literalists/fundamentalists miss the forest for the trees. The larger message of redemption as carried in the New Testament comes by "sacrifice, redemption, and love," in Pitts' own eloquent expression.
He even broke the news (to me, at least) that the venerable Billy Graham has of late rejected the extremes of both left and right, and has chosen instead to accept God as "a loving mystery." He quoted Graham as saying that people of faith can absolutely differ on the details of theology: "I'm not a literalist in the sense that every single jot and tittle is from the Lord. This is a little difference in my thinking over the years."
Amen! I have maintained for a long, long time that on the one hand there is God, and on the other there are the churches and the Bible and other works of man, and there is no inherent contradiction in accepting The One while at the same time rejecting the other.
Pitts concluded by noting that Exodus (35:2) condemned those who work on the Sabbath to death. He said he'd like to ask people like his email correspondent, Al, where his church's leaders stood on that one, but he was afraid to--implying he feared the answer.
I don't blame him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)