Human beings (that means you and me) spend a good amount of time wanting. Mind you, wanting some water or food in your belly is merely par for the course for a biological creature. Wanting rest when you're tired, wanting activity when you're bored, wanting company when you're lonely... these are all predictable results of the experience of being anatomically and emotionally structured as human beings.
However, there is a different, exceedingly larger collection of wants that has nothing to do with survival or requisite fulfillment. This seemingly infinite list of personal desires not only has nothing to do with what humans require for happiness or fulfillment, it actually has much to do with the production of dissatisfaction and unhappiness.
That an entire industry of ambitious mountebanks have risen to prominence by dangling these needless carrots in front of the Pavlovian masses should be no surprise to anyone paying attention. Does it truly require a marketing degree and six-figure salary to realize that human beings generally will want whatever is placed in front of their noses? This is not any sort of science; it is transpicuous manipulation.
Typically, those who stand up and shout from the street corner about this insidious puppetry are thought of as lunatic fringe. "What's wrong with a little excitation of the human proclivities known as conquest and acquisition to stimulate consumer activity?" the oily penguins known as 'marketing executives' love to ask.
Everything.
Take for instance the concept of physical beauty. While it is conceptually true that beauty resides in the eyes of the beholder, there are also seemingly universal standards that spawn an implicit hierarchy of beauty among the vast majority. This hierarchy is arbitrary and subjective, yet most can somehow agree that person 'A' is attractive, and person 'B' is comparatively not as much.
Most people tend to think it must be wonderful to be considered very attractive. To the average student in high school or college, this is a 'no-brainer.' Cultures across the globe breed us to desire popularity in order to establish our identity and importance in the eyes of the world. Tabloids and magazines at the checkout stand are icons of this mentality. Television, movies, shopping malls... these all constantly reinforce the idea that our existence is firmly founded and celebrated by how many 'friends' we can congregate to our Facebook pages, for example.
I submit to you this radical point of view: exceptional physical beauty is a curse.
Why do I look at physical beauty with such a seemingly odd perspective?
A whole host of psychological maladies have arisen from the idea that we must compete with others to be as attractive as possible. We are in competition in this area because it is by comparison that standards are established. Therefore, by either a quirk of nature, or perhaps extensive employment of trickery known as makeup and grooming products, some will rise to the 'top,' but many will tumble into the undesirable bargain bin of social leprosy known as The Unattractive.
However, and this is the twist, just what is gained by being at the top of the beauty heap?
Constant attention, whether you want it or not. As anyone who is 'blessed' with exceptional beauty will tell you, it's no picnic. To have your physical aspect praised and worshipped may stroke the ego, but ultimately it overshadows and all but buries the most valuable asset you possess: who you truly are inside.
For the blowhard and sociopath, being attractive is an endless source of pride and joy. For the rest of us, it is a pursuit we're pressured into from earliest youth, and must comply with continuously for the entirety of our lives, else suffer the consequence of deliberate rebellion against the standard. That consequence being, of course, social irrelevance.
For me, to be able to go to the store in my bland but clean clothes, sporting my unfashionable but clean hair, driving my boring, unsexy, but quite reliable vehicle, and not be pestered by the attentions of people I don't know... well, now that's what I call a blessing.
But then again, I don't measure my relevance by the opinions of others.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
One final gluteus maximus comment
One of my wife's coworkers set me straight about Steam games. It seems he doesn't have the same inability to play offline with his two Steam games as I do with Duke Nukem Forever. I am grateful for this information.
Apparently it is only certain publishers who decide to use this sort of draconian tactic that Steam provides. Perhaps my ire would be more properly directed at 2K Games, for surely Steam is only providing what each publisher wishes to have implemented.
So I will amend my last two essays thus:
Anyone who buys a game published by a company that treats the customer like a thief is blind and foolish.
The aforementioned blind and foolish customers are also Coneheads.
And last, but certainly not least:
2K Games can kiss my gluteus maximus.
It will be a cold day you-know-where before I buy another game they publish.
Apparently it is only certain publishers who decide to use this sort of draconian tactic that Steam provides. Perhaps my ire would be more properly directed at 2K Games, for surely Steam is only providing what each publisher wishes to have implemented.
So I will amend my last two essays thus:
Anyone who buys a game published by a company that treats the customer like a thief is blind and foolish.
The aforementioned blind and foolish customers are also Coneheads.
And last, but certainly not least:
2K Games can kiss my gluteus maximus.
It will be a cold day you-know-where before I buy another game they publish.
Why Steam can kiss my gluteus maximus - addendum
Just for the sake of clarity, in case anyone may have inadvertently misunderstood the most significant aspect of my objection to Steam in the previous essay:
Whether or not a person can play while a game is being updated is not the issue; I already am aware that this is not possible.
I don't have a problem with playing games online, as this is necessary if you wish to play multiplayer without benefit of a LAN.
The problem, which I tested by first attempting to start the game while I was purposely disconnected from the Internet is this:
I can't play Duke Nukem Forever unless I am connected to Steam, thus I can't play Duke Nukem Forever unless I am connected to the Internet, thus:
Steam DOES NOT allow someone who purchased a game to play that game, unless they are connected to the Internet (specifically to Steam), INCLUDING singleplayer mode.
If anyone doesn't mind being prevented from playing singleplayer games when the Internet is not accessible or Steam is down, then that's his or her decision.
I find it reprehensible that a game that I bought may not be played on my own computer whenever I want to play it. Unfortunately, for some it's okay to roll over because... "that's the way it is."
The truth is, an Internet-only standard for singleplayer mode is an artificial construction that people accept only because they don't mind trading their freedom for instant gratification.
Game publishers know this, and they count on it. They would stop this kind of DRM instantly, the moment everyone said "enough!" and refused to buy a single game that contains it.
But sadly, that will probably never happen... just as the American people welcomed the erosion of their civil rights in order to insure they were more safe from terrorism, so also do gamers give away their freedoms because they just can't bear to live without playing that "really super cool looking new game."
Bah!
Whether or not a person can play while a game is being updated is not the issue; I already am aware that this is not possible.
I don't have a problem with playing games online, as this is necessary if you wish to play multiplayer without benefit of a LAN.
The problem, which I tested by first attempting to start the game while I was purposely disconnected from the Internet is this:
I can't play Duke Nukem Forever unless I am connected to Steam, thus I can't play Duke Nukem Forever unless I am connected to the Internet, thus:
Steam DOES NOT allow someone who purchased a game to play that game, unless they are connected to the Internet (specifically to Steam), INCLUDING singleplayer mode.
If anyone doesn't mind being prevented from playing singleplayer games when the Internet is not accessible or Steam is down, then that's his or her decision.
I find it reprehensible that a game that I bought may not be played on my own computer whenever I want to play it. Unfortunately, for some it's okay to roll over because... "that's the way it is."
The truth is, an Internet-only standard for singleplayer mode is an artificial construction that people accept only because they don't mind trading their freedom for instant gratification.
Game publishers know this, and they count on it. They would stop this kind of DRM instantly, the moment everyone said "enough!" and refused to buy a single game that contains it.
But sadly, that will probably never happen... just as the American people welcomed the erosion of their civil rights in order to insure they were more safe from terrorism, so also do gamers give away their freedoms because they just can't bear to live without playing that "really super cool looking new game."
Bah!
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Why Steam can kiss my gluteus maximus
Why do I think Steam fans are blind and foolish?
Tonight I wanted to play Duke Nukem Forever (DNF). There are two simple reasons why I 'own' this game, despite it being chained to Steam. First, I have been a Duke fan since 1997, and even if DNF had been the worst game of all time, I'd still want it in my collection, due to my love of the character. Second, it was bought as a gift to me from my wife.
2K Games, the publisher of the game, uses the online behemoth Steam for the digital distribution and Digital Rights Management (DRM) for DNF.
That's where my appreciation for DNF begins to grind to a halt.
The argument has now grown old enough to be cliché. On one side, we have the sour old malcontents who remember the simple joy of buying a game, installing it and having fun, with no unnecessary delays or malfunctions. On the other side, we have the technophile Coneheads who think Steam is the very best and most convenient method of distribution and DRM ever.
I am told by those who think I'm too much of a crybaby, that Steam allows users to play singleplayer games installed via Steam whether the gamer is connected to the Internet or not. This is bald-faced, lying fanboy propaganda, and I will explain why.
Yes, I was able to play the DNF singleplayer campaign this evening. But first, I had to do the following...
I double-clicked my DNF icon, and instead of the game's initial animated graphic, I instead was treated to the following window:
"Updating Steam Platform..."
This went on for a while, then a new window popped up, informing me that I had to enter my password to login, even though mysteriously, I already had "Remember Password" checked previously. So I searched for my Steam account password, and obediently entered it.
The next popup window made me wait approximately a minute, while I was left to enjoy the exciting message, "Connecting Steam account..."
Once Steam decided they had loaded me with enough ads for my viewing pleasure later, Steam then did me the wonderful courtesy of updating my 'installed' copy of DNF on my computer.
Why might I squawk about this approach? Well, perhaps I find it objectionable and highly irritating to be forced to upgrade my game just to play some more of my own previously saved singleplayer campaign. Of course, during Steam's magnificently generous forced upgrade, the "PLAY GAME" button is gray and unavailable. That pretty much negates claims of being able to play without an Internet connection.
Six minutes and forty-two seconds later, the "Updating Duke Nukem Forever" window disappears, and I encounter a promising new popup that says:
"Steam has finished downloading Duke Nukem Forever"
Then another anticipation-stoking pronouncement:
"Ready - Duke Nukem Forever"
And finally:
"Ready to play"
Well, wasn't that grand! So I played for about the same amount of time that I had waited to play it, then shut it off. Of course, after shutting off the game, I also had to manually shut down Steam, as I'm not interested in popup ads or instant messages from all my many online Steam Conehead buddies.
Now, back to the original sentence at the beginning of this essay:
Why do I think Steam fans are blind and foolish?
Anyone who thinks the farce I just described above is a genuine convenience for the PC gamer, needs to have his or her head examined. Let's turn the clock back to the 'old days':
Wow!!! I bought Duke Nukem 3D today and played it all weekend. I even hurt my shoulder from being too tense from all the excitement in the game. I laughed my butt off, and loved everything about it! Duke Rocks!
What's that you say? Someday gamers will have to enter a password just to play their own games? They'll have to connect to the Internet just to play for a few minutes in a singleplayer game? They'll be crap-out-of-luck if they can't get on the Internet, or if their connection is temporarily dropped? They won't be able to save their campaign progress on their own computer? The original game disc they bought is nothing but a worthless prop, because they have to download the vast majority of the game's install data via the Internet, even if it's several gigabytes?
What? And many of these people think it's fine to be treated like a thief? They call people who object to this treatment whiners?
This is 2012, people. Just because you become orgasmic at every shiny turn that the corporate world takes to sell you more electronic crack, it doesn't mean you need to sacrifice your own dignity.
Wake up. Try injecting a little sense into your wild-eyed worship of all things technological. Almost all the current models for game DRM are juvenile and backward.
Just say no to vile copyright protection schemes that make you dance like a Pavlovian consumer lackey. Don't buy games that use them.
If you displayed some spine and determination, you could actually regain the glory days of gaming that you now only hear about in wistful conversations.
Tonight I wanted to play Duke Nukem Forever (DNF). There are two simple reasons why I 'own' this game, despite it being chained to Steam. First, I have been a Duke fan since 1997, and even if DNF had been the worst game of all time, I'd still want it in my collection, due to my love of the character. Second, it was bought as a gift to me from my wife.
2K Games, the publisher of the game, uses the online behemoth Steam for the digital distribution and Digital Rights Management (DRM) for DNF.
That's where my appreciation for DNF begins to grind to a halt.
The argument has now grown old enough to be cliché. On one side, we have the sour old malcontents who remember the simple joy of buying a game, installing it and having fun, with no unnecessary delays or malfunctions. On the other side, we have the technophile Coneheads who think Steam is the very best and most convenient method of distribution and DRM ever.
I am told by those who think I'm too much of a crybaby, that Steam allows users to play singleplayer games installed via Steam whether the gamer is connected to the Internet or not. This is bald-faced, lying fanboy propaganda, and I will explain why.
Yes, I was able to play the DNF singleplayer campaign this evening. But first, I had to do the following...
I double-clicked my DNF icon, and instead of the game's initial animated graphic, I instead was treated to the following window:
"Updating Steam Platform..."
This went on for a while, then a new window popped up, informing me that I had to enter my password to login, even though mysteriously, I already had "Remember Password" checked previously. So I searched for my Steam account password, and obediently entered it.
The next popup window made me wait approximately a minute, while I was left to enjoy the exciting message, "Connecting Steam account..."
Once Steam decided they had loaded me with enough ads for my viewing pleasure later, Steam then did me the wonderful courtesy of updating my 'installed' copy of DNF on my computer.
Why might I squawk about this approach? Well, perhaps I find it objectionable and highly irritating to be forced to upgrade my game just to play some more of my own previously saved singleplayer campaign. Of course, during Steam's magnificently generous forced upgrade, the "PLAY GAME" button is gray and unavailable. That pretty much negates claims of being able to play without an Internet connection.
Six minutes and forty-two seconds later, the "Updating Duke Nukem Forever" window disappears, and I encounter a promising new popup that says:
"Steam has finished downloading Duke Nukem Forever"
Then another anticipation-stoking pronouncement:
"Ready - Duke Nukem Forever"
And finally:
"Ready to play"
Well, wasn't that grand! So I played for about the same amount of time that I had waited to play it, then shut it off. Of course, after shutting off the game, I also had to manually shut down Steam, as I'm not interested in popup ads or instant messages from all my many online Steam Conehead buddies.
Now, back to the original sentence at the beginning of this essay:
Why do I think Steam fans are blind and foolish?
Anyone who thinks the farce I just described above is a genuine convenience for the PC gamer, needs to have his or her head examined. Let's turn the clock back to the 'old days':
Wow!!! I bought Duke Nukem 3D today and played it all weekend. I even hurt my shoulder from being too tense from all the excitement in the game. I laughed my butt off, and loved everything about it! Duke Rocks!
What's that you say? Someday gamers will have to enter a password just to play their own games? They'll have to connect to the Internet just to play for a few minutes in a singleplayer game? They'll be crap-out-of-luck if they can't get on the Internet, or if their connection is temporarily dropped? They won't be able to save their campaign progress on their own computer? The original game disc they bought is nothing but a worthless prop, because they have to download the vast majority of the game's install data via the Internet, even if it's several gigabytes?
What? And many of these people think it's fine to be treated like a thief? They call people who object to this treatment whiners?
This is 2012, people. Just because you become orgasmic at every shiny turn that the corporate world takes to sell you more electronic crack, it doesn't mean you need to sacrifice your own dignity.
Wake up. Try injecting a little sense into your wild-eyed worship of all things technological. Almost all the current models for game DRM are juvenile and backward.
Just say no to vile copyright protection schemes that make you dance like a Pavlovian consumer lackey. Don't buy games that use them.
If you displayed some spine and determination, you could actually regain the glory days of gaming that you now only hear about in wistful conversations.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The significance of perspective
My wife kindly reads my essays, and she usually approves. The one just previous to this one, called "Father Albert should turn in his collar," was not as amusing to her as I thought it might be. In fact, she brought up some compelling points, which I will now share in italics, with my own thoughts following immediately after each:
"I am not convinced she doesn't misuse statistics..."
This is a wise comment, as statistics are often manipulated to one's own purpose. Whether or not Ann Coulter's use of the statistics in this case are more objective or more personally biased may certainly be subject to debate.
"... I don't think the answer is adoption. It is an extreme solution. Just because the disadvantage increases doesn't mean all women have to give away their children."
I agree. While the unwritten societal policies in America that were still present fifty years ago did effectively stave off our current travesty of family structure, it would be a bit extreme to compel all mothers to give their children up for adoption as the best possible solution. The bond between mothers and their children is supernatural, in my opinion, and not easily given to severance. Thus the level of calamity possible by having sex out of wedlock is exceptionally high.
"Risk for bad things to happen is often poorly misunderstood, because risk is often relative."
Again I agree. One thing that seemed to have happened during the video segment in question is the audience and host himself appeared to misinterpret the statistics quoted. Although the statistics support the premise that it's not a stellar idea to choose to raise a baby by yourself, each individual case is of course unique and should be subject to relevant decisions.
So in conclusion, although I wrote the 'Father Albert' essay to mostly amuse, I will now take a moment to remind anyone reading these essays that my support or non-support of anyone else's opinions is entirely based on the evidence I may encounter. While I am still not an official Ann Coulter cheerleader, I rarely find objections to her ideas that are not steeped in angry emotional bias. In our attempts to view the world reasonably, angry emotional bias is not usually of much practical use.
"I am not convinced she doesn't misuse statistics..."
This is a wise comment, as statistics are often manipulated to one's own purpose. Whether or not Ann Coulter's use of the statistics in this case are more objective or more personally biased may certainly be subject to debate.
"... I don't think the answer is adoption. It is an extreme solution. Just because the disadvantage increases doesn't mean all women have to give away their children."
I agree. While the unwritten societal policies in America that were still present fifty years ago did effectively stave off our current travesty of family structure, it would be a bit extreme to compel all mothers to give their children up for adoption as the best possible solution. The bond between mothers and their children is supernatural, in my opinion, and not easily given to severance. Thus the level of calamity possible by having sex out of wedlock is exceptionally high.
"Risk for bad things to happen is often poorly misunderstood, because risk is often relative."
Again I agree. One thing that seemed to have happened during the video segment in question is the audience and host himself appeared to misinterpret the statistics quoted. Although the statistics support the premise that it's not a stellar idea to choose to raise a baby by yourself, each individual case is of course unique and should be subject to relevant decisions.
So in conclusion, although I wrote the 'Father Albert' essay to mostly amuse, I will now take a moment to remind anyone reading these essays that my support or non-support of anyone else's opinions is entirely based on the evidence I may encounter. While I am still not an official Ann Coulter cheerleader, I rarely find objections to her ideas that are not steeped in angry emotional bias. In our attempts to view the world reasonably, angry emotional bias is not usually of much practical use.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Father Albert should turn in his collar
I keep insisting I'm not an Ann Coulter fanboy, but here is yet another essay about her often erroneous opponents with their penchant for argumentum ad hominem. I simply couldn't resist; YouTube has turned out to be a seemingly limitless source of Ann Coulter video controversy. Much to my amusement, I found an entertaining bauble called:
Ann Coulter Says Single Parents: Put Your Babies Up For Adoption
This is an excerpt from a television show I've happily never heard of until now, and if what I've seen is any indication of its average content, I will blissfully continue to ignore it. It's called "Father Albert," and it hangs its greasy collar on the Fox network. Father Albert is the showbiz pseudonym for Alberto Cutié, a former Catholic priest.
As you will see by watching the video, Father Albert is "hot under the collar" about Ann Coulter's conclusion regarding single mothers in America, based on U.S. statistics. Coulter is promoting her book "Demonic," and apparently there is an entire chapter that uses illegitimate child statistics to impugn the selfishness of choosing to be a single mother (as opposed to being divorced from the child's father, for example).
What I found most interesting in this emotional and blunt attempt to demonize Coulter, was that the objections to her conclusion were based on nothing more than subjective opinion. Time and again, Father Albert dismisses the depressing statistics that Coulter is citing. Instead of honestly acknowledging them and risking the ire of his mostly female audience, he instead waxes indignant with consistent misdirection that seeks to avoid the fact that, statistically speaking, a child is at a significant disadvantage in life by being raised by a single parent.
Fifty years ago it was still a scandal to have a child out of wedlock. Apparently the unmarried mother in America is now so sainted that any negative words aimed in her direction are sacrilege. The Good Father and the audience were so concerned with rejecting any criticism of single motherhood, they were apparently misinterpreting the statistics. Coulter never said that 70% of all children of single mothers become society's problem, she said that 70% of problem children come from single parent homes. The show's editors would often cut to the women's faces in the audience (many of them single mothers, I suppose) that carried various degrees of incredulity at such a preposterous affront. How dare anyone accuse a single mother of being selfish and narcissistic, when "they really are going out of their way to provide for their kids"?
The permissive public ethos that fosters the celebration of single motherhood is the most significant factor in the ruination of the American family unit. Is anyone shouldering the blame for their own contributions to the destruction of our society's nuclear family? Not really.
They're too busy exercising their individual rights to pleasure without responsibility, thus giving much less thought to the well-being of their future children than they will ever admit. But I suppose modern, emancipated women have never been very fond of being told they shouldn't give the milk away for free. And shame on the insemination machines that refer to themselves as 'men,' who willingly participate in this tragedy.
The unborn children, who are left with the rest of their lives to deal with the fallout of the irresponsible and selfish decisions of their 'parents,' had absolutely no say whatsoever regarding the dispensation of their developmental environment.
Here are some of the Blessed Father's spiritually wise commentaries (in italics), my observations immediately after:
"[...] we're singling out the single mothers, [...] but we're not talking about these absent fathers."
Perhaps Alberto has forgotten what so many single mothers also seem to have lost track of; for the Johnny Appleseed deadbeat-dads to commit their irresponsible deeds, they first need willing sexual partners. Could it really be true that a person who is conscious enough to contemplate sexual intercourse is somehow mysteriously bereft of common sense? Just what exactly does a woman think will happen if tab A is inserted in slot B without benefit of a wedding ring?
"There are so many great moms that are trying to be mom and dad to their kids, I know that they cannot be emotionally mom and dad. But they really are going out of their way to provide for their kids."
So once the single mother has made the selfish decision to raise the child on her own, her obligatory Herculean efforts somehow erase the emotional deficit of a missing dad?
"I think you're talking about maybe the Casey Anthonys of the world."
So a single mother must be brought up on charges of murdering her child in order to be thought of as selfish and narcissistic?
"A lot of single moms are being responsible with their children."
If someone makes lemonade out of lemons, does this mean that the sugar negates the fact that the lemons are still sour?
"See but the problem is, it's good to get rid of those stigmas. Because we would put people always in a box, you know. This is the way you have to be, this is the way it works out. You know, this is not an ideal world Ann. You're talking about an ideal world. Oh, in an ideal world, by the way, everyone has a mom and dad, we're going back, you know, to the days of Happy Days [...]"
Ol' Pappy Alberto really loves his pop culture candy. No wonder he left the Catholic Church; who wants to deal with all that guilt? But of course, what better way to react to an imperfect world than to just throw up your hands and surrender? That's the absolute best way to turn things around.
"I mean, I think that when you, when you say things like that, I mean kinda make these blanket statements based on statistics, I say to myself, gosh I know so many good single mothers, so many heroic single mothers, I just can't agree with you on that, I really can't."
Of course he can't agree with Coulter on this; that would mean he was trading popularity for honesty, and how's a poor clergyman supposed to make a decent buck in front of the studio cameras?
I was going to address the audience's comments as well, but this essay is already running too long. Their contributions were mostly emotionally charged portraits of subjective denial anyway. Let's sum up:
Father Albert was once a Catholic priest, but he told the Catholic Church to stick it, so that he could kiss women and become an Episcopalian.
Father Albert, why don't you jump ship again, and this time become an Epicurean? At least then you wouldn't be considered an unctuous hypocrite for your politically correct sensibilities.
Ann Coulter Says Single Parents: Put Your Babies Up For Adoption
This is an excerpt from a television show I've happily never heard of until now, and if what I've seen is any indication of its average content, I will blissfully continue to ignore it. It's called "Father Albert," and it hangs its greasy collar on the Fox network. Father Albert is the showbiz pseudonym for Alberto Cutié, a former Catholic priest.
As you will see by watching the video, Father Albert is "hot under the collar" about Ann Coulter's conclusion regarding single mothers in America, based on U.S. statistics. Coulter is promoting her book "Demonic," and apparently there is an entire chapter that uses illegitimate child statistics to impugn the selfishness of choosing to be a single mother (as opposed to being divorced from the child's father, for example).
What I found most interesting in this emotional and blunt attempt to demonize Coulter, was that the objections to her conclusion were based on nothing more than subjective opinion. Time and again, Father Albert dismisses the depressing statistics that Coulter is citing. Instead of honestly acknowledging them and risking the ire of his mostly female audience, he instead waxes indignant with consistent misdirection that seeks to avoid the fact that, statistically speaking, a child is at a significant disadvantage in life by being raised by a single parent.
Fifty years ago it was still a scandal to have a child out of wedlock. Apparently the unmarried mother in America is now so sainted that any negative words aimed in her direction are sacrilege. The Good Father and the audience were so concerned with rejecting any criticism of single motherhood, they were apparently misinterpreting the statistics. Coulter never said that 70% of all children of single mothers become society's problem, she said that 70% of problem children come from single parent homes. The show's editors would often cut to the women's faces in the audience (many of them single mothers, I suppose) that carried various degrees of incredulity at such a preposterous affront. How dare anyone accuse a single mother of being selfish and narcissistic, when "they really are going out of their way to provide for their kids"?
The permissive public ethos that fosters the celebration of single motherhood is the most significant factor in the ruination of the American family unit. Is anyone shouldering the blame for their own contributions to the destruction of our society's nuclear family? Not really.
They're too busy exercising their individual rights to pleasure without responsibility, thus giving much less thought to the well-being of their future children than they will ever admit. But I suppose modern, emancipated women have never been very fond of being told they shouldn't give the milk away for free. And shame on the insemination machines that refer to themselves as 'men,' who willingly participate in this tragedy.
The unborn children, who are left with the rest of their lives to deal with the fallout of the irresponsible and selfish decisions of their 'parents,' had absolutely no say whatsoever regarding the dispensation of their developmental environment.
Here are some of the Blessed Father's spiritually wise commentaries (in italics), my observations immediately after:
"[...] we're singling out the single mothers, [...] but we're not talking about these absent fathers."
Perhaps Alberto has forgotten what so many single mothers also seem to have lost track of; for the Johnny Appleseed deadbeat-dads to commit their irresponsible deeds, they first need willing sexual partners. Could it really be true that a person who is conscious enough to contemplate sexual intercourse is somehow mysteriously bereft of common sense? Just what exactly does a woman think will happen if tab A is inserted in slot B without benefit of a wedding ring?
"There are so many great moms that are trying to be mom and dad to their kids, I know that they cannot be emotionally mom and dad. But they really are going out of their way to provide for their kids."
So once the single mother has made the selfish decision to raise the child on her own, her obligatory Herculean efforts somehow erase the emotional deficit of a missing dad?
"I think you're talking about maybe the Casey Anthonys of the world."
So a single mother must be brought up on charges of murdering her child in order to be thought of as selfish and narcissistic?
"A lot of single moms are being responsible with their children."
If someone makes lemonade out of lemons, does this mean that the sugar negates the fact that the lemons are still sour?
"See but the problem is, it's good to get rid of those stigmas. Because we would put people always in a box, you know. This is the way you have to be, this is the way it works out. You know, this is not an ideal world Ann. You're talking about an ideal world. Oh, in an ideal world, by the way, everyone has a mom and dad, we're going back, you know, to the days of Happy Days [...]"
Ol' Pappy Alberto really loves his pop culture candy. No wonder he left the Catholic Church; who wants to deal with all that guilt? But of course, what better way to react to an imperfect world than to just throw up your hands and surrender? That's the absolute best way to turn things around.
"I mean, I think that when you, when you say things like that, I mean kinda make these blanket statements based on statistics, I say to myself, gosh I know so many good single mothers, so many heroic single mothers, I just can't agree with you on that, I really can't."
Of course he can't agree with Coulter on this; that would mean he was trading popularity for honesty, and how's a poor clergyman supposed to make a decent buck in front of the studio cameras?
I was going to address the audience's comments as well, but this essay is already running too long. Their contributions were mostly emotionally charged portraits of subjective denial anyway. Let's sum up:
Father Albert was once a Catholic priest, but he told the Catholic Church to stick it, so that he could kiss women and become an Episcopalian.
Father Albert, why don't you jump ship again, and this time become an Epicurean? At least then you wouldn't be considered an unctuous hypocrite for your politically correct sensibilities.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Christopher Hitchens, rest in peace
On December 15th, 2011, Christopher Hitchens passed away from the effects of cancer. My reaction was not quite what some who read this blog might expect.
I never met the man. I didn't know him personally. I am not familiar with his entire body of work or all of his prolific contributions to the world of opinion, but I am very aware of one of his former points of view, which I disagree with most vehemently.
Hitchens could be quite aggressive and caustic in his accusations and railings against the concept of God and even the proponents of (and believers in) God. That I disagree with his activities in this regard is an understatement. He spent most of his adult life trying to convince approximately 97 percent of the world that they were merely deluding themselves by thinking that there could possibly be something as ridiculous as a supreme being. He was passionate about many topics, but this one was probably the most prominent in the public's imagination.
What little I know of his personal life could fit on a postage stamp, inscribed with a large font. But, it seems clear that his excessive consumption of cigarettes and alcohol was evident. While I believe that every human being should be allowed the freedom to use (or abuse) their bodies in any way they wish, I find the deliberate abuse of one's body to be just one more indication that one's powers of ratiocination are somewhat impaired. To what degree this impairment existed for him, I couldn't say.
That last paragraph was by no means meant to reduce Hitchens to a foolish self-destructive individual. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Hitchens was known to have defended his chemical dependencies with the concept that many great writers did some of their best work while under the influence, but I suspect the true nature of his self-abuse went far deeper than that. That particular knowledge probably died with him, and to be frank, it was not anyone else's business anyway.
Also, please note, I am much like Hitchens, or anyone else on the planet, in that I have my own burdens to bear in the arena of self-defeating behaviors. So please don't make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of this essay is to judge Hitchens. Along with everyone else in the world, I am in no position to judge.
I have experienced a few moments in my own life being irritated by some of Hitchens's former antics, as well as other prominent individuals who share his opinions regarding God. These fellows are easy to identify, as they are usually grouped together when one wants to quickly list the poster boys for atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Hitchens. At one point they were actually referred to as the Four Horsemen, which I admit was amusing.
So one might think, upon hearing of Hitchens's passing, that I might feel some sort of perverted sense of relief or pleasure.
Quite the contrary.
My own father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer near the end of 2003. He was fortunate enough to survive chemotherapy and the removal of his entire esophagus. I was there the whole time, watching him go through this grueling process. I am sorry Hitchens had to suffer a similar fate, and then not survive it. Cancer is a grim reminder that life is often not fair, and that our lives are more fragile than most of us feel comfortable enough to admit.
Hitchens was passionate, and he acted on his passions. He sought to captivate, motivate, irritate and yes, even to illuminate. His life's work and efforts were impressive and stand forever as a testament to one person's desire to make a difference. For all these things, I respect the man, regardless of whether or not I disagreed with some of his ideas. He was unlike the lukewarm masses; he took up the sword and fought for what he believed in, instead of merely catcalling from the sidelines.
I am very sorry he passed away in the fashion that he did. We all have to follow him at some point, but it's always sad when someone dies of disease or illness. It's as though something was taken from them unfairly.
Hitchens, near the end of his life, could not have believed that his life was being taken from him, as that implies that something was 'given' in the first place. His denial of all things God-related would imply that his death was nothing more than the relatively unimportant event of providing more nutrients to the biosphere's soil.
Following this train of thought, as we are all merely fertilizer-in-waiting, the most brilliant, moving and world-altering personal achievements are merely meaningless events, arbitrarily attributable to an individual biological entity that ultimately has no greater significance than briefly furthering the mindless cycle-of-life that is our evolving planet.
I choose to believe he was wrong about that.
I never met the man. I didn't know him personally. I am not familiar with his entire body of work or all of his prolific contributions to the world of opinion, but I am very aware of one of his former points of view, which I disagree with most vehemently.
Hitchens could be quite aggressive and caustic in his accusations and railings against the concept of God and even the proponents of (and believers in) God. That I disagree with his activities in this regard is an understatement. He spent most of his adult life trying to convince approximately 97 percent of the world that they were merely deluding themselves by thinking that there could possibly be something as ridiculous as a supreme being. He was passionate about many topics, but this one was probably the most prominent in the public's imagination.
What little I know of his personal life could fit on a postage stamp, inscribed with a large font. But, it seems clear that his excessive consumption of cigarettes and alcohol was evident. While I believe that every human being should be allowed the freedom to use (or abuse) their bodies in any way they wish, I find the deliberate abuse of one's body to be just one more indication that one's powers of ratiocination are somewhat impaired. To what degree this impairment existed for him, I couldn't say.
That last paragraph was by no means meant to reduce Hitchens to a foolish self-destructive individual. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Hitchens was known to have defended his chemical dependencies with the concept that many great writers did some of their best work while under the influence, but I suspect the true nature of his self-abuse went far deeper than that. That particular knowledge probably died with him, and to be frank, it was not anyone else's business anyway.
Also, please note, I am much like Hitchens, or anyone else on the planet, in that I have my own burdens to bear in the arena of self-defeating behaviors. So please don't make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of this essay is to judge Hitchens. Along with everyone else in the world, I am in no position to judge.
I have experienced a few moments in my own life being irritated by some of Hitchens's former antics, as well as other prominent individuals who share his opinions regarding God. These fellows are easy to identify, as they are usually grouped together when one wants to quickly list the poster boys for atheism: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Hitchens. At one point they were actually referred to as the Four Horsemen, which I admit was amusing.
So one might think, upon hearing of Hitchens's passing, that I might feel some sort of perverted sense of relief or pleasure.
Quite the contrary.
My own father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer near the end of 2003. He was fortunate enough to survive chemotherapy and the removal of his entire esophagus. I was there the whole time, watching him go through this grueling process. I am sorry Hitchens had to suffer a similar fate, and then not survive it. Cancer is a grim reminder that life is often not fair, and that our lives are more fragile than most of us feel comfortable enough to admit.
Hitchens was passionate, and he acted on his passions. He sought to captivate, motivate, irritate and yes, even to illuminate. His life's work and efforts were impressive and stand forever as a testament to one person's desire to make a difference. For all these things, I respect the man, regardless of whether or not I disagreed with some of his ideas. He was unlike the lukewarm masses; he took up the sword and fought for what he believed in, instead of merely catcalling from the sidelines.
I am very sorry he passed away in the fashion that he did. We all have to follow him at some point, but it's always sad when someone dies of disease or illness. It's as though something was taken from them unfairly.
Hitchens, near the end of his life, could not have believed that his life was being taken from him, as that implies that something was 'given' in the first place. His denial of all things God-related would imply that his death was nothing more than the relatively unimportant event of providing more nutrients to the biosphere's soil.
Following this train of thought, as we are all merely fertilizer-in-waiting, the most brilliant, moving and world-altering personal achievements are merely meaningless events, arbitrarily attributable to an individual biological entity that ultimately has no greater significance than briefly furthering the mindless cycle-of-life that is our evolving planet.
I choose to believe he was wrong about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
