The Quality of Mercy

The Bard wrote, "The quality of mercy is not strained". It's tempting to focus only on the word "strained". But he wanted us to focus on the phrase, "not strained"?

What did he mean by "not strained"?

Perhaps that becomes clear in reading his following words. "It droppeth as a gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath".

He did use the word "strained"as a synonym of "stressed" or "Stretched". He meant "unimpeded".

And it's not a strain or a stretch to conclude that "the place beneath" is Earth as in "us".

Such was his connotation of "not strained". It, the quality of mercy , passes, unrestrained, unimpeded, undiluted, to earth and thus to our benefit, as in "rain" and "sunshine".

And also not to be ignored, the Bard said it is the "Quality" of mercy that is not strained, not mercy itself.

I know, I know, I'm now making too fine a point on it, and am much too caught up in my enjoyment of logic, reason, and the parsing of language.

Today the Supreme Court , (I guess we have to call it something special, and condone an element of hyperbole, in acknowledgement of it's being the court of last resort in our country; but "Supreme"?) stayed the execution of a living being.

I want to believe that decision contains within it an element of mercy, however based it is on law, which today is marketed to the people as being impartial.

Speaking for myself, I experience instinctual physical, gut level revulsion at the killing of almost any living creature, and psychological, spiritual revulsion and trauma at even the contemplation of such killing. Far too often I experience psycho-traumatically induced physical responses to news of the impending or actual execution of a living being.

However I try to think about it objectively, look at it logically, and understand that I am removed from that being, and am not that being, I cannot deny and divorce myself logically from my feelings. I identify with the accused, the living being who is feeling the ultimate terror that other living beings have ultimate power over him, and have decided without his consent that they will execute him at a particular certain time and place. The well known
philosophical, and thus distant and objective expression of this is: "Nothing so focuses the mind as the sure and certain realization that one will be hanged in the morning".

Just writing that statement makes me sick.

The Lighthouse

Lighthouses usually project two lights, a white one and a red one. They alternate in their projections, and alternate in the direction of those projections. I've often wondered about the value of and logic for the red one.


But, upon reflection, all puns shamelessly acknowledged, perhaps I'm beginning to see the light.

Our senses have evolved in such a way as to detect changes in our environment. It's those changes that get our attention and so provide us with the information we need to survive. If the lighthouse only projected a steady, unchanging white light, we, that is to say, our senses, might "turn it off", stop paying attention to it, and thus dismiss it as being irrelevant to our situation and survival.

Perhaps the value of the 180 degree red light projection is that it provides a visible, though dull by contrast, light, and, as such, sustains the attention of our senses by it's being the opposite of the bright light we need to aid our survival.

As a work/life navigation coach and counselor I often ask clients to describe what they have disliked about the elements of what used to do to earn a living; those they've worked for, their peers and subordinates, if any, and the tasks to which they were assigned. Then I ask them to describe the opposite of those things they disliked. Inevitably they describe a work/life environment they wish for.

The Black Hole of Politics

Today, on a cable news channel, it was reported that Barack Obama "vows" to step up attacks on Hillary Clinton. I don't know if he used that word or if it was put in his mouth by the media.


Large numbers of citizens have come to admire Obama for his character and his ability to articulate genuine visions and values. We became aware of him as a special person when he addressed the last Dem convention, and since by his public statements and the message of his book, The Audacity of Hope. We have hoped that the citizenry will view him and what he stands for as genuine, honest and honorable, in contrast to the cheap, knock-off, out-sourced discount store values flaunted by those who cynically use the word "values" in their dishonest, hypocritical and dishonorable campaign.

At some point each of us, if we chose to participate in the the electoral process established by our Founders, has to make a decision about a choice for president, and then act on it by actually voting.

I believe Obama is committed to lead. I see in him a person with the personal constitution, intuition and vision of a leader; a real life, actual statesman. How long has it been since we had a president of that nature, stature and charisma? JFK comes to mind.


In this particular election cycle we, the citizens and voters, are being bombarded by bombast for three years in advance of the election set for November, 2008.

It's ridiculous, absurd, boring, and a huge imposition on the time we have to attend to just trying to get along with the challenges of daily life. For some the challenges are struggles; paying bills, for others it's about parenting, health issues and having the energy to deal with what comes along. For others it's about doing one's best at work. For others it's about -------- add yours to the list).

I titled this piece, The Black Hole of Politics.

Scientists speculate that there exist in the Universe what they call black holes. They impute their existence from the observable phenomena that stuff seems to get sucked in to some point in space-time, and after passing over what they call "the event horizon", the rim of the hole, appear to disappear.

I submit that there exists in the universe of politics the equivalent of a black hole. It exhibits behaviors similar to those observed by astrophysical scientists. Its pull is powerful and difficult to resist. It has the power to suck in and eliminate from existence everything which falls within its influence and which succumbs enough to its attraction that it passes over the rim of the hole, beyond which nothing can escape, nor even eventually emerge; not even light.

I fear Obama is vulnerable to being sucked into the Black Hole of Politics. By "vowing" to confront Hillary, as it has been reported in the MSM, he is exposing and making himself vulnerable to the black hole of politics.

On Being in Awe

Sometimes you can only stand in awe, relax and enjoy.

As much as I would like to attribute the weekend's sports accomplishments of the Red Sox and the Patriots to superior talent, clearly that doesn't get it.

Scientists can assemble all the molecular, biological and chemical molecules essential to existence, but that assemblance, by and of itself, doesn't constitute life.

Tito, Theo, Luchino, Warner and Henry have assembled all the talent elements essential to existence, but that assemblance, by and of itself, didn't constitute life.

The mystery of life is that the whole exceeds the sum of the parts.

Ranting: Sometimes the Only Way to Get Attention

Crying in the wilderness and Ranting are both manifestations of frustration. As such they are examples of venting, a way to let off steam, relieve pressure. But the Crier and Ranter are also trying to draw attention to something important to them. As such they share the frustration of a child who throws a fit or a tantrum. All have in common the element of shock value. Sometimes shock is necessary to get attention.


The source of my frustration is the shamelessness of the rampant hypocrisy of those who want us to believe and trust that they are honest and honorable people who have the best interests of our nation at heart.


"Bullshit"!, Says I, in my Rant mode. "A plague o' both your houses" saith the Bard in his Rant mode.


I established this blog because I wanted a platform, podium or pulpit from which I could express how I perceive what is going on in our land. I tend to be drawn more to the forest than the trees, to a view of the so-called big picture more than today's details. That's my nature, and to the extent that what I have to say gains any credibility with the reader, it is likely to be with the reader who is sufficiently aware of the facts and details of today's reality, but also appreciates the pattern inherent in the details of day to day reality.


There are many valuable blogs, the authors of which focus on, if not specialize in, reporting what has happened daily and what is being said, written and shown on a daily basis.


" EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!" was the cry of the newspaper hawker on the street. "It" was the story behind the headline of that day's paper.



It's generally assumed that the so-called Main Stream Media is still looked to as a trustworthy, reliable, credible, honorable, honest and objective source of the daily news.



"EXTRA, EXTRA, READ ALL ABOUT IT!!!, was about selling newspapers, not blogs nor cable news. The advent of these two news sources gave rise to the term Main Stream Media.

That title is at least generous in its implication that the newspapers represented by that collective term reflect and represent the main stream of opinion.



Traditional Media would be a more accurate and honest label. It suggests what are thought of by many as positive and admirable qualities: historical, established, sustainable, recognizable, even reputable.


Of course the owners and editors of the MSM have opinions about what they report as the daily news. There is the editorial page, replete with the opinions of its editors, and usually includes a so-called Op-Ed page.



In this case Op might mean "opposite" in the sense that it is printed on the opposite page from the unsigned editorials. It might also mean or imply that what one reads on that page is somehow opposite of the opinions expressed on the editorial page. In practice Op seems to stand for Opinion, not necessarily Opposite opinion.



The most significant differentiator seems to be that the columns on the so-called Op-Ed page are signed and can be attributed to a particular individual, whereas the pieces on the Editorial Page represent the group opinion of the owners and editors of the institution which publishes the newspaper; in other words, their bias.



Now, there's nothing inherently bad about bias, though the word itself conveys a negative connotation. Bias includes opinion. But "bias" seems to connote "opinions" which have become grouped in such a way as to become so predictable that the holders of such opinions can be called, "opinionated".



Opinions, in the best sense of the word, are initial and perhaps tentative judgments about one's perceptions and initial evaluations of facts and events. As such opinions are open to and acknowledge that there are other opinions. Opinions beget and welcome discussion and dialogue, and are willing to suspend judgement.


There are those whose opinions are so one sided as to qualify as biased. They will use, spin, distort and quote out of context supposedly undisputed facts to persuade and convince the reader that they are the trusted and objective sources in which the reader should have confidence.

Of course this is not new to the history of our species. However, over the past several years of reading different opinions, I have found a disturbing increase in instances of factual reality being distorted, spun, quoted out of context, etc., with the clear intent of twisting facts to suit a bias; a pretty good working definition of propaganda.

I hasten to add that I have not found this to be peculiar to any particular political persuasion or party.

For what it's worth, here's my take on how and why bias has proliferated to such an extent that it feeds and encourages polarization of the citizenry.

The campaign for the Nov. 2008 election began soon after the Nov. 2006 election, and it's dynamics probably can be traced back to the Nov. 2004 election. So much has been made of the amount of money needed to sustain a campaign. That money corrupts, and big money corrupts absolutely, is a truism.

How to say this as clearly as I can. To the extent that politicians believe that they always have to make raising money for a campaign their top priority, and can't resist the temptation to campaign for the next election, the country loses the governing it deserves and for which it voted in it's most recent election.

We vote, politicians are elected to govern as they told us they would, then ignore the reasons we elected them, and start again, almost immediately to tell us why we should elect them again.

Hello??

When do we get what we voted for?

That's the naive question of the day.

The sadly cynical, but reality based answer is, You Get What You Pay For.

Part of growing up is coming to terms with the admonitions of the poem Desiderata; in particular, and germane to this rant, "Exercise caution in your business affairs, for the world is full of trickery".

It's easy to complain.

What I want people to think about has to do with the dominance of campaigning versus governing. I think it's more about the length of campaigns, than the money needed to campaign. If campaigns were limited in terms of weeks or months as they are in other countries, Germany and Australia for example, the need for raising money to sustain campaigns should decline in direct proportion to the length of time over which a campaign must be sustained. That's simplistic of course, and it would take some time for politicians to relax about how much money they needed to get or keep their jobs. But over time, a few elections cycles, perhaps limiting the length of campaign time might result in the voter getting more of what he voted for, than what he couldn't afford to pay for.

Our Founders gave us the best gift they could, based on their knowledge and understanding of history and their own times. Their bequest to us is the Constitution, a framework for a sustainable society, a big picture of what life should look like in a nation based on the principle of justice. What they decided upon and encoded in our Constitution came into being as antidotes to the injustices from which they and their fore bearers fled in England and Europe.

They were prescient in their awareness that they needed to identify, define, decide upon and reduce to written form for posterity some basic and immutable principles of a society, culture, even a country, essential to ensure the the health and survival of the land they had come to love.

The current president and vice president have acted more like those old kings than elected public servants. The do not wish to govern, but to rule.

Members of Congress are so focused on keeping their jobs that they are ignoring the erosion of the Constitution our Founders bequeathed to us.

Crooks and Liars

The title of this post is actually also the name of a blog. It can be accessed at: http://www.crooksandliars.com/. I haven't checked it out enough times to evaluate it from my perspective, but because I consider the current administration as a bunch of crooks and liars, I am predisposed to be at least open to what the author or authors have to say.

You might ask yourself why such a blog, with such a title, exists.

A few weeks ago, a political cartoon in the Boston Globe made the point. It consisted of four panels, two of which depicted then AG Gonzales with mouth closed and two with mouth opened.

The caption under the mouth closed panels read, "Not lying". Under the mouth opened panels the caption read, "Lying".

I love to laugh at some cartoons, like some in The New Yorker magazine.

I didn't laugh at the Globe cartoon. I grimaced.

As one who likes to find a middle ground upon which people with honest and honorable intentions can debate with others of honest and honorable intentions, I find myself not only discouraged, but angry about the kind of discourse we hear and read about in the so-called Main Stream Media. Even employing the word "discourse" to describe those reports constitutes a generous concession that the motives of the MSM are neutral in their nature.

Personally I am at least doubtful that the MSM is neutral. Of course one has to agree on the definition of the MSM. For purposes of this essay, I choose to define the MSM as comprised of institutions whose mission is to report and interpret news to those who read and/or see and hear what they publish. In addition I limit my definition of the MSM to those institutions which, according to generally accepted parameters, have a substantial audience, are well known and financially well funded and with a history of sustainability.

Examples include, but are not limited to, The New York Times, The Washington Post, New Yorker Magazine, Newsweek, US News and World Report, Washington Times, New York Post, to name a few with apparent opposite editorial bias.

Then there exists today a vast and growing number of alternative sources of news, like the existence of alternative medicine. They spring up all over the place and time. They are called blogs, short for Internet Web Logs. There is almost no discipline to which the writers of such blogs commit. They can write and publish stuff on all topics, obsessions, persuasions, perversions and narcisisstically fueled needs.

So, how is one to know what to believe in, what is accurate and truthful?

And the answer is, drum roll please, Judgment. There has never been, is not now, and never will be, a substitute for Judgment. Where does one "get" judgment? You can't buy it anywhere, you can't inherit it, though genetics plays a role, you can't luck into it like buying a winning lottery ticket, you can't find it dropped by another on the street, or in the local dump, land fill, recycling/transfer station, or in a dumpster.

Some might proclaim that you either have it or you don't. A good education is the beginning, followed by continued use of the mind on issues which have at least two sides, and by listening to and reading the arguments of opposing sides. The MSM has become too compliant with respect to politics. The blogosphere is full of opinion and is not compliant. It is the equivalent of the pamphlet phenomenon of 18th century America.

A Flip of the Tongue

If one hasn't been offended enough by Romney's whoreish campaign, his flipping the names of Osama and Obama should do it.

He even started saying Osama, in reference to the Terrorist-in-Chief, then clearly said Barack Obama, not once but twice, as the one who issued a call to all terrorists to unite.

Shame, shame, shame!!!