Previous Rant

Rantings List

Next Rant

More Miscellaneous Thoughts

by Michael Kirwan — February, 2014

 

 I'm pretty persnickety about words and how they're used. I actually cringe when I hear someone say "conversate" when they could have used "converse." It's just one of the many things that bother me. It's just another example of how linguistic carelessness demeans communication, the most valuable tool available to mankind.

 

Recently, I watched a few of those "true crime" mini-documentaries. You know, "Cold Case" and "Unusual Suspects," programs of that nature. Anyway, the narrators continually referred to certain emotional quandaries as "love triangles" when they were patently no such thing. The arrangement being described might be more accurately depicted as an arrow or a v or ^ or whatever the official words for the greater than/less than mathematical symbols. A "triangle" suggests (at least to me) that at least two of the interconnected characters are in love with two of the other parties comprising the trio. Two women in love with one man just doesn't create a triangle. If the two women were also in love with each other, then the criteria for comparison to that geometric structure would be met. I know it shouldn't be a big deal, but when the announcer, who's ostensively representing the "voice of authority," blithely mislabels the very crux of what set the crime in motion, it irritates me. Old man yelling at the clouds again... Hahaha!

 

The other day, I was half-assedly listening to what was billed as a debate between a religious figure and an avowed atheist on Public Radio. The whole argument (a mild disagreement really) was very unsatisfying for me. The point should have been raised that it's not the existence of a "god" that's really in question but instead the acceptance of the concept of heaven and hell (add purgatory and limbo for devout Catholics and future creatures for those who favor reincarnation). If the heaven/hell scenario doesn't resonate on a rational level and if the contention of specific destinations for afterlife "souls" appears ludicrous, then the question of whether or not a "god" exists becomes absolutely pointless. If the likelihood of a heaven as portrayed by the believers seems far-fetched, then there would be no imperative to placate any particular "god" persona by following certain arcane rules. I just can't get on board with the idea of an afterlife myself. I don't see the purpose of it. Sure it was a sly tool to socially control the ignorant masses in the early days of civilization and for encouraging poor slobs to accept their life of suffering and general injustice with the promise of good times once you're dead. But ultimately, it doesn't make any sense. The very belief that humans are entitled to an unprovable and totally illogical "second act" smacks of species hubris, arrogance, and mass delusion. That more people don't even question the fundamental premise of heaven/hell (or becoming a god of your own world, populating it by spawning with your many sister-wives — as is the Mormon paradigm as I understand it — a fever dream of an unpopular pimply teenager if ever there was one) is very disheartening. Once you reject the notion that impossible-to-verify individual "souls" are assigned to rather silly mystic locations after death, the existence of a supreme deity becomes completely moot.

 

Am I the only one who sees this "home-schooling" movement as a ploy to essentially advance incestuous child molestation? These kids are indoctrinated by non-professional instructors to accept as fact that Noah somehow got his hands on a breeding pair of koalas. So, how easy would it be to convince youngsters that it's natural for parents to engage in god-sanctified sexual conduct with their children? The kids are isolated from outsiders, and there aren't any peers or counselors or teachers to tell or report such activity. There's this "us against them" mentality providing an extra layer of dependency wherein the parents are the sole source of information. The parents spend a big chunk of time where the adults otherwise would engage in grown-up interaction or relish some solitude. The children are exempted from normal socialization and become unable to see themselves as individuals apart from their families or learn how to operate in real world situations. This kind of arrangement is not that much different from what went on behind the other closed doors of the Catholic Church using the old, trusted, authority figure ruse. I think that in twenty or thirty years we'll see many home-schooled "graduates" coming forth with tales of hard-core, incestuous relationships with their parents. I'll probably be dead by then, but maybe some serious attention will be brought to this disturbing probability beforehand.

 

So, again I'm listening to Public Radio. It's primarily a news station and I don't really enjoy it all that much. It’s story repetition, spending a lot of time discussing topics of little interest to me, and the passionless exercise of trying to make both sides of a controversy equally valid. If anybody knows of an extremely liberal, free station in the Los Angeles area, please feel free to let me know. Anyway, there was mention of an official government panel or commission tasked with studying and coming up with tactics to prevent the deaths of children aged 2 to 12 in their home environments (for some bizarre PC reason the interviewee avoided using the term “MURDER”) due to neglect and... well, being killed at the hands of their caregivers. The "expert" cited reasons such as poverty and drug use, but shockingly, at least to me, no mention of religion. I've read so many horror tales in the "crime" section at the Huffington Post about kids being murdered in "exorcisms" or killed/tortured/damaged due to "biblical punishments." Does no one remember ANDREA YATES? She bumped up the statistics considerably when she drowned her EIGHT children in a freak religious fervor. I guess the commission and the NPR folks are scared of getting the religious nuts’ attack dogs on them. If you're sincerely serious about reducing/eliminating the mortality rate of America's children in their own homes, not taking a much closer look at the more extreme religious practices and sects in this country will pretty much renders your efforts toothless. By only pointing fingers at the most obvious causes (i.e. poverty and drug use), it seems, to me, both lazy and cowardly.

 

Later, Michael

 

Previous Rant

Rantings List

Next Rant

 

 

Any images, writings or other content on this website may be copied for personal viewing only. They may not be: redistributed; sold; altered; enhanced; modified by artificial, digital or computer imaging; used on another website or blog; posted to any internet or computer newsgroup, forum or media sharing site; nor used for any other purpose without the express written permission of the artist or KirwanArts.com.

Any images, writings or other content on this website may be copied for personal viewing only.
They may not be: redistributed; sold; altered; enhanced; modified by artificial, digital or computer imaging;
used on another website or blog; posted to any internet or computer newsgroup, forum or media sharing site;
nor used for any other purpose without the express written permission of the artist or KirwanArts.com.