Yet more bull . . . unbearably

While America seemingly spins and falls further into political ignominy, the Russian Bear finds itself still (apparently) longing for its own glory days as master of all that it has (once) surveyed and controlled.

However, Chechnya might actually be too costly for the Russian people to bear much longer.

As for what (more) Putin will (actually) do about any of it; who knows?

Striking his best Van-Damme pose?

For as it is written in the NYT recently:

Resentment over the lavish subsidies paid to Chechnya and other regions in the mostly Muslim North Caucasus to secure loyalty after the war has spawned a movement dedicated to cutting the region off financially.

 In war (and market economy), the wise strategist always goes for the supply lines.

Celebrity, too, makes the buying of a kingdom so much more . . . fun (and mae-be, swanky, too dammeit!).

Hilary Swank attended the festive birthday party of dictator Ramzan Kadyrov in the Chechen capital of Grozny a couple of weeks ago, accompanied by a number of other celebrities including martial arts star-turned-take-me-serious-please actor Jean-Claude Van Damme and British violinist Vanessa Mae.

Ramzan Kadyrov (remember my name)

Reportedly, the currently hapless Ms Mae was paid half a million dollars to attend the party and perform for President Kadyrov, who has been accused by human rights groups, journalists, and others of presiding over a regime that routinely participates in kidnappings, killings and torture of political opponents and human rights advocates.

Last week, Ms. Swank, at least, was apologetic (if not also, charitably apoplectic).

May there be fewer million dollar blunders and more million dollar babies in her future . . . and that of us all.

The new future of spirit world

It is true, that somehow, despite all the BS in the world of religion today, I, personally remain . . . a theist.

Hence, to make that more perfectly clear, here and now, (a dash of RMN with a generous portion of CEH and perhaps some SMM) I'd like to go into some of my reasoning behind that.

As even the great and still living, self-proclaimed atheist Christopher Hitchens would state it (if he were I):

"I think being a theist is something you are, not something you do."

Exactly (or maybe both?).

And:

"I’m not sure we need to be honored. We don’t need positive reinforcement. On the other hand, we do need to stick up for ourselves . . ."

It seems that no matter where one turns, one is bound to get a different perspective. Hence, and simply, I prefer to turn inward, but not to the point of implosion (yet) as many have done; many still do and will do, preventative measures taken to the contrary.

So what has that done for me?

Why, it has provided me with countless pleasures through the voyages of discovery, which apparently, are not the exclusive domain of those who profess "atheism" (or as in Hitchen's case, as I read him; steadfastly defending against all real bigotry, abuse and all other hypocrisy disbursed in the name of [a] religion over reason).

But can one (still, today) profess some level of being "anti-religion" and yet, remain pro-God?

Of course.

The question, however, is one of degree; or as one reads, particularly with Hitchens' eloquence.

Of some passing interest here, The Christian Post also reports that an atheist group calling itself The Clergy Project has formed a support group for "non-believing pastors."

How would one describe a "non-believing pastor"?

Answer: [As one who]"no longer believed what their parishioners thought they believed."

And when is a "non-believing pastor," still a pastor, by the way?

The games never change . . .

*****

Bottomline for me of the church of the new future of the spirit world:

Reality is all very subjective, but in that, there must be some ultimate "Subjectivity" or whatever you may call it/he/she.

One day, who knows when, but one day, it will all make sense in THIS LIFE.
Until then, however, there is always and forever, the afterlife.

In the meantime, let us all try and make the best of it, toward that amazing, incredible, fabulous goal.


"A family on the throne is an interesting idea. It brings down the pride of sovereignty to the level of petty life."  ~Walter Bagehot

Raging Bull

Or ducking and feigning amidst the new occupation "movement."

As an ABC News analysis today has it, "occupation can lead to ownership, whether or not you want it."

Indeed, and continuing:

The spread of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement was met with initial hesitation in both the Democratic and Republican parties. That might be an appropriate response to any protests that aim themselves squarely at the establishment, particularly those with goals that are diverse and diffuse as the current protesters' are.

But a consensus is emerging among Democrats that the "Occupy" movement is worth tapping into, even helping along and joining with in some instances.

. . . in a China shop?

Amazing, er, incredible!

And as New Media Journal's Frank Salvato has it, the reality deserves an even closer examination than that.

By now, no doubt, you have heard about the "incredible" Occupy Wall Street Movement taking place on and around Wall Street; a movement whose organizers claim is "organic" and spreading across the globe, not unlike the so-called "Arab Spring." There are a few problems with this claim, however. First, the movement is anything but "organic." And second, for the most part, the "Arab Spring" has facilitated the rise of radical Islamist factions to the courts of power. Incredible indeed.

The "movement" is incredible for many reasons; incredible in that what we are being asked to believe the impossible or very difficult to believe, via the reporting in the mainstream media and declarations issued from the movement's organizers. Interviews with a credible sampling of those in attendance prove that many participants don't even know why they are there but for it being "the place to be" for the terminally and youthfully disgruntled.

But a closer examination of who is in attendance, who is stepping up to the proverbial microphone and what "the movement" is issuing as a set of "demands," makes the studied eye suspicious that this may, in fact, be the mother of all political "astroturfing" initiatives, just in time to demonize the job creators as "greedy" in the run up to an election where the incumbent, Barack Obama, hasn't an accomplishment to run on.

Too bad, no one has really examined the Tea (or Coffee!) Party very closely at all.
[Admitted sarcasm]

Chalk another one up for the Gulag America chorus, I suppose.

Cuban repression escalates

And who might be surprised by that?

As The Wall Street Journal's Mary O'Grady writes and Cuban exile bloggers John Suarez and Marc Masferrer amplify:

The nongovernmental organization Capitol Hill Cubans has reported that in the first 12 days of September, authorities detained 168 peaceful activists. These "express detentions" are designed to break up dissident gatherings, which risk spreading nonconformist behavior. Locking up offenders for long periods would be preferable, but the regime wants people like Mr. [Bill] Richardson to go around saying that human rights have improved. The regime is also making greater use of civilian-clothed "rapid response" brigades that are trained, armed and organized to beat up democracy advocates.

Mr. Richardson told me he considers Cuba's record improved because 52 political prisoners were sent to Spain in 2010. Yet exiling promising opposition leadership hardly qualifies as a humanitarian gesture. Nor are gruesome Cuban prisons anything to ignore.

Any hope of protecting these patriots lies in international condemnation."

Meanwhile, look who's talking just a few days ago.
(I wonder if he might be talking about someone who really IS surprised?):

"How kind! How intelligent!  Such kindness still has not allowed him to understand that 50 years of blockade and crimes against our country have not been able to bow our people."  (Original comments in Spanish by El Jefe via his online diary at the oxymoronic Cuba Debate site here.)

If this is [the result of a strategy of] winning friends and influencing enemies, I think it is time for some new (or refresher) courses on both The Good Book and The Golden Rule.

Nixon's Tombstone

I spit on your book!

Heroes and the inspiration they give or leave us with, (even after they are gone) are not always what they seem. 

In fact, one could easily argue that in this age of creative information clarification and obfuscation, they are seldom so.

Further, bibliophiles and etymologists (whether casual or serious) might take note that the word "inspire" is rooted in the Latin (14th century) word inspirare, from in- + spirare -- which means, simply -- to breathe.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7 KJV)

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
~Emma Lazarus

In brief, inspiration, whatever the source or form, analyzed and deconstructed brings to the forefront a strange apprehension and often repeated (though seldom spoken) question:

"How will  I  be remembered?"

Of one modern day hero, the exchange on a new biography (or epitaph) between coach/friend and author/executioner (as excerpted and posited over on a Yahoo Sports blog here) is interesting.

Coach Mike Ditka defending the legacy of Walter Payton:

"If you're going to wait 12 years after somebody's passed, come on. This is the sign of a gutless individual who would do this. Totally gutless who would hide behind that, and that's what he's done."

Journalist Jeff Pearlman defending his craft:

"You are a journalist, trying to paint the full picture. The FULL picture. You have to, in the name of honesty; in the name of authenticity. Otherwise, why have biographies at all? Why look back at the lives of JFK and Ronald Reagan and MLK and Malcolm X and Jim Morrison and Marilyn Monroe and on and on and on? What's to learn … to understand … to appreciate if all we do is turn the deceased into unflawed icons?
What's the point of history, if history can only be approved talking points?"

 The greatest ever?

And what's the point of one person's life (be they me, a family member, friend or foe) at all?

After all is said and done, whether passionately, impassively, musically, cinematically, lyrically or just "in your face"; human beings remain a very incongruous and discordant lot.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whom I've not mentioned much, of late, would surely agree.

For as the somber refrain of old Russian folk of certain (gulag) memory goes:
 

"Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

And here we all still are, whether of the flesh or not.

Good and bad, similar and opposed,

Here we all still are.

Spit, cry, smile or sigh;

for once within our own

grave or pyre,

not even one

remains a liar.