Just a chime....or??

[westgrandboulevard]

Seems like remembering to forget can often help to keep the peace with others.

Other times, forgetting to remember can find us in a whole heap of trouble..

[Jerry Oz]

Reminds me of the old Tavares song "Remember What I Told You to Forget". My dad had me convinced it was stupid because of the title, but somehow it's still one of my favorites from back in the '70s. But I'd like to forget how many times I said "forget it" when I knew that she wouldn't.

[westgrandboulevard]

Exactly! Try forgetting to remember someone's birthday, when that someone is looking for you to remember it.

You can't do right, for doing wrong....

[Jerry Oz]

I learned that lesson many times. If you forget it, you're scum of the Earth and a bad human being. If you remembered it with a gift, they say "you shouldn't have!"

[westgrandboulevard]

On one occasion, my Mum opened a gift that my Dad had bought her [[with help, I suspect), regarded it intently for a few seconds, then slowly turned to my Dad with a bemused smile and enquired: "Who were you thinking of, when you bought this...??"

[moe]

Do you two think there's a double standard here?

[Jerry Oz]

Do you two think there's a double standard here?

Before I answer: Do you belong to NOW?

[moe]

No way NOW!

[westgrandboulevard]

Apart from 'now', as in the present, what is meant by 'NOW' - ??

[Jerry Oz]

I apologize for the obscure reference. NOW refers to the National Organization for Women, an American feminist civil rights group that was vital in some of our country's progress toward women's rights since the 1960s. They kind of earned a reputation for being reactionary toward perceived affronts. But, with that being said, progress never comes from politely asking for change, so I am glad somebody stood up.

[westgrandboulevard]

Thanks Jerry, that does clarify the reference.

'Perceived affronts' is an interesting statement. I do have quite a strong agreement with it.

For myself, I'm not one who likes to be too rigidly categorised, and I prefer to think for myself as an individual, rather than just join the crowd. I can see that raising awareness by publicising any of society's ever-present injustices, prejudices and biases towards minorities can be effective to a point - but the main advocates seem to be those who would wish to attract a certain degree of attention to themselves in any set of circumstances.

Once the demonstrators and banner wavers have made their point, any further integration into broader society of disadvantaged/minority groups seems then to be left to 'all the others', the quiet majority, who just get on with their lives.

'Perceived affronts' do seem to be prominent in the rationale of the reactionaries. I wonder sometimes if the circumstances about which they complain are real, or simply a result of their own negative attitude towards other people, but made in an effort to justify their self-interests.

Apart from that, when moe shows up next, perhaps she will expand on her suggestion that a double-standard might be at work, as I'm unclear, and unsure how to respond on that one...

[Jerry Oz]

But on the other hand, you have to recognize that [[especially at the onset of a movement) perceptions must be heightened for fear of withering away the message. Take abortion for example. I'm convinced that most reasonable people would not want it to be used lazily as a form of after-the-fact contraception. However, if the pro-choice forces take that stand, the pro-life side will use that wriggle room to create laws that effectively end all abortions. Conversely, I'm also convinced that most reasonable people on the other side of the debate would not want their daughter, after suffering through a horrible rape, to not have the option of terminating a pregnancy that she neither chose, nor should be forced to endure because of someone else's moral or religious principles.

It applies to gun control where it's obvious that we have to keep guns out of the hands of madmen. However, the NRA posits that to remove anyone's rights to guns is to permit someone else to determine who has the right to own them. Consequently, they have the devilish mission of making sure everybody who wants a gun will have the ability to obtain one.

To summarize: The leaders of societal movements don't have the leeway to quibble over exceptions, so they have to perceive any exception as an affront and danger to the movement.

[moe]

You know what Jerry? In all my illustrious years I've never needed a group/organization to echo my sentiments. I've made my thoughts known several times over the years!!

[Jerry Oz]

I understand. Unfortunately, the world only works via coalition. That is why I roll my eyes every election season to hear folks running for Congress or the Senate tell me about their agendas. If they have 20 points, they have to sell out 19 of them to 19 colleagues in order to get one of them passed. It's even worse in the USA now, because you have to vote with the party line on every issue, so there is no longer cooperation between like-minded public servants who are unfortunate enough to be in opposing parties. The voice of the individual is lost like tears in the rain, unseen, unheard, and uncared about.

[144man]

Are there never any successful rebellions against the party line in the US now? We've just had one in the UK over Syria.

[Jerry Oz]

No. It's crazy. Unless a third party arises that has centrist views, we're going to have significant upheaval here in the next 10 years or so. There are too many extreme views and too little reason in the public discourse and I can imagine that some cornered wing of Americana will decide that the views of the most vocal and best armed few outweigh those of the millions who vote contrary to them. History is snowballing and soon it will result in the end of our federalist society.

[westgrandboulevard]

I have been engrossed with other details, so have only caught the headlines.

Can someone explain succinctly the situation in Syria?

[Jerry Oz]

There is a rebellion against the rule of Bashar al-Assad. From a US perspective, we officially cannot win, no matter which side prevails. The void of a dictator that hates both Israel and the USA would be filled by a leadership that hates us more. To make matters worse, Russia and Hezbollah are both supporting al-Assad. In his zeal to suppress the rebellion, it appears that al-Assad employed chemical weapons against his citizenry, which is contrary to what is acceptable [[to put it mildly). Well, England and France both have determined that he has stepped over the line. The US has declared that "something" needs to be done to deter him from doing it again. Russia will make sure the Security Council is not involved. With England effectively negating the possibility of a coalition, the only party likely to take action is the US. Are we the world's police? And if so, are we better with the [[current) devil we know or should we help the devil that we don't know? It's a mess...

[westgrandboulevard]

Thanks Jerry, I think I now have it.

I'm by no means a political animal, just trying to get by in my tiny part of this world, and be happy. But...I do feel concerned that there are things happening in other countries that don't seem right. As you say, any country appearing to employ chemical weapons against its own citizenry is quite unacceptable. I'm still unclear why that has happened.

Yes, the US is seen, [[by a large proportion of the world's population, I'd say) to be the world's police. It seems strange, sometimes debatable, but many times right that the US should be placed in the position of entering other countries and attempt peacekeeping measures. Dealing with the devil you know in the first instance, would seem to be the priority.

I can see why the UK [[not just England, to be pedantic) would vote against what some feel as making a 'hasty' decision but, if [[or when...?) the situation worsens, I imagine there will be no alternative but to support the US.

Yes, it's a mess.

[Jerry Oz]

Yesterday, President Obama deferred any action until he has the approval of Congress. I'm convinced that he knows that if we act solely on his authority, Washington will be even less productive in the next three years than it has in the previous five. The Republicans were licking their chops at the thought of endless congressional inquiries into his overstepping his authority as Commander-In-Chief. It's sad that it has come to this, but I agree with his decision.

[moe]

Like I said to someone this weekend: Brace for impact. I sincerely hope not!

[westgrandboulevard]

Yes, best to fasten the seatbelts.....

[Jerry Oz]

Is it me, or does it seem that history has sped up? I mean, it seems like so much has happened in the last 20 years that is of global significance. Some things are already forgotten that we thought were the most important issues of their day.

[144man]

I'm not sure if things have sped up. The internet means that there is a greater awareness of what is going on around us. We now hear of problems such as rape in India, which might not have been reported in depth twenty years ago. The world has become a lot smaller.

As far as Syria is concerned the main aim has to be to stop future bloodshed, especially chemical attacks. The general population in the USA and the UK just does not have the the detailed information to assess the best way to achieve this, so there is no alternative to the decisions on what action to take being made at Government level.

[westgrandboulevard]

Yes, that's why we have voted for those in Government to be where they are.

Let's hope they get it right. If necessary, let's pray....

[Jerry Oz]

Here in the States, we have 700 members of Congress and 100 senators representing 315 million constituents. We have too many citizens for there to be a centralized representative government. Why would a congressman from Maine [[located to the far northeast) have a concern about something that affects Arizona [[located in the far southwest)? The minutia is impossible to manage, so everything is done in broad strokes and consequently graft and waste are the natural result. Government is too big, but still not large enough to manage the amount of people who constitute the nations. Of course, the folks who have the ability to change it are part of it, so nothing will change.

[westgrandboulevard]

I'm just wondering about your last sentence, Jerry.

OK, maybe nothing will seem to change, but how can things stay exactly the same as they always were? That doesn't seem to be the way of the world - ?

[144man]

I think the difference is between random change and managed change.

[westgrandboulevard]

I have a feeling that 'short change' would also be included in there, somewhere....

[moe]

You most definitely have a point, westgrand!

[Jerry Oz]

In the course of human events, change is natural. However, change for those in power means that they either adapt or become obsolete. Well, they ain't adapting. And they are fighting obsolescence tooth and nail. We're witnessing what happens when evolution is suppressed and can it be a wonder that the Arab Spring occurred? I'm sensing that there will be similar upheavals in Asia, Europe, and the USA soon.

[144man]

You're right, Jerry. I'm sensing that things can't go on the way they are, especially as the gap between the rich and poor continues to widen.

We've just had another crisis in one of our UK banks. If we're not learning from past mistakes, what hope is there for the future? We're also going the route of helping people get mortgages that they may not be able to afford. That worked out well in America with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, didn't it?

[westgrandboulevard]

I'm probably overlooking something very obvious, but I wish there was a simple way via the internet for any of us to make our opinions known, so that a national trend in the thoughts of the general population could be speedily evaluated.

[Jerry Oz]

I thought that is what Twitter does? I may be wrong, but they can check key words and determine what is important to the world as well as individual nations. At some point, I'm sure you'll hear some enterprising wannabe world emperor [[Ming the Merciless?) determining Twitter to be the opiate of the masses.

More toward your point, I'm sure that the power brokers have a thumb on the pulse of the people. But political entites are more concerned with telling the people what they want them to think as opposed to caring what we think without their help. If you want proof, look at the last presidential election cycle in the US. Americans voted against the Republican candidate because that party is viewed as being less inclusive and diverse in its platform. Rather than adjust to the shift in direction, Republicans are trying diligently to adjust election laws in ways that will prevent as many of the people who voted against them in 2012 from being able to vote in 2016.

[westgrandboulevard]

The main problem I have with Twitter is that,most times, I'm too busy doing something, to want to talk about it while I do it, or after I've done it. Ditto Facebook, although both have their benefits in certain circumstances - e.g. general announcements.

That might just be because I'm me, and of my generation, but I can well understand that younger people are much more likely to view it in a different light. I just think it strange to be sending out messages that I'm having a cup of coffee, and where....

As you say, too much in politics is given to maintaining a position and, very often, too little in reflecting what is actually required by the people.

[Jerry Oz]

You won't catch me with a Twitter ID or Facebook page. I'm too focused on making sure I can fall off the grid if necessary and I don't need to put any more information out there than someone can get by paying a snoop for it.

Have you heard that crooks are using Facebook and Twitter as vehicles to let them know when someone is away from home so that they can rob them? Think about that the next time you post about what a great time you're having on a cruise ship hundreds of miles away from home.

[westgrandboulevard]

Or broadcasting the death of someone. It needs only someone to know someone, and one of them to be a crook, plus funeral details in the local paper, then they're attempting to turn the property over while everyone is at the service....

[Jerry Oz]

They're doing that in the States, too. More in rural areas than cities, crooks are reading obituaries and gathering enough information to figure out the most likely targets at the best time. What a shameless generation...

[westgrandboulevard]

It pays to think just like them, but to stay ahead by thinking ahead, and be vigilant.

Seems like the law of the jungle, somehow.......

[Jerry Oz]

Don't think too much like them, though. If you booby trap your house [[or even a part of it, like a cupboard or closet that a crook is likely to open), the law protects the intruder is some cases and punishes you. That has always made me scratch my head.

[westgrandboulevard]

Looking at the fees charged by lawyers is enough to make anyone scratch their head.

[Jerry Oz]

Great segue into the Question of the Day: What is the difference between a carp and a lawyer?


Answer: One is a cold-blooded, bottom feeding, slimy mucksucker. The carp, on the other hand, is a fish.

[moe]

Great explanation Jerry..........

[westgrandboulevard]

It's best for each of us always to keep a sense of humour wherever possible - but some of the things we hear do challenge that ideal....

[Jerry Oz]

It's not hard to see why so many see the condition of the world and become paranoid. With social media, the former 24-hour news cycle is literally an instantaneous news cycle and things that we were "protected" from knowing in the past - whether by editorial decisions or lack of time/space to report everything - are now available for us all to know. Plus, the world has an apparent thirst for unfiltered images, so shocking images are broadcast that we'd never see before. Is it a coincidence that movies and literature about the zombie apocalype are extremely popular? Many think that the world is going to end soon.

[westgrandboulevard]

I find myself wanting to say 'never underestimate the public taste', but have a feeling that really should read 'never overestimate' it....

[Jerry Oz]

The producers of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo" would eagerly agree with that statement, WGB.

[westgrandboulevard]

I'm grateful to you, Jerry.

Before you mentioned it, and without the internet, I could have gone my whole life, quite unaware of the existence of "Here Comes Honey Boo Boo".

I have now checked it out.

It's very thought provoking. I am now asking myself if I could watch a production like HCHBB without feeling judgmental, as in "an insult to one's intelligence" but, at the same time, also feeling a little guilty even for thinking that....!

[Jerry Oz]

It's both funny and terribly sad. I don't watch it myself, but I wonder if it matters to the participants that fans of their show are laughing at them and not with them. It probably does not matter so long as the check clears and their lives, if not their dignity, are improved as a result of it. i guess that makes me judgmental as well, eh?

[westgrandboulevard]

I was comfortable with The Clampetts!