Bill LaCroix: Definitions

Showing posts with label Definitions. Show all posts

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Politics

A Definition

Politics is a poorly-understood human condition whereby, if you put two people in the same room you may or may not have it, but if you put the same two people in a bathroom, you will.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

Jesus was much-misunderstood and misquoted even in his own day, but in His infinite wisdom He knew that this human flaw, presently referred to as "disconnect", would get much worse over time. To speak to this concern, He said to His followers that when this 'love your neighbor" movement they were attempting really got off the ground (so to speak) He would eventually be misquoted, misrepresented and downright lied about so shamelessly by those who forever have taken good things and knocked them on their asses for the sake of selling a more perfect snake oil that eventually things were bound to get really, really bad for everybody.

Then did Jesus see the furrowed brows ripple like wind across a still lake through countenances his on his disciples and He admonished them. "Oh, ye of little faith! Do you think I don't have a fix for this. Dad promised Me that when things got truly unbearable, He (My Dad) would suck all of these troublemakers up into the sky, which is where they, in their misguided zeal, will be wanting to go anyway so, verily, everything will work out just fine. It will be a win-win-win.

Jesus did admit to his still-worried followers that this sucking will necessarily be inconvenient, but will ultimately be cleansing and will therefore worthwhile and also be known as the Rapture for Reasons Inscrutable. All who would yearn for Good Things should pray for it every day.

You're welcome.

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Political Correctness--A Definition and Some Advice

Political Correctness is a term invented by Sen. Jesse Helms, one of the most far-right politicians of the Reagan years, to denigrate anyone to the left of Atilla The Hun, and it's common usage has not strayed from its origins one iota since then.

When someone to the left of Atilla uses the term "politically correct" they are declaring solidarity with, or at least demonstrating the internalization of a philosophy that a man who proudly proclaimed his first-name status with the Salvadorean Death Squad leader Roberto D'aubuisson and other first-rate murderers of his era would thank you for perpetrating.

Therefore, in the face of the Ubiquity of Stupid (I just made that up--you're welcome to steal it!) in an era when we should be trying to elevate our level of discussion on the critical issues of our time one has to ask: Are we doomed, then, to repeating vicious banalities invented by monsters?

At the very least, don't use that goddam phrase on me or mine. Thank you and, please, think.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Libertarianism Definitively Defined

I was in a Target store the other day and overheard a conversation between two twenty-something guys, loudly identifying as "Libertarians" and trying to agree on what that actually means. I left before they came to consensus, which is common with "libertarians", but it got me thinking. "Libertarianism", IMHO, is a squishy word that is in the process of being weaponized by the Whacky Right but has never been properly-defined. Given our options in these Interesting Times, maybe a little history would help.

The result is this hopefully-helpful, fact-checkable definition that merely connects the 18th-and-19th-Century observations of Jonathan Swift and Lewis Carrol with the doings of 21st Century billionaires who would convince 20-something (mostly) guys that it's in their own, best interest to allow said-21st-Century billionaires to destroy a whole planet in order to accumulate enough wealth to: A. launch themselves from said Wrecked Planet into Outer space or B. build prepper fortresses staffed with 20-something "libertarians" guarding the gates to keep all other 20-something "libertarians" out.

Sound fair? Here goes:

Libertarianism

1. A political philosophy invented by and tailored to those who love to hear themselves talk.

2. A cunundrum: a state of being so impossible to cogently and rationally explain that for one identifying as such attempting to do so feels obliged to chase their tail until they talk themselves into a knot just returning to the back end of their original question.

3. A 21st Century, fantasy-besotted billionaire who invests millions of dollars convincing twenty-somethings who are not billionaires to enlist in their cause.

4. A snake eating itself.

You're welcome.

Friday, April 19, 2013

On Reasoning Fairly

Bigotry has not the capacity.

Superstition the knowledge or discipline.

Fanatics have not the patience.

Intolerance the disposition.

(Funk and Wagnell, ca. 1946)

Why I Blog

Thoreau and Emerson had a discussion in May of 1846 about the Mexican War--our first war that set us on the course we still track today. Conquest of nation-states and the inevitable Imperialism that follows. Emerson counseled his friend that we can supersede the transgressions of a well-meaning State by the Muse. Thoreau wasn't so sure that the State was so well-meaning or that the Muse alone would be enough to supersede it. But he tried both the Muse and "other means" to our everlasting benefit. Civil Disobedience, in the American sense, has always been his child, in large part because he raised it to the level of Literature. "Other means" requires the Muse to be lasting and effective, and vice versa. How would anyone know what the hell you were talking about otherwise, let alone emulate what you're trying to do?

The problem with Progressives today, I think, is that we have been in the habit of letting other people--Rupert Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, Sun Myung Moon--tell our stories for us, people who do not mean us well. We haven't plugged our muse into our political discourse very much, and that's a big mistake. Mark Twain didn't make that mistake, and he was among the first American writers to use the new-fangled typewriter. Why do we children of Twain, Emerson and Thoreau make that mistake now with our new-fangled computers?

For all its faults, Corporate America understands that people are story-based critters, like it or not, and I think we progressives should like it. By definition, people make many important social (read: political) decisions based largely on who's the best storyteller. It’s in our nature, and Corporate Media is a classic example of how Nature abhors a vacuum. We’ve collectively created a cultural ‘narrative’ vacuum by allowing ourselves to be so easily entertained by—Corporate Media! And Nature hates that. She’ll allow the same garbage responsible for that vacuum (Corporate Media!) to be sucked in and to rattle around until it ruins our cognative motors before she’ll let that sad state of affairs stand. I'd ask any "America Firsters" stumbling on this blog and reading this far to consider: Rupert Murdoch is from Australia. Sun Myung Moon, now-deceased but whose creatures, the Washington Times and UPI still walk the face of the earth, was from Korea. The Koch Brothers, of course, were from the sheikdom of Texas. All of them were, and the living ones still are, so obscenely rich they apparently believed they own America simply because they paid for it, and we collectively let them define who among us are “real Americans”?! C'mon!

Although it helps to strive toward the goal, progressives don't have to be great writers, and I'm not claiming to be one. We simply have to acknowledge that we have the better stories and we’re sitting on our best ones. Our truest ones. Multi-national billionaires have better versions of American Liberalism and Progressivism than the real ones told by real Americans? Us? We shouldn't put up with that. Why do we?

Like any historic attempt, we need to find our Voice. Significant action will come only after our contemporary, progressive political muse matures, which it hasn't yet. Not to paint with too wide a brush, but too much of our positions have been framed in intellectual, almost-didactic prose, which, if you don't identify as an intellectual, means boring. Not all of it, just a whole lot of it, but never mind. If history's still a guide--and I hope it still is--there's hope, because when any progressive movement's Muse matures, it generally becomes the baseline for much of Western Civilization’s meaningful and therefore lasting literature. For example, "Mein Kampf" is still in print but I'll bet you'd have to turn over a lot of rocks to find someone to call it 'literature'.

So, this blog. It's a call, I suppose, to elevate our critical modern discussions out of Fox-news-landia back to where intelligent, caring Americans can find their feet and fight back, either with the Muse, by other means, or both. It’s not up to some politician to change the narrative. That’s up to us. So by definition we still have as good a chance as we ever had. Don't lose hope. It’s always been this way. At least in literate societies.

In other words, like Emerson advised and Thoreau partially agreed with: stories matter, and may the best Muse win.