Fuzzy Bloglettes: A Little Bit of This and Still Less of That

I don’t know what it is lately, but I keep wanting to blog but then I run out of steam and end up vegging in front of the television. Must be the summer heat. Or my laziness.

Before I begin yet another blog post, I just want to apologize for being such a lousy blog buddy of late. I’ve been in a funk and busy as can be (in the good ways) and just not “feeling it.” I know that I need to get to each of your pages, and I so will. I promise. You’ve been great about still visiting me and leaving comments (both on blogs and Qc’s), and how have I repaid you? Sigh. I feel just awful. Like a taker, not a giver. I’ll pull it together sooner or later, though.

That said, some blog worthy topics have come up over the past few weeks, and I’ve decided to do a series of bloglettes, hitting each just as hard (or as soft) as I can manage after a rather long week.The first thing that I wanted to touch on is the CT’s (yes, again) surrounding 9/11. I’ve truly enjoyed all your viewpoints and hearing what you have to add, and it’s been in the back of my mind for days now. One thing that I wonder very much is if these conspiracy buffs are partly afraid of the idea that someone “out there” could do us such harm. Another thing I’ve been pondering is whether that doesn’t suggest some deep seated fear of the unknown; by this I mean, how can we possibly understand a Jihad against all of us in the west, people willing-nay, eager-to die in order to kill just one of us? Isn’t it simpler and in a way more comforting to denounce that thought and lay the blame at the feet of our government? After all, they’re to blame for everything else, right? Is it just a huge version of “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”?

New World Order. Hmmmm. Now of course I’d heard of this before, and I have to admit pretty much pooh pooh’d it out of hand. But watching that documentary about 9/11, reading CT sites, and then reading some random sites about it got me thinking. Well, okay, not too hard, I do think it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine that any group of power-hungry wannabe dictators are going to “play nice” enough to take over the world. But there’s nothing new in the concept. It’s all over sci-fi, for instance. In one of my favorite shows, Firefly, there is a New World Order, and there’s something just frightening enough about the concept to make a ton of movies and write hundreds of books about it.

But in reality? It just seems so unlikely, almost laughable. The Republicans and Democrats in this country can’t come together to end or support the Iraq war or to fix social security or to do much of much, actually. Who are these marvelous people who can rule the world as a group, agreeing on everything? Freemasons and the CIA, apparently (strange bedfellows, I’d think), along with a host of others. Honestly, I’ve not bothered to read much about it, as it all just seems like paranoid strangeness. Oooh, there’s an eye in the pyramid on the back of the dollar bill, and if you draw an upside down triangle over the existing upright triangle, you get a hexagram or Star of David. Yeah, so? What, every time a Freemason holds a dollar bill he feels that much closer to ruling the world? Have at it, buddy, I say. So the heck what? How does that lead them any closer to a New World Order? It’s their little secret. Some group could adopt any sign and claim it significant, but signs and signifiers aren’t absolute, their relationship is only meaningful to the people who agree on what signifies what.

Further, anything that might bring the people of the world together is considered a part of this plot. World Peace? Forget it, that way leads to destruction and domination. Helping the poor through programs like socialized medicine and welfare . . . evil. There’s more than a hint of racism and every other negative ism in this paranoia–fear anyone unlike us, keep them “them” and us “us” because reaching out a helping hand, bridging social, cultural, ethnic, and racial barriers . . . that way leads to chaos. Or order. The New World kind. And let’s not forget that many New World Order buffs would have it that we’re all being taken over by aliens (as in from other planets, not countries). Someone up watching late tv, perhaps?

Another thing that caught my attention was the Rhode Island holiday celebrated on some Monday in August: Victory Day. Apparently, this used to be a national holiday celebrating the day that Japan agreed to the Potsdam Agreement or Declaration or whatever it was called (sorry, not in the googling mood), and then all the states stopped celebrating it except Hawaii (for obvious reasons) and Rhode Island (for less obvious ones, but apparently RI sent more than its fair share of troops to the Pacific). The big controversy around here was whether or not it’s a good thing to still celebrate the day (it’s not a parade and cookout day, more like a day off work for state offices). Some say it’s distancing the Japanese from Rhode Islanders (?) and some say that it creates racial divide. Maybe. Then others say that it’s perfectly reasonable to celebrate it because some vets from that war who served in that region and were POW’s are still living. To me, it’s a bit of a grey area. I mean, we still celebrate Veteran’s Day (November 11, the end of the First World War), so why not? But we don’t recognize officially the end of any other wars.

Also up is the dog fight thing. Grrrrr (pun fully intended). I cannot abide cruelty to animals, and what is more cruel than starving and mistreating animals so that you can watch them fight to the death? Some people say that people who abuse animals should receive the same punishment as people who abuse people. I’m on board with that. No, a dog is not a person. But anyone who finds joy, satisfaction, or pleasure in the suffering of a creature, any creature . . . beyond comprehension. But then, I cover my eyes during the Braveheart battle scenes when I know a horse is about to “die” (no real animals harmed in the filming of that movie, or so they say); I watch the men die, though (and they say none of them were harmed, either. What to believe?). Guess to me, it’s about choice; those horses (and dogs) didn’t have one. Well, maybe the Scots didn’t either, but still . . . .

The other thing I’ve been thinking about came up on a morning radio show that I sometimes catch, and it was an interesting “what would you do?” sort of thing: say you’re in a relationship or married and your ex calls and wants to meet for lunch. Do you go? And if you go, do you tell your significant other?