Skip to main content

So what IS the answer?

There's something about the oldest residential parts of town with their Victorian and Queen Anne homes that lends itself to "No War" lawn signs. I was walking in one of those beautiful neighborhoods on Monday and the "War is Not the Answer" sign caught my attention. The other signs were more specific, such as the one that had been altered from "No War in Iraq" to "No War in Iran."

The general "Truism" (and I will put that in scare quotes) of "War is Not the Answer" is something we see a lot but Monday it just struck me like a mallet to the head, So what IS the Answer? What does this person who lives in this pretty house think is the Answer?

What does this person who lives in this pretty house think is the Question?

I really do wonder.

Someone who thinks that war in Iran would not be the answer to the situation in Iran probably needs to suggest what should be done *instead* and the answer really could be "nothing." But for a general rule? As a "truism?"

Denial is not the Answer either.

There is an extent to which people create their own reality. I met a "mountain man" the other day who definitely had created his own reality. In his reality he couldn't go to a doctor's appointment in Albuquerque without being armed because of the violence in town. He lived out in the mountains with his guns, raising his own food animals and chiles, and marrying gay couples with his divinity license. I think that other people do the same but they live in little Queen Anne cottages on green shaded streets (this neighborhood of Albuquerque looked identical to the older residential areas of Fargo, North Dakota... houses, gardens, No-War signs,..) and they've created their own world where War really isn't the answer.

It's just that the rest of us don't live there.

There were a couple houses for sale. I suppose I could move. ;-)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

Some times some people.

 

What Cancel Culture is NOT

  Maybe we should talk about what cancel culture isn't. It's not a boycott.  It's not deciding to no longer go to a business. It's not giving a bad review for bad service. It generally involves two things. First, the offense is a matter of opinion. Second, secondary or even tertiary targets are threatened. Cancellation does not need to be successful, and often with very famous and wealthy people it is not successful. But it serves as a warning to vulnerable people who are not in a position to weather that kind of attack. The goal is terroristic in that it's about forcing social behavior in people who are not currently the subject of the attack. The message is always, this could happen to you. And the tactic invariably includes seeking out vulnerable people to threaten in order to put pressure on businesses or on the target of the attack. So it works like this: JK Rowling is invulnerable. But they can try, right? So what they do is they find out who works for the pub...