Friday, August 7, 2015


First let me say that I'm surprised by the amount of traffic I get even when I don't post as regularly as I used to. People seem to have a hunger for direction. For something that they think I can provide. For something. I have none of these things. What I do have is a bit too much time on my hands. That should be obvious.

I had an interesting discussion with a gentleman that thinks I should give people like Noam Chomsky some objective consideration. He says that I have reached a 'psychological wall' and that I am truncating my very life by having these blinders in place. That I need to expand my horizons to include things that I have long since excluded. Mostly tribal concerns, I think is what he meant. And that by not allowing such alternative opinions to mine to even be considered, I have become the definition of bigotry. 
Well...this gave me pause. For a couple seconds. Am I a bigot? Have I decided what's what and will brook no denial? Have I made hasty decisions, and as he put it " allowed middle-school gossip" to govern my adult thinking? I wondered if all these things were true...
for a short while, and decided: nah.
Would I be viewed as bigoted if I was living in 12th century France and thought that bacteria could cause disease, and would scoff at religious explanations?
Can anyone that has mapped out a series of decisions about how they view the world, and stick to them, be bigoted necessarily, I wondered. Well, if they are convinced that they are correct in their assessments I suppose they would have the appearance of such narrow-mindedness. But what if they ARE correct? Correct about virtually all important matters that they have critically researched?
Or would my opponent merely state that the research was flawed and designed to produce the outcome such middle-school conclusions. I think it is possible to spin around in wheels of self-doubt, not concluding anything of substance for fear of such labels. Which of course brings us to the slithering shape-shifting beast of 'political correctness'...or fashionable thinking. Conclusions based on the opinions of someone else and their they noble or suspect. But should we question so much? I certainly have over the course of my life so far. As a matter of fact, I can say that I won't generally question anything until someone tells me something about it. But that's just me. And it's why I think that I could never be correctly labeled 'prejudiced'. I have been through a lot of soul-searching over the primary issues about which I have been given these derogatory labels; bigoted, prejudiced, anti-semitic et al. And when I follow a thought through to it's conclusion, one rule of thumb that always seems to assert itself into my thinking is 'common sense'. If for instance someone tells me that 6 million innocent jews were gassed to death in large shower stalls, I want to know how these chambers worked. If you can't show me a simple drawing and specs of these boxes of horror, then I must conclude that you are lying.

If you go crying and wailing that as a woman you demand 'choice' when it comes to abortion, I gotta think that you are right. You should have a choice concerning your own body. The choice of whether or not to open your legs, will usually at some point before pregnancy, present itself. After that, I have to assume that you want me to approve of your 'choice' to kill, rather than be inconvenienced by a poor 'choice' beforehand. Sorry, no sale.
Things like these...opinions of this sort that I harbor...get me into a pickle sometimes. They aren't fashionable nor easily attained by adhering to the opinions shelled out on the MSM. Nothing worth having is easy. But don't take my word for it. I'm a bigot.