Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the whole earth.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the whole earth.
Mathew 5:5

Doesn’t look like they’re inheriting the earth.

The Bible can at times appear confusing when looked at through objective eyes. If however you wear the rose tinted spectacles (otherwise known as the Holy Spirit) to read the Bible, then it is easy to draw on a litany of preprepared excuses for doctrinal irregularity. After all “God’s will is beyond our comprehension” the caveat of all Christian caveats.

The opening passage spoken by Jesus himself is liberating and offers hope, but it is completely unrealistic and fails to acknowledge the intrinsically vile nature of man.

If there is one thing that has been continually repeated throughout history, it is that those with power and who use violence have inherited the earth and will retain the ownership until someone more powerful and more violent comes along.

The ruling establishment of any country has attained its position through war and violence. Ruling monarchies replaced one another through conflict. Monarchies were replaced by democracy, through civil wars, wars of independence. Settlers colonizing new lands partook in the systematic genocide of the indigenous ethnic groups. For the indigenous people who were fortunate enough not be slaughtered  by the settlers, they would in all probability have become slaves. These processes are how human societies are founded, through appalling acts of violence and our societies shall continue to be shaped in this manner. One thing we can be certain about, the meek have never fared well and have no reason to expect things to change.

I’m guessing he’s not inheriting the whole earth.

Essentially it is simple Darwinism:

“In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment.”

The term fittest is easily confused when applying this to the species homo-sapiens. This is because fittest today means most technologically advanced, more specifically weapons technology. The term ‘rivals’ means meek.

We can see this no where better than the current situation in Gaza. A well trained, well armed force, fighting a local militia. Anyone with the technological superiority enjoyed by the Israelis would take the opportunity to use it indiscriminately in a densely populated area. What is Israel’s soldiers supposed to do, throw away their weapons and pick up slings and peashooters?

This is humanity in its rawest form. The scenes from Gaza are shocking, but the death and destruction itself is not news, it’s what we humans do. The strong, the more violent, the more advanced species progress and survive. The meek will get nowhere, there is no room for meekness in nature nor when it comes to keeping genes alive.

It is not nice, but I believe it is true. Throughout history mankind has perpetrated scores of vile atrocities, why should this stop? In mankind’s societies people take power through violence, I see no reason for this to change. Throughout history the meek have been slaughtered by the millions, and will continue to be so.

I’m sorry Jesus but to me your words seem to offer a false hope, so if you’re listening, if you could come through on that whole meek thing sooner rather than later, most of us would really appreciate it.

This is who we are. Is this who we are?

Criticizing Criticism Critically

Criticism is tough to take and in some situations difficult to make, but people must have been doing so since at least the 1670’s when the word first appeared. Originally criticism was the art of estimating literary worth, today however everyone and everything can give and receive criticism.

To even write about it is awkward. I know I am quick to criticize and poor at accepting criticism. I imagine I am not alone and that many people deal with criticism similarly. But when did criticism become so bad, frowned upon, a social taboo?

Criticism is an essential ingredient of a healthy, progressive society, it can allow us to address problems that might have otherwise gone unnoticed. Criticism forms a necessary element of debate, without it we would struggle to communicate or come to any meaningful conclusions. The criticism I refer to here is constructive criticism and will be encouraged within any progressive organization. In many dysfunctional organizations constructive criticism gets labelled as complaining and is resented by authority. This resentment to constructive criticism is then resented by those who made the constructive criticism and leads to what Cockwench (1978) called “The downward spiral of resentment and despair”.

Unfortunately criticism is all too often confused as being an insult for two reasons; firstly the person making the criticism is actually being insulting, or secondly the person receiving the criticism is too insecure and is left feeling insulted. The first situation is an example of rudeness and can be of a benefit to no one, the second is an example of someone who can not develop as they can not accept their weaknesses. Unfortunately it is these two scenarios that have given criticism a bad name. I do both of these things and therefore I am confusing criticism. Often my criticism is just veiled rudeness which won’t be well received by the focus of my attention and is unlikely to encourage the change I desire.

Postmodern society has seen humor shift away from the use of irony to the use of sarcasm. Today it is easy to appear humorous by ranting and sarcastically criticizing something. Shows like South Park have been doing this for 20 years, disrespectfully and sarcastically highlighting the faults of an individual, situation or institution (I love South Park). As a result of this mentality, few people in postmodern society have respect for authority, and whilst in may cases that can be warranted, it has made constructive criticism nigh on extinct.

I am afraid that constructive criticism will not be seen again in my life time, I and others have confused criticism too much, instead it has been replaced by non sequitur, sarcastic comments. Talking of driving, in Thailand the driving is so good, that you never see a learner driver.

I finish with a criticism made by the man who perhaps best symbolizes our modern society:

“It was like orderin a hamburger and getting only the buns”

Who made this comment? Clue he was recently beatified by the Vatican in recognition of his efforts to molest children.

 

 

 

Airlines to Start Fat Tax?

Speechless.

Is someone being overweight my fault? Should I be made to pay extra to ensure that there is enough fuel in the plane to transport such people to our destination?

The other day I was at the airport in Bangkok, checking in my luggage for a short domestic flight north to Chiang Rai. After handling my piece, the pleasant, pretty lady smiled and informed me it was too big for her, and she would not put it in for me. I was reeling and stunned; I had never had this problem before I told her. Her grin broadened, revealing perfect teeth stained with red lipstick.’Your luggage weighs 50 ponds sir and the limit is 44 pounds.’ (That’s 6 pounds, remember this as it is a pivotal fact in what I will go on to say). I pulled every face I could at her in order to communicate my shock and displeasure. She returned my facial contortions with an ever expanding grin and eye lashes that fluttered so frantically they might have flown off with her face.

In short the grinning eyelashes out lasted me and taxed me 1,000 baht ($30 USD approx). As I turned to leave the checking in booth everything went black. Momentarily thinking that I had passed out, I was brought back to reality as an enormous individual plowed past me to check in. The individual placed their bag on the scales and happily for them it weighed 40 pounds. (My bag 50 pounds their bag 40 pounds, 10 pound difference, you’ve probably guessed where I’m going with this).

This person would have to have weighed 300 lbs and add on their baggage, a cumulative 340 lbs. My luggage and I came to 250 lbs, yet I had to pay the excess. In effect what I was being asked to do was to subsidize this persons poor diet and eating habits. How can an airline be such pedants about my extra 6 lbs and let a person who clearly weighs more than 100 lbs more than me on the plane at no extra cost? Ironically if I’d had the time to have eaten my luggage I would have not had to pay anything, even though the flight would have to carry the weight, because it was a part of my own physical mass it would have been fine.

In short I got back home and some quick research has uncovered that there are airlines considering charging extra for overweight people. Is this fair?

http://www.businessinsider.com/will-big-airlines-charge-fat-passengers-extra-2013-4