So where have I been?
Just haven't been in a reflective mood lately. Not sure where things are headed in the world -- grave threats, yes, but there are some real signs of hope. Don't want to jinx anything. In 2008 we could have anything from Hillary Clinton to Rudy Giuliani as president, and trust me, there will be a big difference. Politically, I've been just sick of it. But I was also pleased that the Dems' supported the surge and now the surge appears -- appears at this moment in time which could change with events -- to be showing signs of progress.
More important, it appears the Sunnis are turning against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and so, it appears, Muslims in general, including in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda has shown itself to be a murderous and evil group of little men who rule by terror as well as try to take power by terror. People don't like that, no matter what their faith. The War on Terror was always an internal civil war within Islam, or at least a rebellion against modernism within Islam. It seems Muslims are finally turning the tide ... at this moment in time. If we "win" in Iraq, it'll be because the Iraqis stepped up and took this opportunity. It'll be a good thing.
On the personal front, again, I haven't been in that reflective a mood. For a few months there, I was really happy, just kind of enjoying my life. It took a while to adjust to moving back in March 05, deal with a few personal issues, and now I'm settled into my house. I'm actually happy being single, which hasn't been true since I was a kid. It's a remarkable blessing, and I'm grateful for it. I haven't wanted to say that because I don't want to jinx it.
Right now, I'm a little tired, though. The long commute -- 80 miles a day -- is wearing me down. I'm thinking of getting a place in Media, PA, which is a nice little town about four miles from work. I've been reluctant, though, because that leaves me "divided" again -- two homes, spending time during the week in "suburbanland" which I tend not to like. I prefer the country or the city. Suburban land, with its strip malls and developments and traffic, seems to have the negatives of the city without much of the positives. Plus, only a few years ago, or at least in my memory, the Philadelphia suburbs were pleasant. Now they're Jersey-ified. So I have a decision to make about where to live (and I just don't have it in me to move back to the city, as much as I liked it when I was younger).
I have been reflecting on, of all things, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Part of being Catholic is accepting the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church simply condemns the bombs as war crimes. I now agree. (The Japanese have been awfully good sports about it, though.) Part of the difficulty of the War on Terror is that one side declares there are no differences between civilians and military targets. If we are to be different, we have to recognize this distinction more clearly. In fact, one of the reasons it seems we're currently making progress is civilians are sick of being targeted by Al Qaeda. Nonetheless, this is far from over, and Al Qaeda's methods may be "intrinsically evil," but they're not stupid. Muslims are angry because Muslims are targeted. Many, if not most, really don't appear to have a problem with Al Qaeda's targeting us. Those who cheered the slaughter of Sept. 11 still hate us -- but they don't like the war has been transferred to their homelands, not ours. The U.S. military plays "away," not home. Al Qaeda may still strike out at us to shift their strategy. But they're running out of options, and they're running out of time. If we can catch Bin Laden alive and jail him before they strike us again on the homeland, we'll be in good shape. My point about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though, is that we can't have it both ways. We can't say it's all right for us to nuke civilians and they can't target civilians. The rule of law, in the end, has to win out. And the rule of law may seem weak, but it's not. Evil burns itself out, and people get sick of chaos ... but we'll see.
Meanwhile, on the political front, I read a little bit about Ron Paul. What a great guy. I didn't know anyone still supported the idea of constitutional limits of federal power. I don't agree with all he has to say, but he makes sense on a lot of issues. I would love for the U.S. to return to a more moderate role in international affairs. And like him, I was never thrilled with the idea of free trade. But I'm not an economist. He's also against the welfare state almost entirely, but I think it's a little late in the game for that. Still, it's nice knowing there are still a few real conservatives around.
Let's see. What am I reading? Snakes in Suits. It's about how psychopaths comprise about one percent of the population, but cause about half the trouble in the world. To really understand the world and the trouble in it, you have to understand psychopaths. That was a revelation to me, because I've always had a hard time understanding them.
Psychopaths, the authors say, are not the same as sociopaths. Sociopaths have a conscience, but it's a twisted conscience, so wrong becomes right and right becomes wrong. But there's still a sense of right and wrong.
Psychopaths have no conscience -- right is my advantage, and that's all there is to it. Psychos are not always criminal -- while they comprise a large percentage of the criminal population, there's still plenty out there. In a nation of 300 million, that's about three million full-blown psychos trying to masquerade as normal people. Most of them are among us. (There are about 12 million sociopaths in the U.S., since they're about three percent of the population.)
Other characteristics of psychopaths: They're manipulative, they see themselves as victims, they blame others and may talk about taking responsibility but never really do, they are parasitic (usually not doing their own work, especially manipulating others to support them), and emotionally they are retarded (simply unable to experience what others are feeling). The authors noted that psychopathy is not easy to diagnose, and people shouldn't just point a finger at someone and say, "They're a psycho." That's because all these things appear on a range -- and psychos tend to be "out there" on a whole series of symptoms. You can have some of these characteristics and not be a psycho.
So I was thinking that the enlightened society, to really reduce the size of government, should target the biggest source of its problems -- psychopaths and sociopaths. Together, they commit the lion's share of the crime and the largest group of social problems -- you know, securities fraud, child abuse, and the like. These are the bastards who require the government to tax the rest of us, and limit the freedoms of the rest of us, because they're trying to catch them. We get caught up in the net meant for them.
It sounds nuts, but psychopath and sociopath management could be a political agenda. But some psycho would probably manipulate his way to the top of it ... and really screw things up.
All right, so that's what's been on my mind lately ... random thoughts and stranger things. I'm going to try to get some more sleep before work tomorrow. Have a good one.
