Winter is coming

I'm not the most economically literate person in the world, but even I understand that government services aren't free. Apparently though the Greeks did.

Greece, like other countries in Europe, had given up its own currency in exchange for the euro, so it did not have the option of printing more money or devaluing the currency to pull itself out of the mess created in part by politicians who gave voters what they wanted without troubling to bring up the unpleasant fact that someone, sooner or later, would have to pay. 

Today, the Greek people are enduring economic pain that makes America look like a paradise of prosperity. Unemployment stands at 21%, wages are collapsing for both government and private sector workers. 

A series of new taxes have been imposed, including a "solidarity" tax, new property taxes and higher self-employment taxes. The VAT, a national sales tax on all transactions, has jumped from 13% to 23%. The minimum wage has been been sharply cut. Poverty has increased dramatically. 

After all that, Greece is still required by European rules to cut another 4.7% of gross domestic product from its budget, equivalent to the United States suddenly cutting more than $700 billion. 

Even if it achieves those goals, or rather because it will enact such draconian cuts, the Greek economy is expected to sink deeper.

I think what gets lost in such discussions is the historical reality that made the societies we live in possible. After WW2, much of continental Europe and Japan were devastated. Canada and more so the US, became rich as a result of coming out of the war with our industry and infrastructure intact. We were able to make astronomical amounts of money by being the suppliers for the reconstruction of Europe and other parts of the world. 

This vast wealth provided these nations with the resources to move forward in terms of societal and social infrastructure begun in the New Deal by Roosevelt. The problem is that the New Deal was economically untenable in normal times but because of war and the massive economic boom that followed the economic realities were blurred. 

So we had a whole generation, the largest in the history of North America, grow up with false economic ideologies and believing that government can and should provide for everyone. A noble aim to be sure, but then the rest of the world caught up by the 70s and the traditional sources of NA wealth began to fail and so you see the decline in manufacturing and the rise of the service and banking sectors over the course of the 80s and 90s. 

People were struggling to maintain the wealth that created the society they wanted, at relatively little cost to the average citizen and were doing anything they could to see it done. Now even these sectors have begun to fail but generations of people have been raised with the notion that this is how a society should function (not saying that its not) but they came to this conclusion in the midst of vast economic prosperity that made such a society possible. 

As the economic reality changes so too will the ability for these societies to continue to meet the demands of the people. An unfortunate thing is that the ruling political class has created a system in which they promise the moon, provide a sandwich and are rewarded for it because they've ensured that money is the prime component of political power. 

As such people having been raised to think that the government should provide will be faced with the reality that it can't. This disillusionment will lead to frustration and anger that will tax the system of control that the political elite have created over the past few decades to protect themselves from what they knew was coming. 

Hence you see the empowering of state controlled systems of control such as police and surveillance and the reduction of civil liberties and the abandonment of principles that once defined a nation but are now no longer politically tenable. This of course will lead to further civil unrest and can be seen in current movements such as Occupy and the recent warning from Anonymous to world leaders. A cycle has begun that, while in its early stages and possible to curtail, is one that pits the powerful against the powerless and as the economic realities continue to decline the pressure will increase. 

Games of Thrones' hollow empty heart

So Game of Thrones season two will be starting up soon and I'm sure that there are many fans waiting with great anticipation.

I have to admit to my indifference.

I watched the first episode of season one when it came out of it not wanting to see any more. I'm a big fantasy and science fiction fan. I had been anticipating this show for a while, and had purposefully not read the books because of the TV show. I was left disappointed.

So after many many people told me how great it was and how I should give it another shot, I watched the first season and was left no great passion for the show.

My indifference stems from the same place that births such passion for the show in others. Its supposed realism.

Well, speaking of realism concerning a fictional world seems a bit much, but I understand where they are coming from. The show (and obviously the novels) dispense with what many consider to be the tired cliche of black and white, good guys and bad guys, hero and villain and instead brings to life a world of grey, where concepts of right and wrong are subject to context and perspective. A world where might makes right and the ends do justify the means.

Many see this as a reflection of our current world and enjoy that sense of realism. It left me searching for a reason to care for characters and the show in general.

The one character it seemed that most closely resembled the 'tired cliche' of yesteryear fantasy fiction was Ned Stark. Not a perfect man to be sure but one that tried hard to live by a code of conduct that many would see as positive. He tried to be good to his friends and straight forward with his enemies. He was a man in a position of power to took responsibility rather than trying to abuse that position.

So when Ned was killed by the new young king, I'm sure that it was meant to be a shocking moment. Here was the person who for the most part served as the main character lying headless. I'm sure that as an audience we were meant to be rooting for that last minute save. That moment of leniency from the king that would see Ned's life spared, even if it meant imprisonment.

But it wasn't shocking or meaningful to me because I didn't care.

It was meant to be a moment that drove home for the viewer that this world was not a world where good wins and evil is defeated. It was meant to drive home to the viewer that such notions are antiquated and that ideas of rigid or even semi-rigid codes of right and wrong are not to be found here.

But this was one of the things that propelled Martin's books to prominence, so it came as no real surprise when the world functioned as it was constructed and engineered to function.

I didn't invest myself in any of the characters because they had nothing worth investing myself in and as such my lack of personal investment provided no emotional impact on an event that was meant to be a very emotional moment.

The story is interesting and I'll probably watch the second season once its finished, but when a character dies I won't care because I'm indifferent to their struggles, their desires, their intrigues and passions. I'm indifferent because I don't feel that I can relate to them and if I can't relate to them. If I can't find some piece of myself in them then there is no connection, no connection means no resonance or power.

Its a story, a fairly well told story so far, but its excesses of narcissism, violence, incest and frivolous nudity will always keep me at arms length from the story's heart; its characters and so long as that is the case then it will simply lack the power that would make it great.

For greatness comes in over coming something not in wallowing in the filth. So while many may feel that The Lord of the Rings is a tired tome, it holds more meaning for many because they can identify with the struggle, they can relate to pressure to give up or give in, and they can see the power that resonates from those that are able to fight on, to push through and overcome and are able to find meaning in their lives beyond the shit an filth of daily life. Its in the struggle to carve out for yourself beauty and meaning that resonates with characters such as Sam and Frodo in a way that one can't with Ned or Jamie, because to give up, to give in is not heroic and as much as some say that they don't want or need heroes, the power of humanity is found in those moments of heroism that many may not see but others cling to in a grey grey world.

Reason rally or passion party?

So the Reason Rally has invited members of the Westboro Baptist church to their event. 

Well in response to a request to attend the rally in an effort to foster dialogue between two groups on either side of the theistic divide, the rally's organizers said:

"Those who proselytize or interfere with our legal and well-deserved enjoyment will be escorted to the 1st Amendment pen by security, which will be plentiful, where you can stand with the Westborough [sic] Baptists and shout yourselves hoarse."

The Reason Rally will have thought police on hand and is trying to create its own version of a Two Minutes Hate by penning up Westboro members who might foolishly attend, so that the reasoned individuals who attend can point and laugh derisively at them.

If you want to have a rally of like minded individuals, go ahead. If you want to have an information booth available at the rally to pass along literature to like minded people, great. If simply don't want to engage with those you oppose, to not have a conversation with your neighbors (as David Silverman himself says in this video) that is up to you.Why then would you purposefully invite a group such as Westoboro?

That message was sent to a hate group whose tactics and beliefs are rejected by the vast majority of Christians as much as by atheists or anyone else — a group that few would seriously expect to enhance reasoned dialogue between Christians and non-Christians.

That is what makes this thing so disingenuous. The organizers want a dialogue alright, its just that the dialogue they want is a one-sided one with a group that one can easily revile and ridicule.

Of course if this were about real constructive dialogue rather than a close minded circle jerk, then they would be taking advantage of Richard Dawkins' presence to have a live debate with a person such as William Lane Craig, but we know that that won't happen.