Saturday, March 28, 2015

Alcoholism and Choice

With both alcoholics and sociopaths, there are behaviors that are seen as symptomatic (such as say being deceitful and manipulative). My question is: How does this happen? Is there a sociopath conspiracy in which they share their tricks and use this knowledge to con people? Is there an alcoholics conspiracy in which they share their tricks?

Alcohol is a chemical; and if it affects personality to this extent, then the question to be asked is what is personality. Is it a matter of brain chemistry or is it a matter of choice? And if it is brain chemistry, where is the incentive to be a good person?

The Alcoholics Anonymous see alcoholism as a sickness. Others see it as lack of willpower. I've definitely known alcoholics and ex-alcoholics who were strong enough people; and I am sure that in many cases it really is an illness. Some populations lack the genes to process alcohol; you give them a glass of wine, they are hooked for life. Native Americans and Australian aborigines are two such populations, and both have been completely devastated by alcoholism.

I think that both chemicals and choice have a part in alcoholism, in some people more chemicals and in other people more choice. In both cases it is important to recognize the underlying causes and act appropriately. With Native Americans and Australian aborigines, the cause is biological. With many among the white people, the cause is choice.

Having had an alcoholic rommate, I've seen from him some completely disgusting behaviors. How much of it is a result of alcoholism and how much is his personality, I do not quite know. What I do know is that alcoholism sucks, and that it should be treated effectively. If you have a drinking problem: Go to AA, go to a psychiatrist, cure this problem before it destroys you.


I don't usually write about my life, because I do not find it interesting enough to write about. Most of what I write is thoughts on political and social issues. But this experience has been both interesting and instructive, and I am sure that it would be viewed as such by others.

I first ran into D. at a pub. He looked haggard but intelligent. I told him about the court case involving my ex-wife and her son, and he promised to help her out. She offered him accommodations in her place; then she offered him accommodations at the house of her husbanmother. At first, he acted nicely. Then things began to change.

He tried to set the mother of my ex-wife's husband against her husband, telling her that he was a terrible man. He then told my ex-wife that I was going to steal all his beer. Then he developed an obsession with her and her husband, and not in a good way.

He left many abusive messages on her phone, calling her a criminal and a piece of shit (she is neither). He kept threatening to put them in jail. He claimed that they were Mormons; that they were starving the children; and even that they were stealing his electricity. And that was just the start.

He threatened to sue the landlord when she said that he was in arrears. He would wake up at 6 in the morning and start talking. I would tell him, “D., I need to sleep.” He would accuse me of having a sleeping disease and would continue talking.

He had a friend staying over at the flats, and they would be drinking all day long. The friend would stay the night on the couch, which is against the policies of the landlord. When I told him about this, he flew into a rage, threatening to sue the landlord.

He smashed a glass table in the house, for which he did not even apologize. Instead he continued threatening to sue the landlord. Eventually his wife came here from Sydney, and it appears that they have gone back to Sydney.

I am very embarrassed for having misjudged this person's character and invited him into my life. I should have known better. It is his choice to be a jerk, and one for which I do not bear the slightest bit of responsibility. I do however have responsibility to choose whom I associate with. And in this case I simply made a bad choice.

Sunday, March 22, 2015

On Global Warming Deniers

There are any number of global warming deniers who impugn the credibility of global warming science.

My response to these people is: “I have every reason to trust scientists and none to trust you.”

Tens of thousands of the world's best minds, working separately, have come up with what should be common sense: That if you raise carbon emissions while cutting down the rainforests that absorb them, you have problems. And that is something that should be obvious to any intelligent person.

It is ridiculous that these people claim to speak for liberty or rationality. As George Orwell said, freedom starts by being able to say that two plus two equals four. The people who deny reality have no business claiming to speak for rationality or responsibility. They want ongoing reliance on destructive technologies at the expense of progress. And their treatment of the environment is exceptionally irresponsible, destroying rich and beautiful environments that people have not created and cannot recreate.

There is every reason to trust the climate scientists. There is none to trust the global warming deniers. These people invent one fiction after another to deny reality. And that makes them conmen.

Global warming is as real as you and me. Denying it is denying reality, proper. The solution is not to do away with technology. The solution is to implement better technology that allows people to have everything they have now and more with vastly fewer destructive effects.

Ultimately, this will even be good for the oil companies. Oil will last longer and be used for higher-end goods such as plastics and pharmaceuticals, realizing greater income than if it is wastefully burned. There are any number of technologies that can provide for people's energy needs without causing the flooding of Manhattan.

And it becomes our job, as the people who care, to put into place these technologies.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Arguments of Islamofascists

A lot is being done by way of fighting Islamofascists; but not enough is being done by way of influencing the people in Middle East away from the arguments of Islamofascists. This is an effort toward that outcome.

First of all, Islamist ant-Americanism is simply wrong. America has been Middle East's savior. If not for America, they would be all practicing Communism; and if they were to be practicing Communism they wouldn't be able to be Muslims at all. Whereas with America as the top-dog country, they can be as Muslim as they want to be for as long as they aren't killing Americans or their allies.

Another argument out there is that the Westerners are cowards. I have to laugh at that. There are any number of people in the West who have amazing amounts of courage. These people are willing to risk a violent death fighting for freedom and democracy in the same way as there are people in Middle East willing to risk a violent death fighting for Islam. And since they are fighting military combatants and not peaceful market-goers, their courage goes a long further than the courage of most in Islam.

Also the Islamofascists claim that they have ethics or morals, and that the West does not. This is ridiculous. The Islamofascists kidnap children and save them into slavery. The Islamofascists send children to blow up marketplaces. The Islamofascists derive their moral authority from a pedophile who had sex with a 9-year-old child when he was 81. Whatever faults there are with the West, they are nothing comparable to what we see in the Middle East.

If writing this sends on me a fatwah, I do not care. I would be just as willing to die for liberty as these people are to die for Islam. And I hope that more people in the West have the maturity to make the same choice.

Wednesday, March 18, 2015

American Men and Feminism

I have encountered on the Internet and elsewhere a very poisonous attitude. Coming from men whom their wives left them, the claim is that liberalism is destroying America or the Western Civilization. This claim is wrong.

In all situations where there is any kind of controversy, there is both danger and opportunity. The best thing about American thinking is that it looks for opportunities; and this is what I would suggest to these men. A solvent, responsible, non-violent American man is a world prize. There are all sorts of women around the world who would do anything to be with a man like that. Which means that, if he truly embodies American thinking, he would see this situation as an opportunity rather than something destructive.

An inter-cultural mix makes winners of both the men and the women who are willing to be good to the other gender. For American men, this means opportunity unmitigated. The American men are some of the best men in the world. And an American man who is solvent, responsible and non-violent is an international prize.

If some woman leaves such a man, he is probably better off without her anyway. Unappreciative brats are a dime a dozen. But also a dime a dozen are good, kind, beautiful women who in their home societies would have nothing to look forward to besides poverty and brutality.

My advice to disappointed American men is to go for foreign women. Chances are, he would be a much better husband than what they stand to face in their own countries. And that creates an opportunity – an opportunity for the foreign woman to get a better life, and an opportunity for the American man to have a better life with a woman who would appreciate him and treat him accordingly.