Logic as a science has its roots in the early history of some founding types of societies such as India, China and Greece but there really wasn't that much to be logical about in those early times. If you knew how to build a building that stood still for a while or were able to reason with people without starting a war, that was about as good as you would need. Medieval thinkers tried to ratchet it up a notch and left us with a large number of books to read, few of which can be of much help today in avoiding daily aggravations and tribulations. We now navigate in a world strewn with the need to arrive at quick and firm decisions concerning a vast array of problems and concerns, including our own daily survival and pleasures.
Early in life, bambinos rationalize that mamma is the soft touch when there is a need or a desire, and dad must be listened to because he is bigger than everyone else, and has a big voice. This is natural, practical logic, a kind of street logic in a way, but it is really the only logic we really need. Academic logic tells us that if x occurs, then expect y to follow, and financial analysts do their thing on companies they know, and then conclude that this stock should be bought because their logic suggests that it should rise in value, but it doesn't always, as we all know. Logic is probably the most worthy of all human mental attributes, but it is however highly suspect when it emerges from the minds and emotions of subjective people, the requirement of objectivity being an essential ingredient.
Consistent deviants from straight and true logic impart the appearance of having a serious sanity problem, as they distort logic in such a manner as to create for others an impression of perverse rationalization, or so it appears to people whose logic always seems to lead to the right answers. Other participants in this expose of mind orientations are the people who seldom engage in logical rationalization, having adopted an attitude of "what will be, will be", and are content to "ride with the flow" in an area which is often referred to as the "moderate middle", where the innocents of the world seek safe harbor.
When rationalizing this subject matter, the disappearance of logic, sanity and innocence from our society's fiber, we naturally look for explicit examples of their being AWOL, particularly in areas where it is considered important for logic to be ingrained, and this leads us to consider the vagaries of everybody's friend, Gunk Gonzales, the esteemed Attorney General. We have here a man who is totally devoid of integrity values, a factor most appreciated by G.W. Bush, and logic leads us to ask ourselves whether the cart in this case is not preceding the horse.
Whose agenda is being followed in domestic matters and why? It seems fairly evident that the Administration's policies point to a strong pro illegal immigration bias along a wide front, with little consideration given to the American people's stated preferences. Are these the policies of an American President or are they being generated by this sick mind whose genealogy is deeply rooted in the offending side? Could it be that G.W.'s self-declared legendary loyalty to his long term associates has more to do with the knowledge that they possess concerning his own tainted past? There is a word for that isn't there? Is this idle speculation or is it instead a very logical perception? "Gonzo" has been part of G.W. Bush's shadow for 14 years and knows intimately every fine details of every nefarious scheme that has lodged in the perverse brain of a man who has cross-pollinated deceit over the greater part of the world. Rummaging through our observations concerning this godforsaken administration, we have to ponder:" Where is the sanity? Where is the innocence?"
For those of us who believe that there is a God and that includes almost everyone that has lived, as we seek to reach out to him we have been conditioned to believe that this cannot be achieved directly, that we must use the good offices of a Religion, an organization exclusively dedicated to this purpose. They in turn, most often rely on a single individual, a prophet, who has claimed a personal relationship with God or his favorite Angel, and is therefore ably suited to intervene on their own as well as our behalf.
Though clear logic is difficult to locate in the foregoing, we are expected to overcome our apprehensions and enter a special dimension called "Faith", a mental state where strong beliefs are based on the absence of evidence. Individuals who are tempted to apply rules of logic may do so by reducing the number of blind faiths involved, from 3 to 1, and believe firmly and directly in a God to whom they can in fact attribute characteristics of their choosing. They may even adopt a new identity as "Disciples of God" and I am sure that God himself will genuinely appreciate the personal touch.
The Catholic Church is well intentioned and in the annals of history, no other organization has been more beneficial to human kind. However, there seems to be a serious problem in reconciling logic with dogma. Their prophet, the peace advocate champion of all times, a man that saw good in poverty and condemned the proud, the wealthy and the hypocrites, this universal idol is served by Catholic leaders, in a resplendent aura of pomp, pageantry and massive wealth. Where did their prophet's innocence disappear?
Islam is much more faithful to its original precepts, which from the outset were based on militancy, war, pillage and mass assassinations, while creating by conquest the most extensive military dominance known to man. In fact the original leaders of Islam themselves were not spared from this carnage. All of this we know through their own scribes, who, incredible as this may sound, began writing the sacred books of Islam 200 years after their prophet had died. They artfully clarify that thousands of the prophet's followers and their descendants, during that period of time, memorized the exact words which the Jewish Angel Gabriel had apparently recited to their prophet, who could barely read or write, and whose words were secretarially transcribed by his friends, companions and followers. These revelations it is stated, were written on whatever was convenient at the time, specific mention being made in the scriptures to "papyrus, flat stones, palm leaves, shoulder blades and ribs of animals, pieces of leather and wooden boards."
Though this may appear to be barren of logic, it takes on a different perspective when we appreciate that the original scribes now call themselves Muslim Priests, Clerics, Mullahs, Imams and Ayatollahs, and, through self-serving rules of their own creation, dominate through fear a quarter of the world's population, most of whom would prefer, by their nature, to be peaceful and law abiding.
The American governance heritage was originally crafted in a wizardry created to resist all intrusions into its sanctity, and simply named "Checks and Balances. It was intended to have 3 main independent powers: Executive, Legislative and Judicial, but the ultimate trump card was given to the people whose unalienable right it is to possess and use weapons, should it become necessary to discourage a Government's kidnapping of their liberties. Simple and logical right? Well not necessarily. Though not mentioned specifically as a condition for continued employment, it was assumed that all elected Presidents would heartily embrace the Constitution and its intent. It was not foreseen that one day a President would surround himself with a brood of shadowy knaves bent like himself on the recreation of the Constitution. The checks and balances however were designed to prevent such a blasphemy, right? The Legislative Branch will uphold the sanctity of the Constitution and people's rights will triumph. Good logical deduction but in practice, the legislative majority had turned in their brains and conscience in exchange for a rubber stamp, prioritizing their political Party's agenda over the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitutional Fathers apparently had not anticipated that loyalty to a political party would emerge as the overall dominant force, and that it would allow a single being, a President to steam roll an entire country, overpowering legislative bodies comprised of 535 elected representative, who would otherwise have been expected to act honestly, within the limitations of their brains and consciences.
The solution to this insanity can easily be found with simple logic. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate are sorely lacking in Independent minds, elected members who are not blindly tied to a political party, or for that matter to any single political philosophy. Independent Congressmen and Senators possessing clear autonomous minds and consciences might be expected to act for the benefit of the people on each and every issue, and that apparently is beyond logical expectations from members of either political party. These Independents, without collective pre-arrangements, would nevertheless hold the balance of power, and perhaps cause the reinstatement of the power to the people.
In the next scheduled election, it appears inevitable that a President will be chosen from the ranks of a political party, but it would be a Godsend if at least 50 totally independent house representatives were elected, and as many Senators as possible, thereby aborting dictatorial powers from either side. In this manner would not the American people themselves fill an obvious void in the Checks and Balance blueprint? Inevitably, the merry go round will otherwise continue its dizzying course, and with all due respect to the great Kate Smith, the words to her legendary rendition could then possibly be changed to: "God Save America"
Experience freedom of speech on Pravda.ru forum