More Machiavelli

Heh, sorry for a second post similar in nature to the first. Though...well not. Its simply from the same work, the introduction to the second book.

"Furthermore, human appetites are insatiable, for by nature we are so constituted that there is nothing we cannot long for, but by fortune we are such that of these things we can attain but few. The result is that the human mind is perpetually discontented, and of its possessions it is apt to grow weary. This makes it find fault with the present, praise the past, and long for the future; though for its doing so no rational cause can be assigned." [Preface to Book II]

It is strange this introduction, for his time. Machiavelli lives in a time of Humanists who devoutly worship thinkers of the past, most rarely quote modern writers but simply look to Rome as the perfect culmination humanity, the Golden Age never to be repeated but meant to be emulated etc. There was a great push to have old texts cleaned up and retranslated, the quest for the oldest most accurate Greek bible came as well, rejecting the corrupt Latin Vulgate in quest for a better. Ad nauseam, for everything from medicine, to war, to government, to politics, and Machiavelli commenting on Livy's history is no different really but he does put in a lot of modern examples also.

Anyway he is interesting because the introduction is spent saying that it is foolish to look to the golden age that it is not "perfect" the past is not better. The "Golden Age" is not better but the dingy bits, the not so good, are polished away by historians and even the exploits of defeated enemies are exaggerated to add to the glory of history. It is not so much truth as perspective.

That, like Old Men who look back on their pasts with glory are only looking back upon hope and since they can no longer appreciate the passions they did in their youth they are bitter and disappointed and unable to see that their age is no worse but only their judgement that has made the times seem poor and not the times themselves. Humanity is humanity, times are times, things do not change, but fortune shifts from province to province and it is not easy to see that there is an equal amount of evil and good at all times. It just is dispersed differently though the whims of fortune but the world is the same.

I shall leave you to judge his arguments as you will.

Machiavelli Quote

I am doing my work, as per usual, and wish to share one of the more amusing quotes of Machiavelli today. He explains an interlude between the plebs and the Dicemvirate aka the Ten and one such of the Ten was called Appius and was not particularly honest nor good at being dishonest as Machiavelli points out, he did great in convincing the plebs that he was on their side but changed coats to quickly upon gaining power to retain friends.

So, the Ten oppress the plebs to the point that they demand satisfaction, they want power they say and they also want the Ten given up to their power for burning at the stake. To which the aristocracy says, demand only your power back do not ask for the end of tyranny and evil when you propose an evil act yourself. And Machiavelli, ever the "moral of the story" kind of guy sums up the episode.

"This teaches us plainly how stupid and foolish it is when asking for something to announce 'I propose to do such and such a wrong thing with it.' For one should not declare ones intentions, but should seek to get what one desires anyhow. There is, for instance, no need in asking someone for a weapon to say 'I propose to kill you with it', since you can satisfy your appetite once you have the weapon in your hands." [Discourses I.44]

Potentially one of the lesser moral statements of Machiavelli but amusing (depending on your sense of humor) but i appreciate his interpretation of events. He doesn't condemn the plebs for their violence (though he condemns violence elsewhere so its probably implied) but complains at them for being foolish for announcing an evil plan. Simply take action, get what you want and then reveal what you wanted it for. And I like the simplicity of "you can satisfy your appetite once you have the weapon in your hands." But you need the weapon first :)

Lyly on Love

So, I have been getting my school work done like a good girl and am going to share the Epilogue from John Lyly's play Gallathea. (Which i recommend by the by, it is quite fun.) I am writing a transcription below because long S's can be a right pain if you're not used to them, they look like f but aren't f's clearly. Also v and u are interchangeable. Its probably straight forward but if you'd rather have the more modern letter forms they are provided :) (and there's this one long s that when you read it you'll think "what profanity!! ... oh, sucking. Oops")

Gallathea: Goe all tis I onely that conclude al. You Ladies may see that Venus can make constancie ficklenes, courage cowardice, modestie lightnesse, working things impossible in your Sexe, and tempering hardest harts like softest wooll. Yeelde Ladies, yeeld to love Ladies, which lurketh under your eye-lids whilst you sleepe, and plaieth with your hart strings whilst you wake: whose sweetnes never breedeth satietie, labor wearinesse, nor greefe bitternesse, Cupid was begotten in a miste, nursed in Clowds and sucking only upon conceits. Confesse him a Conqueror, whom yee ought to regard sith it is unpossible to resist for this is infallible, that Love conquerith all things but it selfe, and Ladies all harts but their owne.

I thought the sentiment quite nice. Love is madness, it changes you, makes hard hearts "like the softest wooll" and it is a maddness you must yield to. It is "unpossible to resist" and the idea that "Love conquerith all things but it selfe." I also find it amusing that a lady can conquer all hearts but her own. Perhaps an overstatement but it is true to a degree. Love conquers all, but not itself, and no woman has control over her heart. Though I suspect no man either. Love is not contained or definable, not manipulatable (except in this play by Cupid, though when asked to "unbind" what he had tied he claims that "If they be true love knots, tis unpossible to unknit them, if false i never tied them." and "Love knots are tyde with eyes and cannot be undoone with hands, madefast with thoughts and cannot be unlosed with fingers" "It is the true love knotte of a woman's hart therefore cannot be undoone")

A man's love isn't really identified in this play, as the prime lovers are two females, thrown together in male garb because their fathers' love them selfishly and refuse to give them to Neptune. And for true happiness to occur Venus...nah, i won't spoil it in the off chance you actually go out and find the play (mom :)) if anyone else is interested in the end of that sentence shoot me an email. Or find the play, it is fun, and a fast read.

Kentlake's School Newspaper walks towards Hell

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/12/04/kentlake-high-school-a-learning-instution

Egads indeed Stranger, who the hell allowed that to enter a fucking SCHOOL newspaper, where the hell is tolerance? Its a school for crying out loud, not a town square where any nut job can spout his hate. A school newspaper, isn't that sort of stuff not allowed to even enter? Where is the leave religion out of school ideals? Where are civil rights and the regulations against allowing this sort of thing to get spouted within schools. High school sucks enough without that sort of trash being published.

I'm too angry to even write coherently. I'm glad Kentlake wasn't my alma mater but thats my school district and I'm embarrassed for them.

Since when has Marriage been a sacred institution anyway? its been fucking ages most marriages end in divorce and a great deal of them that survive have infidelity and grief. 'Cause that's moral, and to the true value of the Christian ideal. We can have straight couples piss all over the sacred institution but God forbid the government allow gay people to enter into the marriage state. It would totally degrade an already degraded system? I can't possibly see how allowing people to function within society as God made them is such a crime. Let people live, if God is such an ass hole that he won't let gay men and women find comfort and acceptance on this planet then fuck the guy. I'd rather it be a secular pairing anyway.

I think Christians have no idea what they're actually worshipping these days. If any of them out there that spout this shit have actually read the Sermon on the Mount i'll eat my hat. And if they read it, clearly the part about accepting people and being generous and kind, selfless, moral, caring etc etc went way over their heads. Well, I hope they enjoy the space reserved for them in Hell. And if i am wrong and the people who wrote that article in the Kentlake newspaper actually are going to heaven, i don't really want to go there anyway. Pack me off to Hell at least there are going to be good people there.

Here is some Jesus quotes from the Sermon on the Mount that prove right wing nut jobs aren't reading too much.

"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad for your reward is great in heaven and for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

And give to those who ask. If they ask to be married let them:

"Ask, and it will be given you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? If you then who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!"

Who are men then to decide what God will and won't give? If he is kind enough to give love to two men, or to two women how are men to be so cruel to deny it the institution of marriage?

News from Today

So, I was reading about how Democrats are feeling "insecure" in the White House because of Obama's policies and how especially his military push in Afghanistan has strained the relationship between him and his party. The party is worried about losing footing in government in the future, etc etc. And then this charming statement:

"Some Democrats worry that the administration is willing to sacrifice some House and Senate seats in the interest of accomplishing its broader goals."

Wow, the administration is actually willing to sacrifice in order to accomplish broader goals? That's sort of the way life works. And besides, what about Obama's broader goals aren't worth a little sacrifice really? Is paranoia that your party is losing footing really worth avoiding "accomplishing broader goals." She short sighted views of politics as a simple power struggle to maintain more numbers than the other guy is starting to drive me crazy. Its time to get those boys some glasses. Politics isn't supposed to be a simple numbers game, its supposed to be a numbers game so that things can actually be accomplished. The future is the point, a few seats here or there is hardly going to tear this country apart but while given the opportunity to actually change something about the way the government works, to make sure everyone has health care, to actually admit global warming is a serious issue and do something about it.

The other news from today is bombings galore, updates on the Somali bombing, al-Shabab pointing to the government as the culprit while the government points back. Its horrible to think of a class of medical students at their graduation getting massacred. It is posited the government officials caught in the blast were the main targets but it seems more damaging that a country in chaos loses the people recently trained to heal its people.

Also another suicide bombing in Pakistan during Friday prayers killing ten wounding more. It has been assumed that the Pakistani Taliban was responsible.

Though of course all this comes second to the Global Warming emails that are taking center stage. It seems to be the most common headline in all the news feeds I get. Corruption in climate change oh no. It will be interesting to see what the UN says as it investigates the emails. It seems like all messaging is dangerous you'd best be careful what you say behind closed doors over the interweb. This is a heady scandal and everyone loves a good scandal.

I am surprised though the emphasis that these stories get in the press. My emphasis mirrors the emphasis they received. The NYT focus on Obama's policies, and no headlines were about bombings but one can't expect that to compete with internal strife of democrats. The back-biting and balking at actual politicking rather than the appearance of it, what would we do if actual change became a central theme of government? We might all implode. Too much change is perhaps a danger but the changes that are being put forth are hardly going to keep the world from working. Besides, there is so much more chaos in the rest of the world our paltry rows and worrying about whether or not "a few seats" will be lost to "accomplishing broader goals" sort of seems ridiculous when paired with the strife found elsewhere. Perhaps it is time to start focusing on broader goals and long term change to put on those spectacles and really think about what the future ought to look like and work towards that.

Anyway, those are my newsie thoughts this morning. Visit here for a comic: http://xkcd.com/209/