Of the Coalition of the Wanton

Of the Coalition of the Wanton

Submitted by o ceallaigh on May 17, 2006 - 7:15am. clinton | fundamentalism | infidelity | O Ceallaigh: Science Belief and Society | sex

I just came over from another site, where the feature of the day is a gentleman who is telling the saga of his extramarital affair. No I won't. You'll have to look this one up for yourselves. I'm sure a quick search will give you any number of examples from which to choose. And, in case you couldn't tell, I'm not terribly happy about this.

What, am I a red state reactionary? Please. (Am I the only one to see the irony in the use of the color red for states adhering to Bushism?) Am I a prude? Possibly, but I don't really feel like one. My Puritan forebears (mother's side) would have had my God-forsaken carcass rotting in the stocks long ago.

After all, monogamy isn't all it's cracked up to be. It's practiced by a fairly small minority of species in nature, and it's suited to a relatively small set of conditions - in the human case, the need to raise children through a long childhood, under circumstances where survival is dependent on effective partnerships. Relax the conditions, and monogamy goes out the window. And even under stringent conditions, there are the cheaters, the ones who can't raise the ante for establishing a partnership and cope by lurking around singles bars and the homes of desperate housewives.

But like I told you already, my vision is wierd. I read a story like this, and my first thought is "What about the other guy?!?" I mean, here's someone who's lavished time and attention on a girl (we'll stay hetero for now, with your permission, but you may flip the genders if you like), let her into his personal space and even allowed the bedroom walls to be painted pink, and for his pains he's on the long point of a triangle. There are few places on this Earth more uncomfortable than on the long point of a triangle. Crede expertum. Now, all the romance novels make out this poor sod to be a cad, a brute, a criminal. He makes Osama bin Laden look like the second coming of Christ. (To some people, he is, but we won't go there now.) When, more often, he's merely committed the sin of living a real life, instead of the fantasy that is probably what got her attention in the first place.

Besides, I worry that it's not so much the fact of infidelity as the flaunting of it that causes the trouble. Sex discreetly arranged for next weekend in a cottage on the Blue Ridge is grounds for a nudge and a wink. Sex in the Oval Office is grounds for impeachment. I remain convinced that semen on a blue dress got us into Iraq. And may keep us there. May keep our nation red. Because it looks like we have an electoral choice between corporate thuggery and personal immorality. Between Fortress Amerika and the Coalition of the Wanton.

The Biblical prophets who railed against the societies of Israel and Judah in the years before these kingdoms fell to the Assyrians and Neobabylonians (respectively) spoke mostly of people, especially kings and nobles, who indulged in their own pleasures at the expense of the community - which then could not rally its forces, could not restore its sense of community, in time to ward off the invader. The same thing happens in social animals whose social systems are weakened during good times because resources promote "individualist" behavior, and then suddenly are challenged by a dearth or a threat. Sometimes you must put aside your toys, and your toyings, for the good of the group. Even if it looks for the moment like you don't have to.

Maybe these thoughts will keep you from being led into temptation. Or give the Democrats enough credibility to let them win some elections and put an end to the Bush regime.

Or not.

- O Ceallaigh

All opinions are mine as a private citizen.

» O Ceallaigh's Felloffatruck Publications |

| 585 reads

Without a long-winded

Submitted by IntricateGirl on May 17, 2006 - 8:12am.

Without a long-winded explanation, I will say that it's a sore spot with me too. In fact, it's to the degree that I feel unapologetic about losing friendships with women who have cheated. It's certainly a character flaw, but I just detest it. I could go into a billion reasons why, but there isn't enough space on the entire internet. If they are not happy, I can accept a divorce, even though that's one of those situations that people always hope doesn't happen. But cheating because you are unhappy?? They need to figure out who they are unhappy with, and I don't think it's their partner.

» login or register to post comments

I hear you, Intricate

Submitted by o ceallaigh on May 17, 2006 - 9:40am.

It's one thing to create a fantasy for entertainment. Quite another to believe in it. I understand that divorce rates in the WWII generation are very low, because these couples faced all sorts of unpleasant realities and learned to deal with them. Now, it seems, if it doesn't match Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, it's inadequate and needs to be expunged.

I wonder: if the world were run off a supercomputer program, would it allow prosperity?

» login or register to post comments

Haa!

Submitted by IntricateGirl on May 17, 2006 - 10:00am.

"I wonder: if the world were run off a supercomputer program, would it allow prosperity?"

You mean it isn't??? :D

» login or register to post comments

$30 billion says it's not.

Submitted by o ceallaigh on May 17, 2006 - 10:29am.

That's the size of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Greater than the gross domestic product of Tanzania. And it represents but a third of the Gates personal forture (which is actually handled more wisely and frugally than some others, I am told). A supercomputer would surely distribute the wealth less disproportionately.

» login or register to post comments

Ok, I was thinking about

Submitted by IntricateGirl on May 17, 2006 - 1:01pm.

Ok, I was thinking about this on the drive to and from my son's school. I remembered a study in which economists determined that $100,000 is the "price" put on happiness. After checking to make sure this was accurate, I discovered that it was.

"How much more money does a person in a miserable marriage have to earn to be as happy as a happily married person? $100,000 per year, according to David Blanchflower, Dartmouth College economics professor."

So there's the answer, but not necessarily the question. Your question was, "if the world were run off a supercomputer program, would it allow prosperity?" So it looks like we need to define prosperity. If you mean wealthy and a division between the "classes" then I imagine a supercomputer would not allow for it. A supercomputer would choose communism as the form of government. Everyone does a little work but benefits from everyone's work. It would sound perfect to a computer, yet we know the flaws of such a system.

Under a different definition, it becomes even trickier. By googling "define prosperity" it answers that it is "an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment." Well, that won't work either. A) There will not be full employment for many different reasons, and B) Rising profits are excellent, but how to maintain it. Eventually that computer is going to say that it is profitable to fire someone so that profits rise, but doing so means that we aren't operating at full employment. Too tricky.

Then there's what seems like the easiest definition. "Success, good fortune, wealth." I do not believe that success can be determined from any external source. It is a feeling that each individual must make for themselves, whether they are successful or not. See "Richard Cory" for an example. Good fortune is simply luck, and a supercomputer can't hand out luck any more than anyone else can. It sort of negates the term. So we're left with wealth. Which leads us back to communism. lol

Bill Gates is a whole separate rant (in his favor).

What troubles me the most is that happiness can be bought. Some of the times I've been the happiest, I was flat broke. You say you see things differently, and I do too. The way mine manifests itself most is through words (as seen in this comment- lol). I think people are defining happiness in a very different way than I do. For me, money could probably buy contentment, but even Bill Gates doesn't have enough to buy off my happiness. And that makes me wonder: are people being careless with the terms they use, or am I just too nitpicky for my own good? Don't answer that one.... lol

» login or register to post comments

you're dissing supercomputers ;)

Submitted by o ceallaigh on May 17, 2006 - 1:52pm.

a supercomputer would choose communism

I don't think so - because the computer's programming would have (it had better have) a factor for "incentive", lacking in communism - and also in highly stratified societies, the opposite of communism.

If we adjust the macroeconomic definition of prosperity ("an economic state of growth with rising profits and full employment" - btw "profits" and "employment" are relative, not absolute, terms in this definition, I think) to the personal level ("the perception that I can work and make money, with the hope of more without having to work a lot harder") ... The trick is to find the level of money that will give people the incentive to keep progressing, doing more and more sophisticated work. Because if the money is too great, people stop working because it gets in the way of enjoying your money. But if the money is too little, especially if there is no rational level of effort that will allow you to make more, people stop working (except under penalty) because it's a drudge, with pain but no gain.

Yes I do define happiness in terms of money. What is happiness but the experience of having enough to do as you wish without strife? The key element is that of "what you wish to do" - more formally, your expectations. The learned expectations of a cotton picker are going to be different from those of Donald Trump. Those of a Malaysian sneaker-factory worker are different from one in Massachusetts - which is why there aren't any sneaker factories in Massachusetts any more.

It's these factors that (among many others) the supercomputer has to address. None has yet solved the problem, or we would have heard about it. Of course, when the problem is solved, we might not like the answer.

» login or register to post comments

I'm not dissing supercomputers.

Submitted by IntricateGirl on May 17, 2006 - 2:23pm.

I have great love for my future electronic overlords. lol

I don't think such a computer could exist, because everyone's definition of happiness is different. What about the childless couples with plenty of money that want nothing more than to have a baby? For them, price has nothing to do with happiness. For me, your definition of happiness doesn't fit into my own personal view. That's more my definition of contentment. But I completely accept that it is how your define "happy." And there's the problem. If the computer hands me a basketball court and says, "Now you're happy, right?" I'm likely to answer, "No, not really." And it won't have anything to do with them leaving out the whirlpool. lol

No, I'm not dissing supercomputers. But they have human programmers. And to fund such a computer, the government would surely be funding it. And if there is one thing guaranteed to not bring me happiness, it is the government. lol

» login or register to post comments

Online users:

Today's:

Last viewed: