Firearm Fsychology

I had a bit of an insight this morning. It was the kind where you view something in the context of something you already knew.

Many years of studying management and people and being a manager has given me a strong conviction that 0.9 of human behavior can be traced to insecurity. Sort of a management corollary to Sturgeon’s rule. 

Anyway, it occurred to me that perhaps this explains the numbers of people who carry firearms on their persons as a daily routine. 

I thought about the people I know who were not required to carry firearms as part of their employment. And I realized that almost all of these people had deep insecurities that they refused to confront. And this made them naturals to want to carry a pacifier. 

And the few exceptions were people who genuinely had need of a firearm. Of course there were some of the insecure ones who needed to because their personalities and people skills were SO BAD they were virtually assured of being discorporated.

Universal Condition

One Day. Back to gym where I discovered that while I downloaded podcast episodes on Six Day, I neglected to transfer to the MP3 player, or to charge it. So that’s added to my today list.

Again a sparse gym. One weight bouncer, the polite one, and a couple of unseniors but otherwise ORFs. The episode this morning was the second half of the CBC’s “Best of Ideas” treatment of Frederick II. Not as good as the first half I fear to offer but passable. And an episode of squirrel stock since the CBC takes English holidays of several months’ duration when there are no programs nor downloads. One has to wonder how they maintain an audience? Their work isn’t that exceptional and I don’t know if they are like the BBC with government protection.

On which note, I ran across an article [Link] entitled “The psychopath in you” from the Guardian. As seems to distinguish British journalism from American, the title seems fairly accurate, that psychopathology is a continuum that encompasses all of humanity. The continuum seems to be rather arbitrarily/empirically broken into a spectrum by medicalists.

But the critical thing is we all have some degree of psychopath in us. So the old Amish saying I am fond of is accurate. Except for me since I am psychopath too, and not “unwierd.”

But then so are thee.

Nice thought to begin the week. 

It may also mean that some of us, at least, merit the name of the species since one has to be mad to be wise.

The good of the few outmasses the good of the many?

Mundane day and back to gym. Summer is either officially here or eminently so. It has been such for several weeks now here in Nawth Alibam and this week promises to be more like August or September than June.

But the politico-fascists are still in denial mode as the death toll from heat stroke mounts. It must be amazing what goes on in the heads of politicians, especially with respect to morality and ethics.

On which note I have taken such of the grrr brrr to remove the Confederate States of America battle flag from its staff in Charleston. This is supposedly to honor the nine religionists who were gunned down by a GEN Y whacko. Evidently the religionists’ social group finds the flag objectionable.

I have a few problems with this. First of all, why the battle flag? The only reason I can come up with flying the battle flag rather than the national flag is if the staffing is to honor those who died serving in the war. (Actually, I can come up with another reason which is insecurity in the Yankee government but that I suppose is best not mentioned?) If that is the case then the matter seems rather clear. The best figures I can get are that about 600K soldiers – Union and Confederate – were killed on the battlefields. And those soldiers died settling, at least superficially, whether slavery would be legal in Nawth Amerika.

And this flag is somehow repugnant to a social group. And we want to remove it to honor 9 dead. By dishonoring and abandoning 600K?

Is this the new maths? Or just politician maths? Or just Yankee politician maths?

I don’t really care that much whether the Carolinians staff the Confederate battle flag or not. But I do care if they cease their display honoring resolute soldiers in response to the deranged actions of a single aberrant human and the misplaced emotions of a single social group.

Or is that how we behave in modern Amerika? Facade or function? Honesty or pretense?

I’m not at all sure I want the answer. 

What is Them?

OK. Almost to week out. Gym week is over and I sallied forth this morning to the park for constitutional. First time in a while with no discomfort other than the usual stiffness. Quite muggy and calm there. I found my forearms and brow sheened with a thin dihydrogen oxide (plus impurities) layer, the kind that you never want to drive on since it is just the right thickness to totally fraculate friction. 

The podcast was dull but at least diverting enough to let me transcend the ache of stiffness. Walking is different from machine exercise. And I got to think about some other bits.

Since OPM is so fraculated, why don’t they put Eric Shinseki in charge? Its not like he has much to do and if he can get them up to the level of incompetence of the VA that would be at least a 100 dB improvement. 

I did run across a neat article [Link] yesterday. It’s about a study at a New Yawk U about why the vast majority of Amerikans dislike “atheists” more than terrorists, pedophiles, and rapists. Turns out it’s insecurity although the academics don’t phrase it that way. 

I should comment on why the quotes around atheist. That’s because a lot of christianists consider anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their specific belief structure and organization to be an atheist. I have had evangelical protestant politicians tell me that Roman Catholics are atheists. So some care needs be taken to determine whether the “atheist” referred to is someone who does not believe in deity or is just someone not of their sect/denomination/cult. 

Getting back to the insecurity, evidently the problem with atheists is ideological; that is, it is related to the idea of someone who knows they are going to die and accepts that. Evidently christianists do not like to be reminded they are going to die because they have slyly evaded thinking about such by immersing themselves in religious doctrine/dogma/…

Of course they can’t stand up and protest that atheists make them admit that they doubt their own tenets and beliefs, so they sidestep by claiming that atheists are immoral and evil and should thus be beheaded or some such. Never be accurate when inaccuracy is easier. It’s more a bog thing than a religionist thing. Maybe. 

This does, of course, lead us to ask whether religionists can be trusted to be accurate on any subject and if so, how one can observe the difference. Rather destroys the trustworthiness of their religion-ness, doesn’t it? 

Now the question is whether this offers any insight into the insanity of society. We have a modern idea that people who are mentally unsound, unable to cope with reality, are sick and have to be treated. Except when that lack of reality is religion. Based on the standard definitions of psychology and medicine, something like 0.75 of Amerikans are mentally whacked.

And I’m one of them so it may be something we humans drag along with us naturally? The World seems to NOT Wonder.