December 29, 2008 - I'm sorry. Have I mentioned that humans are too stupid to live? I'm remiss if I haven't. Or if I haven't repeated it several million times, because it's just possible someone might not get it. Here are the latest notable skids on the rapid downward slide to oblivion. First, there's Israel's massive assault on Gaza, complete with a vow of "war to the bitter end." Well, they certainly got the "bitter" part right. I suppose slaughtering hundreds of people (and counting) is supposed to make Hamas see the error of their ways, surrender unconditionally, and never take up arms again? So far, that appears to be a non-starter ... like it always is. Just when in the last century has that worked? Israel must know this, so there must be another plan. Are they going to slaughter every Palestinian? If so, a tall order, and not a little surprising for a people that has been on the wrong end of genocide within living memory. But let's say they can pull it off. What next? Kill every Muslim? Gosh, I'd say anything that kills every Muslim, or even every Palestinian, is very likely to take every Jew with it. And likely everyone else, too. But doggone it, making peace is just too darn hard. It's much easier to fight to the bitter end. Have I mentioned that humans are too stupid to live? Case in point here.
Oh, but there's another. With the potential to be just as good. Can you say "Mumbai?" Vicious terrorist attack. Dozens of innocent humans murdered. Horror. Outrage. Justifiably so, although one is hard put to find anything close to comparable when rampaging Hindu mobs slaughter ten times as many Muslims. But never mind that. The point is how the governments of India and Pakistan have reacted since. India blames Pakistan. Pakistan moves thousands of troops to the Indian border and says "conflict with India must be avoided." Passive voice, of course. Somebody ought to avoid conflict, but not us, apparently. Has anyone asked what the top, oh, three objectives of the assholes who planned the Mumbai massacre? Might kicking off a war between India and Pakistan be in there somewhere? So, all those Really Smart Guys who claim to be appalled by the massacre and opposed to everything the terrorists stand for, are blithely getting in line to do their bidding. And this could easily go nuclear.
Have I mentioned that humans are too stupid to live?
November 3, 2008 p.m. - Apologies to all the Brethren and Sistren. I have fallen down on the job. Here, the human economy is collapsing like an inverted pyramid of sand, with the United States as the up-turned base, and everyone is suddenly talking about something called "the real economy," and I have uttered nary a vocalization in explanation.
There are, in fact, three economies. The "real" economy is the one for the not-rich people. It is the one where people lose their houses, their life savings, their possessions, their families, their dignity, and their lives to feed the second economy. The second economy is the "real good" economy. It is for the rich people. The rich people do the "real" economy to the not-rich people so that the "real good" economy stays real good. That brings us to the third economy: the "delusional" economy. In the "delusional" economy, there is no distinction between "real" and "real good." Everyone benefits equally in the Best of All Possible Economies.That's the one the rich people paint for the not-rich people in the hope that the not-rich people won't get "real mad."
November 3, 2008 a.m. - Human Daylight Savings Time ended yesterday. For the year, of course. It will be back in April. I cannot let this human ritual pass without comment because it sheds so much light on what is laughingly called "human nature." The purpose of HDST is to make efficient use of daylight hours, taking advantage of the natural annual cycles of light and dark. If a bonobo wants to make the best use of daylight hours, he (or she) just rises with the sun and retires when the sun sets. For a human, it is not so simple. Everything depends on "clocks." If you tell humans that they can make better use of daylight hours by starting the day one hour early, be prepared for a deafening howl. "Oh, no!" they will protest. "That's too hard! I couldn't possibly get up an hour earlier! That's asking too much!" However, if you say, "Ok, turn your clocks ahead one hour at 2 a.m. on Sunday," they're bang alongside that. Nary a peep. And telling them that it's the same thing as getting up an hour early would just be a waste of breath.
September 22, 2008 - Been thinking about Chinese philosophy. Not the mystical stuff. The meat of Chinese philosophy, back in the day, was psychotical, or "political," as the humans are fond of saying. The big debate was, for many years, between Confucianism and Legalism. h Confucius believed that good government depended on good people. He believed that government should be put in the hands of moral people of high integrity. Not surprisingly, no one let him get within hailing distance of a real government. The gist of Legalism was that good government depended on good laws, and when they said "good," they meant plentiful and draconian. So, the old "government of men" vs. "government of law" debate, right? Legalism had its day with the triumph of the Ch'in Dynasty, a good couple hundred years before the turn of the era. When that went belly up, not coincidentally at the same time the Ch'in founder went belly up, Legalism was officially pitched onto the scrap heap of really bad ideas. Confucianism became the official philosophy of government for the next 2000 years, give or take. Confucianism had won the argument ... in theory. If the actual governments were "a little bit men," "a little bit law," no one kicked too much. And if they were rather more like the old Ch'in and a whole lot less like what h Confucius envisioned, well, the important thing was that everyone knew that Confucianism was Good, and Legalism was Bad, and the leaders swore up and down they were Confucians. In fact, Confucianism and Legalism in China occupied very much the same niches that democracy and fascism do in the psychotical imagination of modern-day American humans.
But it was actually another school of Chinese philosophy that got me thinking about how little has changed across thousands of years and thousands of miles. It was called "the School of Names," and it has been compared with the Greek Sophists, with whom it was roughly contemporary. The classic proposition that has come down to us from the School of Names is this: "A white horse is not a horse." The argument goes that "horse" pertains to shape, while "white" pertains to color, that there are also black horses, and that's a horse of a different color, and so on. There are a lot of words. And a lot of bullshit. And nothing with warm blood can fail to understand that a white horse is a horse.
I thought this was just a historical curiosity until I read a decision by the Texas Third Court of Appeals. In language that puts the white horse argument to shame, they ruled that "checks" are not "funds." Aw, but you see, they had to find a way to let h Tom DeLay and his accomplices get away with money laundering. There were a lot of words. And a lot of bullshit. And nothing with warm blood can fail to understand that this is a blatant psychotical ploy. So, if anyone still believes in the "Rule of Law," ... please.
September 1, 2008 - Some of the brethren and sistren have asked for a definition of "government." Government is something that the rich and powerful do to the poor and weak. At its root is a group of the most distinguished and reputable citizens, known as a "cabal." They select leaders to execute their wishes, as well as any uppity hoi polloi who may oppose those wishes. The details, names, and supporting lies vary considerably, but the bedrock of human government is the same.
Sometimes, there is an urgent need to change names. This happens when a "form" of government becomes discredited. Discreditation is a result of losing at war. Humans are very fond of war. When one bunch of humans whups another at war, the loser's form of government may be revealed as "evil," and they are required to pick another, less evil, name. Most commonly, this happens when one slice of the ruling class defeats another. A good example of that was what is known as "World War II." The Germans had a form of government called "Nazism," and the Italians had one called "fascism." They were the same thing with a different accent. When Germany and Italy lost the war, Nazism and fascism became dirty words. How dare anyone call someone a fascist, for instance? The bedrock of government has not changed, but the rulers need to use a different name.
Occasionally, there is a "revolution." That means that the poor and weak realize that they are also the many, get mightily pissed, and storm the seats of power. When that happens, the ruling class has to do a bit of fancy footwork. They pretend they are on "the people's" side and pretend to adopt their program, such as liberty, equality, and fraternity, and like that. They may have to kill some of their fellows, but that's a small price. Then they change the supporting lies. So you get names like "democracy" and "people's republic" and so on. But in the end, the same people still rule in the same way.
August 30, 2008 - I have decided to adopt the identifier "h" for "human" to avoid confusion. So I will refer to h McCain, for example, or h Obama. I got the idea from Isaac Asimov's use of "R" for "robot," as in "R Daneel Olivaw." I do not refer to Asimov as h Asimov because I suspect he was a bonobo. Or possibly, a robot.
This gives me a lead-in to Asimov's Rules of Robotics. As you may recall, there were three, originally. Here they are, as quoted in Wikipedia:
Later a fourth law, the Zeroth Law of Robotics is added, to wit:
"A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm."
The Zeroth Law overrides all the others, just as the First Law overrides the ones that come after it. I bring this all up because it illuminates the Laws of Humanics, which govern humans, just as the fictional Laws of Robotics govern robots in Asimov's universe. But these laws are real, and most humans are not aware of them. If you have been following this diary, you already know the first. I call it the Prime Postulate:
1. We are the Good Guys.
Here are the next two:
2. Kill the Bad Guys!
3. It's ours!
There is also a Zeroth Law, and it serves much the same function as the Zeroth Law of Robotics. It overrides the other three and any other law you can come up with. This is it:
0. Absolutely nothing comes before my personal and immediate profit.
Note how the first person pronoun has shifted. There's a reason for that. While "We are the Good Guys" could be "I am the Good Guy," and so forth, the Three Laws of Humanics are propagated to, and subliminally imprinted on, the hoi polloi. The Zeroth Law is only for the ruling class. It says, I don't give a rat's ass about the future of the planet or my species. I will sacrifice precisely squat for anyone or anything else. All I care about is my profit margin. The hoi polloi, on the other hand, are expected to sacrifice health, wealth, happiness, and life for the good of the rulers. Of course, you can't put it to them like that, or they might object. So instead, the rulers use words like God, Country, Patriotism, and so forth, always capitalized, so that the grunts will give it up willingly, even eagerly.
But I meant to talk some more about the American election. There have been some very exciting developments. The presidential candidates have chosen their running mates! Oh, my! Oh, my!
h Obama has chosen h Senator Joe Biden of Delaware to be his running mate. This is because h Obama has been criticized for being inexperienced, young, and black. h Biden is experienced, old, and white. So, that should work out pretty well for him, huh?
h McCain has chosen h Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska for his mate. h McCain has been criticized for being old and male. h Palin is young and female. So, there's that balance again! h Palin is also way less experienced than h Obama, so maybe h McCain and his friends aren't really as concerned about experience as they say. h McCain's strategy is to win the female voters who wanted h Hillary Clinton. For that to work the h Clinton females would have to believe that any female is the same as any other female. While this sounds ridiculous to us bonobos, there really are some humans who will fall for that. Also, some humans might think that h Palin is h Michael Palin of Monty Python's Flying Circus. That should be worth a few votes. Critics have pointed out that h Palin is under investigation in Alaska for trying to use her influence to get her sister's ex-husband fired from his job. The critics think that this will damage her chances. The critics don't understand psychotics. Only sex kills. If h Palin had had sex with her ex-brother-in-law, she would be floating face down in the psychotical lake by now. What she did is called "abuse of power." That is one of the highest qualifications for psychotical office. Heck, it's what psychotics is all about. If you have any doubts, examine the record for the last eight years. Or more. You can go back as far as you like.
August 26, 2008 - I sense some anxiety among my fellow bonobos about the upcoming American election. Permit me to put your minds at ease. The purpose of elections is to elect wise leaders. Or leaders of some kind, at least. Human voters assess the critical issues facing their nation, evaluate the positions of the various candidates, and vote for the one they believe has the best solutions. Here's an example of how it works ...
Let's say Satan (Prince of Darkness, Ruler of Hell, etc., etc., etc.) is the president of some fictional country. Let's call it the United States of Aremica. Satan has been president for 8 years, and has brought the country nothing but disaster, death, and damnation. War, suffering, economic collapse, and environmental devastation abound. In the run-up to the election, everything with a temperature, except for his really special buddies, has realized that Satan must go. So the outcome is pretty much fore-ordained. The only questions are who the other party is going to nominate, and why is the election taking so long to arrive?
As an opponent, Satan draws one Jesus. Jesus is known for being peaceful, honest, incorruptible, a friend of humankind, and the son of God. The Satan camp begins its campaign ...
This Jesus guy is inexperienced. Would you trust him to lead the country in war? But, but, but ... it's your war, says some poor fool. You started it. We die in it. It bankrupts our country. I think Jesus would stop the war. Hey, do I hear a traitorous, unpatriotic non-troop-supporter there, huh?
Jesus is a funny, foreign-sounding name. Middle Eastern, you know? I'm not saying he isn't a patriotic Aremican, exactly. Just raising the possibility.
Gosh, that Jesus is full of himself, eh? All that stuff about walking on water and loaves and fishes and all that. He's out of touch with the common human. Not like Satan, who proves what a reg'lar guy he is by not being able to put a noun and a verb together. What an elitist! Not like good ol' salt-of-the-earth Satan, the King of Hell.
And presumptuous? That Jesus thinks he's entitled to be president. And his skin's a little swarthy, if you hadn't noticed. Not that we care, of course. (Just pretty sure you would.)
Now, you can't vote for a dark, foreign, presumptuous elitist, can you? (Pay no attention to the wars of aggression and the melting polar ice caps and the autocratic seizure of power and the devastated economy behind the curtain.) Anyway, should you grow a brain, we own the voting machines.
And the latest polls say the election is a dead heat. And the next polls have Satan in the lead. And so forth.
They really are too stupid to live, you know.
August 23, 2008 - Today, I want to tell you about "law." I have mentioned law before, but I have never defined it. Shame on me. Here it is: "Law is a tool used by the ruling class to keep the peons in line. It is enforced by violence and other punitive measures and usually takes the form of documents written in arcane language that can only be interpreted at great expense."
Every so often, typically when the hoi polloi are dangerously showing signs of clear and independent thinking, the ruling class pretends that everyone is equal before the law and that no one is above the law. They talk solemnly and sincerely about "the Rule of Law." One country that has believed for some 200 years that it is under the Rule of Law is the United States of America. They have a sort of superlaw, called the Constitution. The Constitution dictates that the goverment of the United States of America be broken up into three parts so that the parts can keep an eye on each other, and no one part becomes too powerful. This is called "checks and balances." The Bush human says the Constitution is just a piece of paper. I think he is wrong. I think it's actually a piece of parchment. That was a little joke. The Bush is right, of course, and it is important to admit this, since he is so rarely right about anything.
The Constitution says that the President and other high elected officials should be removed from office by the other branches of government if they commit "high crimes." This is supposed to be done through a process called "impeachment." It is one of those "checks and balances." The Bush and his buddies have committed so many crimes, it is hard to keep track of them all. But only about 5 people in the US Congress have done anything about impeaching him. Even people who know that he deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison just shrug their shoulders. They say he can never be impeached because too many of his henchman are in the Congress, so there is no point even trying. If he had a sexual affair, it might be a different story, because sex is the most evil thing a human can do, but mass murder, fraud, and so forth, just aren't worth the trouble. Ok, fair enough. But then, the humans should not continue to pretend that their nation is under the Rule of Law. They should admit that the Constitution is indeed just a piece of paper (or possibly parchment), that the privileged are above the law, and that the law is something that the powerful do to the weak. For some reason, they don't admit that. Maybe you just have to be human to understand.
Anyway, since no one else wants to do it, I will make the official proclamation: The Rule of Law is dead in the United States of America. The Constitution is not the law of the land, but only a piece of paper (or parchment).
August 22. 2008 - I have to tell you about psychotics, O brethren and sistren! Humans mistakenly call it "politics," but I have been paying attention. It's psychotic. A human may explain to you that "politics" is about making asinine decisions for fear that intelligent ones will lose you votes. That would be an unusually honest human, the explanation is still wrong. Here's how it goes. There is a real world, and there is a fantasy dreamed up by humans. Numerous fantasy worlds, actually. Approximately one per human. Probably slightly more than one per human. Humans prefer living in their fantasy worlds to living in the real world. When humans make decisions that make sense only in their fantasy worlds, but have consequences, usually catastrophic, in the real world, that is psychotics.
Let me illustrate with an example. There are two human nations called the United States and Russia. They were enemies for many years because the United States was capitalistic and democratic, while Russia, formerly the ruling chunk of something called the Soviet Union, was communistic and totalitarian. At least, that was the cover story. Then the Soviet Union fell apart, and Russia embraced capitalism and democracy. In fact, both countries are ruled by plutocratic oligarchies, which makes them more and more similar. So, they aren't enemies anymore, right? Wrong. Now, they are enemies because ... well, it beats the hell out of me. They could be twins who were separated at birth.
Both the United States and Russia are what is known as "nuclear powers." That means they can blast the crap out of the planet and bid fair to end life on it. So you might think they wouldn't play war games with each other, right? Because that would be crazy.
Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States created a military alliance called NATO with some of its buds in Western Europe. This was to protect them from the evil Soviet Union. The Soviet Union created a military alliance called the Warsaw Pact with some of its good buds in Eastern Europe. This was to protect them from the evil United States. When the Soviet Union broke up, so did the Warsaw Pact. There was no need for it, right? And so did NATO, because there was no need for it. Oh, wait a minute. No, it didn't. Not only didn't NATO break up, it grew. It even grew to include former Warsaw Pact nations, like Poland, that border on Russia. This was a psychotical decision on the part of the United States and nations like Poland. The United States also wants the nations of Georgia and Ukraine, former republics of the Soviet Union to join NATO. Georgia got so excited that it invaded the break-away province of Ossetia. Russia promptly invaded Georgia. The United States promptly delivered a strongly worded message to Russia. If Georgia had been a member of NATO, Russia and the United States would now be at war. But don't worry. It could still happen. In the fantasy worlds of US leaders, putting missile bases in Poland and inviting Georgia and the Ukraine into NATO are clever decisions that will bring Russia to its knees and make the United States the undisputed ruler of the world. The real-world consequences of these psychotical actions are tit-for-tat reactions from Russia that are likely to grease the skids to Armageddon. We have already seen the Russian invasion of Georgia and a new Russian arms agreement with Syria. The US leaders react to these things with righteous indignation, as if they were not hypocritically doing the same kind of things, except hundreds of times worse. That is because they are criminally insane.
Have I mentioned that humans are too stupid to survive?
July 11, 2008 - I watch the trees grow. I think, maybe they have a chance. Homo moronis is hell-bent on destroying life on this planet, and no power (or Power, as they would have it) in the universe can turn them from their dearly beloved path of suicide. And hey, who would want to? They are cruel, destructive, and evil, but - the good news! - incompetent. I'm afraid there's not much hope for us bonobos, but the trees might survive.
June 28, 2008 - Now I understand why humans must never try to stop or mitigate Global Warming. There are two reasons:
1. It is too expensive.
2. Other humans aren't doing anything, so it wouldn't be fair.
I know that this is true because two human US Senators told me. US Senators are among the most powerful, respected, and astute creatures, not only of species Homo moronis, but of any species on planet earth.
You may be wondering how it can be too expensive to address something that threatens to wipe out thousands of species on the planet. Please allow me to explain. In the first place, if you are a human, you don't give a crap about other species. But what about Homo moronis itself? Doesn't Global Warming threaten that species, as well? Don't humans care about their own species? Let me answer that in two ways: yes, ... and no. There are two kinds of humans: the Right Kind (also known as "Rich") and the Wrong Kind (also known as "Other"). The Right Kind make all the big decisions (lucky thing, huh?), so the Wrong Kind can just go screw themselves.
Ok, so far, so good. But surely the Right Kind of humans care about their slice of the species? They do. Let me give you an analogy of the reasons for not doing anything about Global Warming. Suppose that you have a great, big bunch of bananas. Suddenly, you see a leopard galloping in your direction. If you drop the bananas, you can escape. If you don't drop the bananas, the leopard will kill you. So, this is a no-brainer, right? But wait! There are lots of other bonobos who have few or no bananas. That makes them weaker and slower than you. The leopard can eat them, while you escape. Since you have all those bananas, you know you are smarter and more worthy than the others. At the same time, there are some other bonobos who are also wealthy in bananas, and they aren't dropping theirs. If you drop yours, they will have more bananas. That isn't fair!
But what if the leopard doesn't know it's supposed to eat the poorer bonobos first? And, even if it does, wouldn't it come back for you later? All I can tell you is that the wise, respected, and astute representatives of Homo moronis don't think that way.
May 31, 2008 - Recently, a human friend of mine asked what the difference was between a "marriage" and a "civil union." I thought, if a human doesn't know, a bonobo doesn't stand a chance, right? So here it is in plain English: There is no bleedin' difference between a marriage and a civil union. However, humans think there is a big difference, and to a human, what they think is more important than reality.
The important thing about marriages and civil unions are the legal aspects. One party gets to cover the other with first party's health insurance. Parties get to claim each other as next of kin, visit each other in hospital, and so forth. First party (usually the larger, stronger, and maler) is prohibited from dumping second party (usually the smaller, weaker, and femaler) without so much as a howdy-do, leaving second party on her own to fend with the kids and the bills. That's what marriage and civil unions are about, but to a human, only the civil union is about real-world, nuts-and-bolts matters like the above.
Marriage is about Love and Commitment and God Giving You Permission to Have Sex, but Only for Procreation! Marriage is Spiritual. Marriage is Blessed by God, while a civil union is only approved by the state. All that legal stuff has no place in marriage. It isn't even capitalized!
The legal stuff has no place in marriage, that is, until the marriage hits the fan. Then it's all about the legal stuff. In other words, if you subtract the delusion from marriage, what remains is a civil union.
For those who are not aware of this, bonobos neither have nor need marriages or civil unions. Another proof of our superior intelligence.
May 29, 2008 - Humans lie a lot. Have I mentioned that? I probably have, but I'm not sure I emphasized it enough. Some humans lie all the time. It isn't that copious lying makes them better at it. It just makes them more ... copious. Of course, humans believe that bigger and more are better, so that might be one reason why they do it. What is really puzzling, though, is that they keep right on repeating the same lies, even when it has become obvious to the dullest intellect.
The most recent instance has to do with the infamous aggression in Iraq. The long litany of lies about why Iraq needed to be invaded, and how each was revealed in its bald-faced illegitimacy, is known in nauseating detail. Now, the Bush human's former press secretary has once again affirmed that the war march was founded on a steaming heap of hog manure. This could come as a surprise to no sentient being. And yet, the Rice specimen trotted out the same old tired litany.
Why do they even bother? As a humanologist, I have a few theories:
1. They really believe their own bull droppings. I think this may be true of the Bush creature.
2. Their tongues have calcified into a shape that will only produce previously spoken phrases.
3. They are experimental automatons, placed on the planet by extraterrestrials, and have no control over what they say. I didn't say they were very good experimental automatons.
4. It's a habit, like smoking. They can't quit without special gum or a patch.
5. They don't think other humans are smart enough to figure it out.
6. They think lying is always superior to telling the truth.
May 26, 2008 - Today is the US Memorial Day, one of many human war holidays. This is the one for honoring the war dead before rushing off to kill some more. It appears that ensuring a copious supply of new war dead is part of the mystique of the holiday. George Bush, the draft evader who favors wars of aggression for others to die in, gave a brief speech, saying in essence "Thanks guys. Better you than me." Bush is the CEO of the United States. "CEO" stands for "Chief Excretory Orifice," and is usually applied only to corporate heads, but in the case of George Bush, ... well, you see.
The United States used to have a holiday called "Armistice Day." It commemorated the ends of two wars. This could not be allowed to continue. Humans don't want to encourage the end of war. They want to celebrate war. So, "Armistice Day" was changed to "Veterans Day" to honor those who keep wars going, rather than the ends of wars. It appears to have been a big success.
May 10, 2008 - The more observant among you have noticed a seasonal human ritual unfolding before your eyes. Some of the brethren and sistren have told me that they think this is a human mating ritual, that it has to do with who gets to pass their DNA on (and get laid into the bargain). I am sorry to inform you that this is not the case. Just as we bonobos do not have a mating season, so too with the humans. The main difference, as I have observed elsewhere, is that for bonobos, sex is always in season. For humans, it is never in season. Not so's they'd admit it, at least.
But let me describe the ritual that some of us have been observing. A key component of it is vocalization, especially the repetition of the word "tough." There are three aspects to this vocalizaton. The main idea is to pronounce the word with as many syllables as possible. You probably think it has only one syllable or, at most, two, if you break up the "o" and the "u." You would be surprised how many syllables an avid human can crowbar into that word. The number of syllables is the most important part, but location on the vocal register comes in a respectable second. They endeavor to say it with as deep a basso profundo as possible. The third aspect is accent. Even if they come from the extreme northeast of the US of A, they endeavor to say "tough," or its polysyllabic counterpart, with a southern accent.
That is a brief summary of the vocal portion of the ritual, but vocalization is not the whole story. While vocalizing, the humans must strut around with out-thrust chest and flapping elbows. Small wonder that many of us have mistaken this for a mating ritual. Ok, confession time. Those of you who think it is a mating ritual are half right. This is actually political mating. It does not result in the winner getting laid and passing on his or her DNA.The winner gets to pass on his or her political DNA, and everyone else gets symbolically laid, although a popular synonym is commonly used to describe this.
April 30, 2008 - A word today about character assassination. Humans are very prone to this. I feel I must take a stand now, before this gets out of hand. I most emphatically and categorically deny that my resignation from Homo sapiens was prompted by pending articles of impeachment. That was a complete coincidence.
April 25, 2008 - Today's topic is "compromise." "Compromise" is the art of extracting from the desires of two or more parties something that pleases none of them.
Humans love to argue. Human arguments typically begin at the corner of Anger and Ego, take a sharp right to Shouting, and straight on into Violence. The winner of a human argument is not so much the one who has the better reasons, as the one who is able to walk away. Sometimes, neither of the parties can walk away. This is known as a "draw," probably meaning that they drew at the same time.
Some of the cleverer humans noticed that this method of dispute resolution had an unacceptably high fatality rate. So, they invented something called "compromise." "Compromise" means finding a middle ground between what you want and what I want that satisfies neither of us. But each of us, at least, has the satisfaction that the other didn't get what they wanted. Each negotiates in good faith in order to obtain a solution that would be considered fair in a sane world.
Here is a typical example of compromise: You claim a piece of land. I claim the same piece of land. You get half of the land, and I get half of the land. That's compromise.
And here is a typical example of something that is not traditionally amenable to compromise: I beat the crap out of you and take everything you own. Here, the old way is for the society to stop me, return to you what I have taken, and throw me in prison.
Surprisingly, this worked rather well. Compromise got such a good reputation, that it became the second most popular method of dispute resolution, after a decisive pre-emptive strike.
As with most things, the people who know best have found a way to improve compromise. First, redefine "normal." Then, forget about that "good-faith" crap.
Here is how the people who know best would handle our previous example of compromise: You claim a piece of land. I claim the same piece of land, plus everything you own. I get half of your possessions, and you get half. But I still want what you have left, so we will have to compromise again, maybe a little later.
The example that was not suitable for compromise is now also amenable to compromise: I only beat half the crap out of you and take half of everything you have. You get to keep the other half until the next compromise. This is very much like the previous example, except you don't have to get beaten up in the other one. Your choice.
April 21, 2008 - Remember when I explained about "voting" and how to keep the wrong people from doing it? There's a really great example of it in a place called Texas. In Texas, they have an official called "the Attorney General." His most important job is keeping the wrong people from voting. Here's how he does it. When humans are too old or infirm to go to voting places to vote, they can vote by mail. "Absentee voting," they call it. So some concerned humans offer to help the infirm humans by taking their ballots to the mailbox and dropping them in. But a lot of the old, infirm people vote the wrong way. Maybe it's because they're too old, and they haven't got the new order down yet. Anyway, Texas has a law that says that anyone who takes somebody else's ballot to the mailbox has to write their own name and address on it, too. When you fail to do that, it is called "voter fraud." To clarify, suppressing the vote of people who vote the wrong way is not voter fraud. This is a great law because it was never enforced and no one knew about it. Well, they do now, let me tell you. "The Attorney General" has gone after those miscreants with a vengeance. The miscreants tend to be poor, old, minority ladies with good hearts ... the archetype, in fact, of voter fraud. But what about the people who vote the right way, but also broke that law? Apparently, there wasn't a single one! Can you imagine that?
April 13, 2008 - Oh, those whacky, madcap humans! They're at it again, playing their favorite political game. It's called "Gotcha!" The exclamation point is an important part of the name. The way that it works is that two or more human candidates circle each other warily, talking in turns, or all at once. The object of the game is to catch someone saying something unorthodox. As soon as a candidate does that, the others scream "Gothcha!" in unison, fall on the poor sucker, and beat him (or her) to death with his (or her) own faux pas. It's a lot of fun.
The tricky part is identifying what actually is a lethal faux pas. It doesn't necessarily have to do with anything of substance. In fact, the further away from substance the players can get, the better. If they talk about anything important, it's likely to hang them all. It doesn't have to be a false statement. In fact, lies seldom get anyone into trouble. It's truth that humans can't stand.
So, we had a great little "Gotcha!" just the other day. The Obama said some voters were "bitter" and "cling to guns and religion." True and impolitic. The Clinton was all over him, calling him "elitist and out of touch." Ok, I know this is really hard to understand. I will explain. I will even attempt to define "elitist," which is not a task for the faint of heart.
First of all, we know that presidential candidates are among the people who know what's best for everyone else. The ones that have an actual chance of being president, at least. So, we know that they don't give a fig about what the people who don't know what's best think. (See "So?") However, during an election campaign, they have to pretend that the people who don't know best are wise and important, even though they really think those people are dumber than posts. That's part of the game!
Voters can't really choose anyone who is not one of the people who know best, but sometimes they can choose one of two or three of the people who know best. It makes them feel empowered. But this will probably not continue after electronic voting is perfected.
Anyway, most humans know deep down that they are too stupid to live. Therefore, the thing they hate worst is hearing someone say it out loud. When these humans have donned their voter persona, they have a false feeling of potency (known as "empowerment") and may turn their wrath on certain candidates. This is where "Gotchas!" come in. The voters don't care about issues, which are too complicated for most of them. What they care about is attitude. They don't care about the Obama's plans for healthcare, the economy, or ending the war. They are pissed off that he seems to think that he's better than they are. That's worse than anything else except sex. Of course, if they didn't feel inferior themselves about their guns and religion, I don't know why they would be angry at the Obama. That's humans for you.
That brings us to the definition of "elitist" that I promised. Here it is: "An elitist is a bad person." Yup. That's it. Except for one other thing. If you read the human definitions, you will find a lot more words, but it all comes down to that. A common definition is that it is someone who thinks that he's better than everyone else. Sounds kind of like "the people who know what's best," doesn't it? Some will say that an elitist is wealthy, like George W. Bush. Some will say that an elitist has a degree from Harvard or Yale or, like George W. Bush, from both. But see? George W. Bush isn't an elitist, is he? He's just one of the blue-collar boys. Oh. Here's the "one other thing" I mentioned: "An elitist is someone else."
April 11, 2008 - Here is something that humans think works. Humans think a lot of things that don't work do work. This is because they believe tradition more than empirical evidence. Anyway, this is it: When you are unhappy with someone, demand that they fire an underling. Some years ago, a human called Reagan was president of the United States. He put an underling named Watt in charge of the environment. Watt was a big despoiler of the environment, and he had a big mouth. Outraged humans screamed for Watt's head. Watt resigned, and Reagan replaced him with someone worse. No one screamed because the new guy didn't have a big mouth. So that was very successful.
When the US humans invaded Iraq, a lot of angry humans wanted the Secretary of War's head. He eventually resigned and was replaced by someone worse. The humans have gone through the entire exercise twice with the Attorney General, so you know that the latest one is really bad. Now the angry humans are going after the Secretary of State. I don't want to know what will replace her, if she goes. But this is like asking a mob boss to fire his hitmen for killing the people the mob boss told them to. Maybe he will, but he'll just hire more hitmen. It's like replacing the oil in your car when the car has an oil leak. The humans don't have the will to fix the leak, so it doesn't matter how many times they replace the oil.
April 7, 2008 - Would my face be red! If it weren't covered with hair. Apologies to my fellow bonobos, who didn't understand yesterday's analogy. The best I can do to explain the meaning of "corruption" is to compare it to rotten fruit or a dead body. But how, some of you asked, could a living thing stink that badly? I guess you have to be human to understand. Even after many years as a human, I'm not sure I do.
April 6, 2008 - Humans have an out-moded method, called "voting," of choosing their leaders. Not all humans use it, but for those that do, it sometimes gets in the way of choosing the people who know what's best. Fortunately, until they can get rid of this dinosaur once and for all, humans have many ways of overcoming the deficiency. Let me explain.
Here's how voting works. Each human makes a formal record of the people he or she wants as leaders. These records are called "votes." Then some designated humans count up the votes, and the humans with the most ... win. There are many methods of recording votes: writing, punching holes, raising hands, typing on a computer, something to do with butterflies, and many others. A voting event is called an "election." The concept is very simple, but you must remember one very important fact: most humans are too stupid to know what's best for them, so they may not vote for the right people. And remember another important fact: humans don't know that they're too stupid to know what's best for them. So why don't they just let the people who know what's best decide everything? Because humans are too stupid to know what's best for them. So we have a perfect circle. It is up to the people who do know what's best to make sure the elections turn out right. And they have to be careful about how they do it because humans are inclined to get very persnicketty if they aren't allowed to vote. It reminds them that they are too stupid ... and all the rest of it.
Here are some of the ways the people who know best make elections turn out right:
1. Make laws to keep undesirables from voting. These are some good reasons why certain humans should not be allowed to vote: gender, skin hue, religion, poverty, and being against the party of the people who know what's best. Also, something called "ethnicity," which is very hard for a bonobo to understand. This is a time-honored method of fixing elections, but it is not very legal nowadays. Cantankerous humans who don't know what's good for themselves have ruined it in one way and another.
2. Scare undesirable humans away from voting places. Station authoritative persons who know what's best, preferably armed, at voting places to shout at the undesirables. Or tell them that the voting place is closed. Or that the voting machines aren't working. This works pretty well, but you can't always tell the undesirable by appearance, and this method, too, is only slightly legal.
3. Make stealth laws to keep undesirables from voting. This is a lot like #1, but you pretend that you're stopping them from voting for some less illegal reason. Make them show 14 pieces of identification, for example. Then you can pretend that they are the ones committing voting fraud.
4. Vote by computer and fix the results. This method has limitless potential and may be the best method of all for letting dumb humans think they are voting, while ensuring that the people who know what's best will always win. There is very little chance of getting caught at this, but if you are, unfortunately, there may be certain repercussions. So it still needs some work.
5. Spend a lot of money to convince the dumb people to vote for the right candidates. But be sure not to tell them where the money came from! They aren't that dumb. This is a little bit expensive, but it is legal. Human courts in a place called Texas have given it their blessing. Let me explain how this works.
Suppose that your troop has a nice berry patch. A couple of neighboring chimps come over and try to steal your berries, but your troop leader stands firm and sends those marauding chimps packing. Well, the chimps happen to know one corrupt bonobo in your troop and encourage her to run for troop leader. This corrupt bonobo has promised to give the chimps free run of the berry patch. Then the chimps send out a great, big direct mailing (this may be a bit hard to grasp) saying that your troop leader is corrupt and incompetent, and their friend is just the greatest bonobo the sun ever shined on. But they don't say "overthrow the current leader and substitute our candidate," and they don't sign the letters, "the chimps." They sign it "Bonobos for Good Stuff" or something like that. According to the Texas human court, this is perfectly all right. Understand?
April 5, 2008 - The best kind of human government is called "democracy." I know that this is the best kind because one nation of humans invaded another to make them have a democracy. And I know that this was the reason for the invasion because all the other reasons the invading humans gave fell apart immediately, and the "democracy" reason is the only one that anyone thinks they can still use. What does "democracy" mean? It means "government by the people who know what's best for you." That isn't the published definition, but you can figure it out, if you watch.
The truth is, most humans don't know what's best for themselves, so they have to rely on the tiny percentage of humans who do know what's best for everyone. There is a hierarchy of people who know what's best. Some of them know what's best only for their religious group or their family or their nation. The luckiest nation in the world is the United States of America. Their people who know what's best know what's best for the whole world.
Unfortunately, most humans think they know what's best, even when they don't. That's why the ones who really know what's best have to tell little white lies to make things come out right. So they say "democracy" means "government by the people." They just cut off the last few words and wink quietly to themselves.
Most of the time, that is. There is one human called "Cheney" who is more honest than most of the humans who know what's best. When another human told him that most of the humans in his country didn't like his war and wanted to stop it, he said, "So?" For my bonobo brethren and sistren who don't understand human so well, that means, "I don't give a crap what they think. I know what's best, and if they don't like it, I'll just fill their faces full of buckshot and make them apologize." This is far more honest and more succinct than most of the humans who know best would have been. They would have explained at great length why the ignorant majority was mistaken and how the humans who know best were doing the right and honorable thing. The true meaning of such an explanation, of course, would be, "I don't give a crap what they think. I know what's best, and if they don't like it, I'll just fill their faces full of buckshot and make them apologize." But it would have taken a great deal longer to say than "So?" Cheney human knows how to save his breath.
April 4, 2008 - Today, I got another lesson in human law and religion. On the human holiday "Easter," half a dozen young humans disrupted a religious service to protest some human war. The young humans talked loudly and squirted colored water. They were arrested and charged with what is called a "felony," meaning a serious crime, for property destruction (staining carpets) and assault (spraying people with colored water). Their pictures were published in the local newspapers so that other humans could threaten to kill them. Here are the lessons we bonobos can learn from this.
Religion. All of the humans at the religious service worship a god of love. This god prohibits the shedding of innocent blood. Therefore, the humans murdered him a couple thousand years ago. The religious service was about the god's rebirth from his murder at the hands of those old-time humans. Apparently, the disruptive young humans thought that the slaughter of thousands of innocents in that war thing was just the sort of thing that the god was against. They thought the other worshippers of this god would also be against the war and might want to have a stern word with the people who were running it. Boy, did they get it wrong. The humans' god doesn't care about the war. What he cares about is orderly ritual and good manners. We know this from the behavior of his representatives on earth. Disrupting an Easter service is much worse than wantonly killing women and children. The religious representatives said it might be ok to be against the war, but you must be polite about it.
Law. As with religion, so with law. The impolite young humans seemed to think that the war was illegal and that some of the things done in the war - torture, murder, rape, robbery - were illegal. Boy, were they wrong again. What is wrong is disrupting certain kinds of religious services with nonritual loud speech and squirting colored water on people and carpets. Those are felonies. No one is getting charged with a felony for torture, murder, rape, or robbery. Those are what you might call venial offenses. Or more likely, no offenses at all.
I sure hope those young humans have learned their lessons.
March 31, 2008 - There's this human story called The Hobbit. Towards the end, humans and dwarves are about to eviscerate each other over gold. At the critical juncture, an army of goblins arrives, and the humans and dwarves resolve their differences and join forces against the goblins. The war is glorious, and the Good Guys win. That's why they call it "fiction." If the goblins had been a little smarter, they would have waited until the humans and dwarves had kicked the crap out of each other and then walked in to pick up their gold unopposed. The reason I bring the whole turgid tale up is that it reminds me of the current human presidential race in America. Only the latter-day goblins are a lot smarter. They are waiting, with the exception of one or two strategically placed swift boats, for the dwarves and humans to beat each other senseless.
March 28, 2008 - Some of my baffled bonobo brethren and sistren have asked me to explain what "terrorism" means. Well, that's a bit of a tricky one, let me tell you. To ease into it, I will begin with the difference between "violence" and "force." The simplest way to understand this is that They use violence, while We use force. Is there any other difference? Yes. Force is legitimate. Violence is illegitimate. What is the difference between "legitimate" and "illegitimate?" If an Authority human says something is legitimate, it is. Otherwise, it is not. But what makes a human an "authority?" It's having more force at his disposal than the non-authorities. What if Their Authority humans authorize force? Well, that's impossible because They are, by definition, illegitimate. They can only authorize violence. Ok, you got me. There isn't any other difference between violence and force, after all.
Ok, back to terrorism. Now that you have a firm grounding on the difference between violence and force, I can tell you that terrorism is a form of violence. What kind of violence? The scare-your-pants-off, only-I-can-protect-you-from, so-keep-your-mouth-shut-and-do-as-I-say kind of violence. You already know that We cannot be terrorists and that terrorism is illegitimate. If We do something that looks superficially like terrorism, it is called "Freedom Fighting." Terrorism has one other distinguishing characteristic: it is usually pretty cheap. Invading another country is not terrorism, because that sure isn't cheap.
March 26, 2008 - Today brings insights into the mind of the homo sapiens. First, a definition: Betrayal (n.) - Terminating a beating before your victim is dead. I learned this new word from the McCain human. The McCain human and his We group attacked a They group without provocation. Of course, under the Prime Postulate, this is a humanitarian action. Having slaughtered thousands of the They group, and not a few of the We group, even some of the Wes appear to be having doubts. McCain human explained that it would be a betrayal of the Theys to leave without killing a lot more of them. "Finishing the job," I think he calls it.
Before the unprovoked humanitarian action, certain We humans already had misgivings about being so selfless and noble. They visited the They country, and the Wes were, of course, outraged. (Remember! They are totally and irredeemably evil.) Today, it was revealed that the trip was paid for by the evil Theys. That is way more shocking than slaughtering thousands of people for nothing or, better, to grab their oil.
March 22, 2008 - Hear, O my bonobo brethren and sistren! Humans live by the Prime Postulate. This is the Prime Postulate: "We are the Good Guys." The First Corollary to the Prime Postulate is, "They are the Bad Guys." The Big Question is, "Where do You stand?" If you have to ask what "We" and "They" mean, you are everybody's Bad Guy. However, in case there are any non-humans reading this, I will explain what some of the common dividers between "We" and "They" are.
1. Where you live. Here, Good. There, Bad. I start with this one because we bonobos are a bit clannish, so it's the easiest to understand.
2. Skin hue. This is very hard for a bonobo, since all humans look alike to us.
3. Gender. Again, very difficult to understand. But remember: To a human, sex is the ultimate evil.
4. Religion. This has to do with which human gets to tell everyone else what God wants.
5. Wealth. Have, Good. Have not, Bad.
6. Flag pins.
The Prime Postulate is beautiful in its simplicity. Since We are the Good Guys, everything we do is Good and justified. Since They are the Bad Guys, everything they do is Bad and unjustified. There are no exceptions. Torture is a good example. If They torture Us, that is obviously a horrible evil that must be denounced to the world, punished severely, and rooted out. If, however, We torture them, that is intelligent public policy, and anyway, they deserve it because they are the Bad Guys. At most, we may change the name to "enhanced interrogation" for the weak in reasoning, but this is not mandatory. Whenever there is a large explosion resulting in mass slaughter, the crucial question to ask, before condemning or praising it, is this: "Who did it?"
True believers in the Prime Postulate include humans named George W. Bush, Osama bin Laden, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Bill Clinton, Menachem Begin, and in fact, every human who has ever risen to a position of great power.
Yet, even some humans have difficulty applying the Prime Postulate. Here are some examples.
1. There was a human named Ted Westhusing who believed firmly in the Prime Postulate. Unfortunately, he also believed in an extremely heretical corollary, to wit, "If We are the Good Guys, We ought to damn well act like it!" This is so wrong in so many ways. In the first place, the leading "if" implies reason to doubt. This is totally unacceptable. Secondly, the whole tenor of this heresy is that the Postulate is not absolutely whole and sufficient in itself. The entire point of the Prime Postulate is that being a Good Guy means never having earn anything, explain anything, or justify anything. The Westhusing human is dead now, either at his own hand or, more probably, at the hands of the Guardians of the Prime Postulate. That would not be murder, of course, since, by definition, they can do no wrong. The whole sorry story is in The Texas Observer. Happened around the time I first started shopping for a new species.
2. Some humans flew some airplanes full of other humans into some buildings full of yet more humans. This was either heinous and horrible or holy and heroic, depending on which values you plugged into the variables "We" and "They." But let's take the heinous and horrible side for this example. From this perspective, the airplane-crashing humans were called every pejorative name in the book, as befit their status as Bad Guys. They were evil, cruel, cowardly, vicious, etc., etc., etc. There was a human named Bill Maher, who had a television show. He said something to this effect, "Yes, they were all kinds of evil, but you know, they weren't cowardly. Deliberately sacrificing one's own life isn't cowardly." Owwwooooo!!! The human howl went up. How dare this human say that a Bad Guy was not cowardly? Off with his head! Or at least, off with his show. The Maher human made a very elementary Primary Postulate blunder, and I have no sympathy for him. He allowed simple logic to intrude on the perfection of the Postulate. This cannot be stressed or repeated enough: A Bad Guy has no redeeming characteristics. So the Maher human was kicked off the air, but he was lucky. He was allowed to live. For now.
3. Every so often, one encounters a human who just doesn't get the Prime Postulate at all. Such a human is Jeremiah Wright. He repeatedly states that the Good Guys have done wrong. That is, of course, impossible by definition. This is probably some form of insanity, but don't go by me. I'm just a bonobo. The Wright human isn't really worthy of consideration, since he is insane. The interesting case is the Barack Obama human, a friend of the insane Wright human. The Obama human wants to be President, and yet refuses to act "Presidential." Acting "Presidential" means sacrificing long-time friends for embarrassing you. By "sacrificing," I mean something involving kindling wood and flames. By not toasting the Wright human, the Obama human is violating the Prime Postulate by proxy. This is particularly bad, since he is already hue-suspect. Worse yet, the Obama human doesn't wear a flag pin. The howl is rising.
Did you know that humans are way too stupid to survive?
March 21, 2008 - Humans have something called "Flag-Pin Patriotism." Here's how it works: If you wear a pin featuring the national flag, that means you are patriotic. If you don't wear such a pin, that means you have a "patriotism issue." People with a patriotism issue do not love their country and give aid and comfort to the enemy. At the very least. They are probably traitors and need to be watched. Someone who lies his country into disastrous wars, sends its children off to kill and die for rich people's profits, and routinely flouts its laws does not have a patriotism issue. As long as he wears a flag pin.
March 19, 2008 - I've noticed this about humans: Lying is their native form of communication. It is expected, encouraged, respected. Humans have very little truck with truth. Truth is required only under very special ritual conditions:
1. The liar must touch a designated human holy book.
2. The liar must say the magic, ritual words: "I swear to tell the whole truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God." Some variations are permitted, but they must be prescribed by duly authorized authorities.
3. The liar must be in the presence of an authorized truth-receiving entity, such as a court or a congressional committee. Raw truth is too toxic and volatile to be heard by the unanointed.
If any of these conditions are not met, and you believe the effluent of a human ... well, more fool you.
I have already noted the special and arcane rituals that surround the telling of truth, but I have not mentioned why truth is sometimes, if rarely, required. Here it is. It is sometimes difficult to hang a recognizable crime on someone you don't like. Humans understand well that most of their species are incapable of telling the truth, even under controlled, ritual conditions. The truth rituals are designed to trap unwary human prey when, swearing and holy-book-touching notwithstanding, they lie anyway. This is a popular stratagem for entrapping political opponents and embarrassed athletes.
Exceptions: There are cases when all of the truth rituals have been performed, yet the liar is not held accountable for lying. Notable among these is the oath, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and ... defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God."
Have I mentioned that humans are too stupid to live?
March 17, 2008 - It's about sex, you see. We bonobos are fond of sex. We do it for fun. We use it as a greeting. To a human, sex is the unforgivable evil, the veriest pit of sticky, irredeemable hell. How do I know this?
Item 1: Human president #1 is caught having sex. The howl is raised. He is impeached.
Item 2: Human president #2 lies, murders, loots the treasury, flouts the law, mortgages his country's future. No howl. No impeachment.
Item 3: Human senator is caught selling his soul to lobbyists and ... maybe he had sex with one. He rushes instantly to cover his vulnerability ... by categorically denying he ever had sex with that lobbyist, even though no one ever said he did. It is fine for him to be the wholly owned subsidiary of a slither of lobbyists, but sex. is. right. out.
Item 4: Human governor is caught having sex. Perhaps the humans have learned. No. The howl is raised. The articles of impeachment are prepared. Human governor resigns.
Humans are too stupid to live.
March 15, 2008 - It says in Wikipedia that bonobos are "capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity." I'll have to work on those. I hope they'll take my species of origin into consideration and cut me some slack.
March 13, 2008 - I am resigning from the human species, effective today. People are just too stupid to live. I am applying for entry into the bonobos. In the interim, I will just have to be a being without a species and hope that no one calls me on my DNA.
copyright
© 2008 Robert L. Blau