Tag Archives: diplomacy

Cyanide

Cyanide: (n) a salt of hydrocyanic acid, as potassium cyanide, KCN.

 If, in your job description, there are instructions describing the circumstances, conditions or situations in which you are required to drop cyanide tablets in your mouth to commit suicide, then, in my opinion, you’ve chosen a poor profession.

I don’t care for any philosophy, religion or nationalism that promotes the idea that ultimate devotion requires the loss of life.

For instance, I would be very happy to assist my country in diplomacy, giving food to the hungry or even trying to find a way to motivate myself to dig a ditch.

But when you refer to the ultimate sacrifice—that being, giving your life in a war for freedom—I must tell you, I find this hideous.

Likewise, in Christianity, when they discuss the disciples becoming martyrs for the faith, I have a tendency to mull over the possibility that there might have been a way to skip out of the pagan land that was so pissed with their preaching and just go to more receptive audiences.

I know this might make me sound shallow.

But death, suicide and popping cyanide in the last moments to make sure you are not captured and interrogated is not only unappealing, but anti-human and anti-common sense.

I will not dwell with those who revere death as the supreme statement of consecration without objecting to such futility in favor of using our hands, our minds and our spirits to enhance the world.

Certainly this eliminates me from being a spy.

I probably will never work for the CIA.

Even the FBI might pass me over in favor of a more death-willing applicant.

 

funny wisdom on words that begin with a C

Clamor

Clamor: (n) a loud and confused noise, especially that of people shouting vehemently.

Is it possible to object without being objectionable?

Can we raise issues without raising our blood pressure?

Can we stimulate the conversation without stimulating the anger that inhibits reasoning?

Why do we clamor?

Do we secretly think we may be wrong, and the more we shout the less likely the exposure?

Are we obsessed with the notion that our much speaking actually affects the thinking of others?

When will we comprehend that the louder we get, the less power there is in what we say?

Why is cleverness dying?

Why is diplomacy viewed as weakness?

Why would people mock the notion that “a soft answer turns away wrath?”

When did sheer brute force convince our nation to pursue its prowess?

Is it possible to make such a convincing argument that it can be delivered in a whisper?

Does the proclamation, “change the world” have to be blared, or can it be delivered with an ironic smile?

The louder we get, the less is done.

The more intense we become, the less effective.

The reason the meek inherit the Earth is because the dominant, forceful and tribal leaders kill one another off–leaving behind the inheritance of an Earth that still needs to be reformed, but would prefer it be done with some gentleness.

I’m going to stop clamoring.

I shall no longer clamor.

To clamor is to annoy.

Do I really believe that? Do you really believe that?

Maybe we could start believing it together.

 

 

Donate Button

 

 

Bedouin

Bedouin: (n) a nomadic Arab of the desert.Dictionary B

What is the difference between an Arab and a Jew?

It’s a question you are not allowed to ask in our day and age of politically correct diplomacy.

Even though there are many people in Israel who are white with blue eyes and blond hair, it is not the natural personification of a Jew.

The land was once a kingdom of Bedouins.

If you read the history of the Jewish race and that of the Muslims, you of course immediately find that they have a common father and a total disagreement over the issue of which son of Abraham should have predominance.

It is amazing to me that this rift between the Jews and the Muslims is viewed as a spiritual conflict, since there are so many sexual overtones to the story.

Abraham had Ishmael by Hagar.

Then he had Isaac by his wife, Sarah.

So immediately, the process is tainted by the introduction of the byproduct of genitals.

On top of that, it was decided that the Jews would become different from the Arabs by trimming off the tip of the penis, thus creating the circumcised and the uncircumcised.

So once again, we have a return to focus on the male sexual organ in determining Heavenly approval.

And then it is further complicated by who married who, who screwed who and whether they should have done that indiscretion in the first place.

So I guess the theory of Middle East politics and theology is that it doesn’t matter what you put in front of the grinder as long as your particular favored sausage comes out at the end.

 

Donate Button

Thank you for enjoying Words from Dic(tionary) —  J.R. Practix