Where to start? I mean, there are lots of things in the works. Lots and lots of things. Too many to mention at once.
So let's just start with the basics and work our way through...
A blog is going to be inserted
in this website, and its goal will be twofold:
1) To allow commentary on daily and passing things
that would otherwise pass noticed but uncommented.
2) To allow the commentary to incite further
analysis through every individual and citizen, encouraging questions, promoting discussion, and creating dialog.
Behind the Mirror will be constantly exposing the reflections
that have taken over the workings of the world, putting them in plain sight for all to see and evaluate, going through them
one by one until the way forward, out of the hall of mirrors and into a fresh landscape, is slowly revealed.
All
in good time though. For now, this little current affairs page will serve its purpose just fine.
Here
are the first questions:
(10/01/08)- If
I evaluate myself based on images I had a generation ago, will I be adequately preparing myself for the coming challenges
ahead? Or will I be living a dream that has been rendered so obsolete that it has slowly started turning into a nightmare?
Dream the
future, not the past... for the sake of the children. Not for a bruised ego, not for a degenerate standoff, but for the children.
Dream and make a difference that makes a real difference. Dream the future... not the past!
(15/01/08)- How do we know that the overwhelming phenomena we face in this world
are not the byproducts of organisms that are so beyond our scale that we cannot conceive of them as they truly are?
(19/01/08)- If science uses technology and apparatus
to study the natural world, then what happens when we realize that there is a part of the universe that can only be explored
by way of a tool called the brain?
(For a further glimpse into this question see the story on the page titled
Supernatural)
(28/01/08)-
The past one month has seen the
outbreak of election-related turmoil and violence of the highest proportions in two totally disparate regions of the world,
Pakistan and Kenya. Why do these events come in pairs, maybe threes, maybe more? Why is it that when it rains it pours? Are
these events acausally related by some sort of (as of yet) incomprehensible aspect of complex physics, or are there simpler explanations behind their occurrence? Most importantly, are they likely to occur again in other, separate parts of the world that are
involved in electoral procedures right now, and if so, how severe will their repercussions be?
(06/02/08)-
If Hillary is a polarizing figure that divides the country into those who love her and those
who despise her, then do Republicans want her out as soon as possible or do they want her to actually secure the Democratic nomination so that they can then be sure there
are no leaks from their party and the independents and the undecided into a non-polarizing, inspiring and change-bearing Obama?
If Obama is causing leaks in the GOP, then what does that
say about where things are right now in the political and societal and ideological arenas of the USA?
If Romney keeps insulting Huckabee, where will Huckabee's supporters lean to when the time
comes for their candidate to retire from the race? And how much of the administration will their candidate preside over if
McCain wins the presidential seat?
If McCain is not a true
republican, not in the way that the republicans have come to be known nowadays, then isn't that a blessing in disguise
for the GOP? Isn't that what gives them an actual running chance for the presidency, especially when bearing in mind the
state to which republicans have been sadly reduced to during the past ten years or so in the name of "true" but
essentially malignant conservatism that has become a governmental behemoth that is draining the country dry?
Is Ron Paul right when he says that "...the Republican Party
[and the United States of America] has lost its way?" Is he right when he points out that Reagan and the USA managed
to hold back and eventually defeat the gigantic and terrifying machine known as the USSR while now George W. Bush and his
administration are unable to contain the threat of a number of scattered, decentralized and anarchic cells of terrorists?
Is he right when he argues that this inability to contain the threat, or make friends around the world, is due to the fact
that the USA is now basing its struggle on false premises, hollow principles, and a bully mentality the likes of which have
never been seen before in a US administration, and that this is a clear case of fighting the wrong battle on the wrong battleground
with the wrong weapons on the wrong day for the wrong reasons? Is he right when he says that the USA should regroup and reassess
its way before it will ever have a chance of defeating those who decide to crash passenger planes into civilian buildings
as well as those who openly support them or secretly and deep down sympathize with them? Is he right when he says that we
must look at the whole picture before we ever have a chance to strengthen ourselves and have the clout to lead the way, whether
we are republican, democratic, libertarian, independent, civilian, corporate or military, American, European, African, Asian or Australian, black,
white, yellow, red, blue or green? Is he right when he asks people to use common sense?
Is he right? Or is he wrong?
"Then listen to me. Learn from me. I wasn't the best
because I killed quickly. I was the best because the crowd loved me. Win the crowd and you will win your freedom." ~Proximo, from Gladiator
(04/05/08)- As we near the middle of 2008, who
remembers the turmoil in Pakistan following the assassination of presidential candidate
Benazir Bhutto? Who remembers the massacres in Kenya? Who remembers the unrest in Georgia or the violence in Kosovo or the
breakdown in Zimbabwe? Who remembers those things when there is a referendum in Bolivia asking for the autonomy of the Santa
Cruz region, a referendum declared illegal by the Bolivian government and which will probably lead to violence and bloodshed?
Who remembers the saying "When it rains it pours," and that, for all its vernacular appeal, may have a thing or
two to say about what is happening all over the world? And after all this has been said, who remembers that the smoothest
elections of the year have so far taken place in Russia, where it is a widely shared secret that democracy is just a facade
carefully maintained for political and economic reasons? ...Perhaps all this election-based upheaval is a sign of health after
all!
(08/05/08)- How far must you
throw a person before you can begin to trust them?
(04/06/08)- Andy Murray has come up with an autobiography at the fetal
age of 21, and some say that this will inevitably distract him from what he needs to do to win Grand Slams and be the truly
great tennis player he can be. Reminiscent of the tragic errors of a flickering, wasting talent known as Marcos Baghdatis,
Andy Murray seems to be taking ill advice from an entourage possibly unsuitable for victory, and one cannot help but wonder
about the prospects of this promising talent. Nevertheless, if one overlooks the tennis-wise dubious decisions behind Murray's
current approach to his career, his out-of-place autobiography seems to be pointing to a certain issue that is painful, yet,
long overdue: British tennis impotence.
Here is an excerpt from his book:
"There is something wrong with the mentality and work ethic of most of the British players. I turn up at the National
Tennis Centre in Roehampton, the multi-million pounds headquarters of British tennis, and no one is there."
Now, typical as it may be of Murray, and full of controversy,
this comment, and many more like it in his book, seem to be taking a stab at British tennis, earning him many enemies and
making him a very easy target, which will not do any good to his appeal while further distracting him from winning tournaments
and becoming as great as he promises to be. Yet if one stops and looks at it from another perspective, one can see that Murray
is doing the right thing in a strange sort of way (even though inadvertently and through ill advice), pointing out the blatantly
true (which many prefer to stash underneath the rug of their comfort and pride) and slapping everyone in the face so that
they can perhaps finally wake up, acknowledge and, most importantly, do something about the sorry state of British tennis.
And if these people are offended by what Murray has to say about British tennis and the whole ethic and mentality that drives
British tennis players (the results of which speak painfully for themselves) then let them answer him not with words of indignation
on TV and in the press, but with actions of success and accomplishment on the court. If they are truly insulted, then let's
see not what they will say about it but what they will actually do about it. Let them
put their money where their mouth is or leave us alone. Whining doesn't make the grade anymore, and neither does righteous
protest.
Hail Murray for slapping a polar bear in the face and for giving
it a chance to finally wake up after decades of continuous and uninterrupted hibernation. Truth hurts a lot, but success hurts
even more. Have the hibernators forgotten? If not, then let them stop smashing Murray and start smashing some balls!
(And will someone please remind Murray and Baghdatis that inadvertent success is fine but that
it can only last so long, which would imply that they better start getting advice from more competent individuals before their
luck and their supporters start running out?)
(08/06/08)-
Ten thousand Austrians signed
a petition to get their national team out of the Euro 2008 because they feared "humiliation." After a decent performance
by their national team -- and a match that at least gave them the chance to prove themselves -- one must wonder whether those
ten thousand petitionists have stitched their mouth together and receded in the background of shame, or whether they have
the audacity to still stand behind their dubious arguments (note: Michael Kriess, the petition organiser, had said "Austria is a little country but we were better in the past..." ) And the question is, 'If Austria
does not take the chance afforded to them through their co-hosting status to compete at top level and gain valuable experience
among the best football teams in Europe, setting a platform that would have otherwise required very many years to set up,
how will they ever become better than they actually are?'
The Kriess's
of the world are very dubious individuals indeed, for they do not propose solutions. Critical and fearful, they just prolong
the problems they fear by avoiding to confront them.
