Do We Confuse Capacity With Morality?

One of us recently requested:

Can you come up with an insightful post on what happens when, in the face of unprecedented failure, no investigation taking place, and no one held responsible, conventional wisdom keeps praying day to day for confidence to return.

Can you find us one or two examples of republican retardation, bumbling economists spouting how this fits any existing models.

Feel free to draw from cinematographic tradition for approximate examples of precedents.

'Cause no one is saying anything in the MSN. I keep thinking China will wake up soon and wash America over with her own casino/cathouse money.

Tell us when you think the screws will be put on Cassano.

(Dredd Blogger Comment). I don't know if it will be insightful or not. That is, like art, something in the eye of the beholder. I replied to that post as follows:

I will try.

In the mean time remember that your analytical faculties are working quite well for you to have observed that reality.

The post will have to do with "capacity" rather than "what is wrong with the sheeple".

We are all human, I think, and we have only capacity (potential ability), not automatic ability.

Some do not have the capacity to investigate 911 again to clear up some of the missed evidence, wrongly decided issues, and perjury that took place.

This capacity weakens at times, and grows in strength at other times. It can be because of emotions, biases, fears, or a busy schedule.

Some of the public and widespread issues, therefore, fall on the ears of a mass of people who have constantly changing ability (capacity) to take it in.

I try to tailor and fashion my posts and articles with that in mind.

The full understanding of this subject matter requires a trip to the shrink, the psychologist, the psychoanalyst, story tellers, and others of that ilk.

At the same time don't forget "you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows" (Bob Dylan).

A child confronted with the statement "Your daddy has a girlfriend besides your mommy" tends to generate an immediate subconscious retaliation for the "attack" on the child's universe.

The flaming arrow "Not true" is fired back as the drawbridge to the castle of the child's soul is pulled up and the gates are quickly closed, and water flows into the moat until it is once again filled.

After all, who wants their universe "destroyed" with such a reality?

As adults there are also many things, truths, and realities that are "attacks" on our universe, to which we immediately respond "not true".

This is really not an issue of morality in the first instance, because when we do not have the capacity to "deal with it" we are not immoral we are simply ill equipped. It is later when we do have the capacity but still reject knowledge that it could become a moral issue.

Each of us at various and sundry times has a weakness somewhere within which prevents us from being able to handle the truth from somewhere, sometime in our lives. Later on in our lives maybe we can deal with it.

In ancient times some kings would kill a messenger when that messenger brought bad news.

So, like our own modern day journalists, ancient messengers "got lost" many times on the way to delivering bad news.

How many times have you heard the phrase "it isn't the end of the world" in an introduction to the delivery of some bad news? Yogi Berra's statement "it isn't over til its over" comes to mind as a good thing to say in some of those deliveries too.

To the astute observer who posted that request, I hope this has helped.

It is a deep and a wide ocean that protects us from the unknown, and many a brave hobbit has suffered the scorn of the Hobbits in Hobbiton when they return from an adventure into those waters.

Knowledge concerning issues outside the shire were sorely frowned upon in that realm, as J.R.R. Tolkien duly noted.

After all the adventure has been said and done, do be sure to find a way to return to The Shire.