Sometimes people are taken for granted until they die: sometimes
deservedly so, sometimes not.
Pope John Paul has just died, There will be countless stories and
eulogies about how great he was and all he accomplished. Most
will be
exaggerated.
He is credited for urging Christians to stop persecuting Jews.
That
was
nice of him. Does that mean it was considered ok before?
He is credited with influencing the 'downfall' of Soviet
Communism.
Ronald Reagan tried to take credit for that, and we didn't
believe
him,
either. One is reminded of the proud rooster who believes his
crowing
makes the sun rise in the morning.
There is one bit of wisdom from John Paul that may have been
widely
ignored. He pointed out that, while communist regimes in
practice
restricted freedom, that communism as a philosophy contains a
'Kernel
of
Truth', that capitalism exploits and increases the hardship and
suffering of the poor.
While this observation is neither new nor surprising, it is
worthy of
consideration by those, especially Americans, who have been
propogandized to believe that capitalism is synonomous with
freedom.
Freedom no more requires unrestrained capitalism than it needs
burglary
to be legalized.
Overall, though, I am not impressed. Consider that the Pope has
virtually supreme authority over the Catholic church, and that
John
Paul
had 26 years in office. True equality for women, an end to the
ban on
birth control, permission for priests and nuns to marry,
acceptance of
homosexuality-- these could all have been achieved. Obviously
this
Pope
did not care enough about improving the lives of Catholics to
make
real
progressive changes.
was slightly less well known than the pope, but much more worthy
of
being remembered. His journalistic and literary contributions
have
been
immense. Even more important than what he wrote was his
invention of
a
new concept in journalism: that truth is more important than
accuracy.
He called his style gonzo journalism. He would get
involved in
the the events and stories he reported, in order to get the
sense
of what it meant, not to record the series of irrelevant facts
that
other reporters were regurgitating.
Too many of us are misled and manipulated by the economically and
politically powerful who feed us selected bits of information,
which,
even if accurate, only obscure and distract us from the truth.
The
Bush
administration has been a prime example. Journalists, with their
obsession for objectivism, only aid in this deception.
Hunter Thompson set a better example by expressing his outrage at
the
greed, the abuse of power, and the stifling effect on individual
freedom
that results from it.
So, which is more admirable: to have the power to do great good
and do
comparitively little, or to be a small, if eloquent, voice in the
wilderness who speaks the truth to all who will listen? Without
hesitation, I vote for Hunter S. Thompson.
And although it is traditional to say May he rest in
peace...,I'm
not sure Hunter would want it that way.
--captain rat 200504.03