Forgiving Herby

Jesus tells me to love my enemies, and to pray for them. I am not going to do that. I will do the best I can to forgive them, but certain conditions must be met first.


I do not even think I have any enemies. Still, I would just like to go on record as saying, that if I get any, I know I am not going to love them. I do not even plan to like them. In fact, I currently dislike everyone who is to become my enemy. And, yes, I feel malice toward this theoretical group of people. Not a huge amount, but a little bit. I hope each member of the group stubs his toe on something every time he thinks about doing whatever he is doing that is going to make me dislike him.

Just to make this group of enemies easier to reference, I think I will name it Herby. Think of a pride of lions, which refers to a group of lions; a gaggle of geese, which refers to a group of geese; and Herby, which refers to a group of my enemies. I do not like the name Herby and I do not like Herby.

Let me give you an example of how Herby works: Let us assume that I will eventually have 41 enemies. I hope Herby stubs 41 toes, minimally; more stubbed toes are ok.

Any by the way, Herby, I never wanted this to happen to us. Once your toes are stubbed, perhaps the healing will begin. Your pain will mend the rift that separates us. Whatever you did, I suspect was the result of a misunderstanding, and your anger and mine are misplaced and pointless. You are not a bad person and neither am I. We merely disagree about something. I cannot apologize for whatever it is, because, frankly, I am not sorry. I also don’t expect you to ask for my forgiveness or even admit any wrong-doing. None of that matters. Everyone does what they do for a reason and when conflict is created it is virtually always the result of misinformation or of a misunderstanding. If we both agree that this is the source of most disputes, then our mutual awareness will apologize for both of us, and nothing more needs to be said.

I forgive you, Herby, and I hope you will forgive me also, and may God bless you with 41 bandages.

30 comments:

  1. Please tell me that you're a new contributor to Alexandria. (Or an old one, and I've somehow missed that fact.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Heathen Republican put me on to the site. I have been reading it for a few months now. I don't think I have ever commented there before, partially because Heathen and I get into contentious debates on other sites and I kind of thought I should respect that as his playground. As you know, he is is good guy, but that does not change the fact that he is a stinking republican.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On another note concerning ethics from holy scriptures.
    It seem ethics are soft, conciliatory and forgiving when generated during a time of captivity or domination (Rome ruled over Jesus' time). Whereas they are harsh when the writer is living in a time when his party rules. Mohammed's ethical writings changed between Medina (Jihadist) and Mecca (submissive).

    As for Herb -- may he meet a thousand Medina Muslims on a very hot day.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow...that is showing some love for the Herbys.

    ReplyDelete
  5. While I am still subject to the baser emotions on some level I try to differentiate between an active dislike and actual hate. The funny thing is that I daily dose of media shit coming from narcissistic conservatives and idiotic Teabaggers makes holding that position very difficult.

    Most politics, both left and right, is full of utter putrid shit but the right-wing has moved into a completely Bizarro world making real ans seething hate from me a possibilty.

    The very best example of what I am trying to convey came from Andrew Bretbart a few weeks ago when openly discussed KILLING liberals because we are evil people and they have all the guns.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Sabio,

    As Kramer once said: “You just made my head explode.” Actually, I am not sure if that is an exact quote, but if not, he almost said it. It is easy to be conciliatory when oppressed. I think it is the rational response. Jeffrey Toobin in “The Nine,” about the Supreme Court made the same observation. He said when a president is under fire he usually takes on a conciliatory air; but not Bush. His handling of Katrina was heavily criticized; the war in Iraq had turned against him; one of his senior staff members had just been indicted; and so he doubled down and found the most conservative nominees possible for the Supreme Court. Of course, if you believe in rabid conservatism, it was the right thing to do. It does, however, show a policy of utter disregard for compromise. He wasn’t playing by the rules. Some would say it is courageous virtue, others a vice. For me, it is just an observation.

    I know am off topic, but in chess, when the game is lost, you turn your king over. If one more conservative replaces a liberal on the Supreme Court, this game is over. The other side, the conservatives, will not compromise, so the progressives, cannot. To do so is to turn their king over. If we get another Supreme Court nominee, we better make sure he/she is very liberal, and settle for nothing less.

    You inspired this rant, Sabio, with your innocent observation.

    @Hansi,

    Herby started it, I presume.

    @Beach,

    Killing us because we are evil? I can think of no better reason.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Mr. Myste:

    Stacking the supreme court with your ideological favorites was done no better than the Liberal's favorite boy: Franklin D. Roosevelt. He made Bush look like a pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Sabio,

    And he did it from a wheel chair, I believe.

    Funny, the Supreme Court used to have seven conservative appointees and two liberal appointees, and overall it was a left of center moderate court.

    This stayed true until Bush (the bad one), got his mitts on it, at which time it turned right. Reagan was a screw up, either by design or by indifference. He appointed Scalia, O’Conner and Kennedy. O’Conner and Kennedy repeatedly provided the crucial liberal votes.

    Bush learned from Reagan’s presumed mistakes. He appointed Roberts and Alito, who mostly vote along party lines. Obama appointed Sotomayor and Kagan, who I assume will also vote along party lines.

    The court is now purely ideology based, and not law based, and will remain so. With this in mind, I want another FDR. We cannot have compromising liberals against uncompromising conservatives. That is a no-win scenario.

    I keep wanting to put this stuff in posts, but I vent enough in comments to discharge the pressure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Crap, I stubbed my toe about an hour ago. I don't understand because I thought we were getting along just fine. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ John Myste
    Three obvious thoughts:
    1. "Law" is always colored by ideology.
    2. Some judges vote more party line than others, though they are all ideological
    3. All presidents place judges primarily for political/ideological strategies -- to do otherwise is impossible, if not foolish.

    The slander comments etc is enough to have almost made me unsubscribe to this thread. Who needs that sort of low-life reading material in their mailbox? I suggest banning and censoring for such explicit violations of civility.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have unsubscribed -- this is horrendously painful. Irresponsible blog management.
    -- Sabio

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for the comment, Sabio.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here is my belated response to the departed Sabio, included for completeness:

    1. “Law” is always colored by ideology.

    I agree with this, but not fully. Souter, though ideological, was not totally ideological. Commitment to the law was his ideology. Sandra Day O’Conner, though definitely ideological, seemed to try to match her opinions to mirror society, as did Kennedy in much of his career.

    I do not know Kagan and Sotomayor yet, but I suspect they are purely ideological, as are the two appointees before them, Alito and Roberts. Thomas was appointed based on race and conservatism.

    Every Republican-appointed candidate from Thomas on was appointed based on ideology, and that was not true before, and it will be true henceforth.

    Notice the youth of appointees of late. I doubt that will easily change. The Supreme Court is the most powerful group of people in the United States, and it is finally known that they rule the U.S. more fully than any other body. They have had the power to design the United States (and have used it for some time), since Marbury vs. Madison, which set the precedent for Judicial Review.

    In the current Roberts Court, precedent is not held in high esteem, but Judicial Review, the power the Supreme Court gave itself to Un-Leglislate laws passed by a representative Congress and signed by the President, is still used with impunity. Justice use their virtually evenly split guess about what article one means to justify their un-legislation. They are appointed for life, as are their ruling personal ideologies. There is no consequence for judging by ideology and every motivation.

    2. Some judges vote more party line than others, though they are all ideological

    I am a liberal, so I care more about how conservative judges do this. I know Ginsburg and Breyer do it also, but I want to point out that in Bush V. Gore, the conservatives voted one way and the liberals the other, strictly based on ideology, though I know Kennedy and O’Conner later had second thoughts and O’Conner, I believe, felt deep remorse.

    Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, Roberts, Breyer, Ginsburg, Thomas are the last seven justices appointed and they are all mostly ideologically motivated. Before that Souter, O’Conner, Kennedy and Scalia were appointed and of those, only Scalia could be called purely ideological, and even then, he has a legal point of view that would make it possible to argue that he simply sees the Constitution in a very specific way.

    The trend is obvious. The Supreme Court was not purely partisan, but it shall be going forward. Partisanship is a required criterion for those who wish to be appointed to the Supreme Court now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As I actually like the name Herby, I would say we two, you and me, are starting off on the wrong foot. Now if you had named the group Horace..........

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't like the name Herby (I believe that some people spell it, Herbie), either. Herb, though, I do like. Probably because I really liked Herb Adderley (one of the greatest cornerbacks in NFL history) as a kid. Man, could that son of a bitch ever cover.

    ReplyDelete
  16. And then there was Herb Score, the dude who used to pitch for the Indians. He was before my time but I've been told that he was even faster than Koufax and Nolan Ryan.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, you have to look at Jesus' words in context. He also said he would turn families violently against each other, so it's pretty easy to love your enemies if your enemies are the ones you love.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I do not know Kagan and Sotomayor yet, but I suspect they are purely ideological"

    Sotomayor is a racist, as her ruling on the firemen's hiring case shows. And her boneheaded "wise Latina" statement. Imagine if Sandra Day O'Connor said she should be nominated because she is a wise white woman.

    ReplyDelete
  19. As for Herby, I think of the over-filmed VW, and the very annoying side-member of the "Fantastic Four" superhero team. The name sounds too much like herpes.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Mr. Macrum,

    There is something about Horace that I do like, not for a child’s name, but for an older man, perhaps. I cannot name my enemies Horace. It almost sounds dignified, and they don’t deserve it.

    @Will,

    Well, I like some herbs and I dislike others.

    @Bret,

    I am not sure where Jesus said to turn families violently against each other, but I do that naturally, so I guess I am covered.

    ReplyDelete
  21. DMarks,

    Sotomayor is a racist, as her ruling on the firemen's hiring case shows.

    Send me the link, sir. I cannot imagine a modern Supreme Court Ruling proving racism. That sounds a little nuts, but anything is possible, I suppose. I am very interested in learning about these two, but just have not had time to try to do it. While I seriously doubt your charge, I am open to being convinced.

    Imagine if Sandra Day O'Connor said she should be nominated because she is a wise white woman.

    That is exactly why Sandra Day O’Connor was nominated and I think she knows it. She may not have explicitly said it, but Jeffrey Toobin, a huge fan of O’Connor’s explicitly stated it, and she did not object. I also am a huge fan of O’Connor and I also know that that is why she was nominated.

    The inverse of this is also true. Clarence Thomas was nominated because he was a backward benighted black man. Does believing this make me a racist?

    The name sounds too much like herpes.

    Good, that’s what Herby gets for doing whatever he did. Serves him right!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't think I have any enemies who know me so I will just love them in the interim . . .

    ReplyDelete
  23. This is the first time I've actually visited, and, lo and behold, you do have a sense of humor. It seems that time you mocked me at nuclearheadache may have, in fact, been my fault because I am not funny enough.

    As for your Herby, it seems you are wishing a lot of pain on them. I have stubbed my toes many times, but never once did I need a bandage. That's just mean, man. :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. You have my sincerest of apologies if I unwittingly portrayed my spirit as one of mocking.

    About half my posts here are satire, even if they don't seem so, and the other half are sermons.

    I only mock if it is needed to preserve the literary integrity of the piece, sir.

    ReplyDelete
  25. hi there,
    since you addressed me over at nicks place i thought i would drop by and nose around a bit!

    i have only ever had a couple of real enemies and what i wished for them was falling heavy machinery

    ReplyDelete
  26. One of my favorite cousins is named Herby. He is 12 years older than I am, and once won all my baseball cards (I was 8 at the time )in a somewhat dubious poker game. But he returned them all the following day and added a silver dollar to boot, so how can you not love a Herby like that.

    ReplyDelete
  27. OK, then, Cousin Herby does not need to participate in the toe stubbing. The way I see it, even if he is one of my enemies to be, he has suffered enough.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Fuck jesus, kill any deserving son of a bitch that deserves to be killed and piss on him, then knock out his teeth with a gun, what jesus does with them after that I don't give a fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You know, the quality of the reporting at the BBC has really gone downhill lately. No news, just fuck this and fuck that.

    ReplyDelete
  30. BBC,

    Can you provide a list of people for me to kill? I don't want to accidentally kill someone that you did not pre-approve; or worse, accidentally not kill someone that you deemed deserving.

    ReplyDelete