user
info

The Status Quot, Quid Pro Quo, Quoid?

Please read the disclaimer. Last updated in April of 1998

Apparently, current affairs, being affairs of the non-romantic type happening in our time frame at a position we consider relatively close (so to say "current"), have ascended to such a large tendency to confuse the average reader, that the average American would rather involve herself in the studies of advanced mathematics, such as those presented by sports such as football and all the statistical analysis involved. Let me take a moment to clearly present our current situation amongst the course of other human (not necessarily humane) events. Quoi?
Right now the Status Quo seems quite popular. Most people are making enough money to buy themselves food and the necessary fancy items they might require to consider themselves civilized. At least, this is the situation within the United States of Amerigo (what was his last name?). Upon closer observation of the general population of this rapidly spinning sphere, we find there are many peoples and related things not located within these U.S. of A. Perhaps the concentration of homo sapiens in the Sub-Sahara region of Africa could be taken as a sign of something good in that area. Why else would we find people living there in such great abundance? Unfortunately, the only good thing, apparently, is sex. This, along with a low supply of synthetic rubber, is the only clear explanation of the situation.
However, to the average American, the mass starvation, primarily found in the Southern Hemisphere, is nothing more than several infomercials on day-time TV, pleading to the conscience to feed the poor dying children of some country most high school graduates couldn't locate on a map of the world, provided they could even locate the world on a map of itself.
Some might argue everything is deserved. Then again, if they were face to muzzle with a loaded sub-machine gun, they would probably hastily agree with whoever they might argue against. But let's assume they are under ideal arguing circumstances, fluffy pillows and all. The question is, does an infant deserve to find itself born to a world with enough food for it in theory, but in practice, it would have to find some way of breaking into a silo, thousands of miles away, just to get it's basic nourishment? Perhaps it did something hideous and awful in a previous life. On the other hand, is it really a great reward to be able to spend ones life eating barely edible modern lab-produced trash? Perhaps if the average American realized his predicament, he too would try to break into the silos holding the gifts of the earth.
But enough on the starvation issue. Obviously humans think that not enough people are starving. Why else would they find absurd reasons to shoot each other. Right now the US is content keeping to itself, trying to rewrite the English language to eradicate any chance of offending anyone, while inner-city hoodlums can get away with murder, as long as they don't discriminate about who they kill.
If we look beyond our borders (soon to be protected by a big, pollution-free, immegrant-deflection bubble that will also come with the handy feature of protecting our air space) we see that although we're content keeping our non-prime but satisfactory status (quo), other peoples see reason to change. Most countries have decided that Karl Marx's ideology doesn't work too well in practice, and communism has apparently fallen. We like to consider our great democratic scheme of governing so supreme to its alternatives that its spreading is only natural. But under a more brutal light, the truth appears to be that the lack of anything in the way of a good life was the cause for people to cry "no, we shall not take this any longer." Of course, those damn arguers would say, under the correct conditions, of course, that those who cried could merely have been shot. But perhaps the saturation level of criers was reached and the governors and rulers realized that shooting so many people would leave them sitting relatively alone in their respective countries, with little defenses other than the buttons that presumably would launch big missiles with strategic nuclear heads, designed to simply kill more people. Of course, a counter strike would be inevitable, and these rulers would be not only alone in their country, but alone in their nuclear wastelands they would like to call countries. The alternative seems more pleasant to all but the craziest of masochists.
And since strategic nuclear devices obviously didn't help solve the population problem, nature has offered it's own solutions. Natural disasters along the lines of tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and volcanoes have helped keep mankind on its toes. Perhaps a more organized assault can be seen in the form of killer virii such as hiv. However it is cruel to look upon hiv as a blessing to mankind. Every individual, although contributing to the general population problem, is priceless. Are HIV and similar challenges to the survival of mankind just challenges to evolution? Perhaps nature has seen that the species commonly known as homo sapiens still needs to develop and presents a challenge that will cause the stronger, more intelligent, the fit test, to survive. Perhaps those who find killing to be the answer to their problems will become part of the answer to the population problem. Let the punishment fit the crime. But this goes beyond what we define as current affairs and into philosophy. These decisions must be made by individuals. The only strong belief is one an individual has found herself by challenging the systems presented to her. But enough of theology and philosophy.
To be slightly more precise, let me now present some more specific details of events going on. Russia is facing the reality that simply switching to democracy did not make everyone wealthy and happy. Many now wish to return to communism, mainly because then they at least knew they would get food by the time they reached the end of the lines they had become so good at standing in. The former Yugoslavia, Bosnia in specific, seems to have found a shaky peace after years of warfare. Agreements have been made, deals signed, and heavy artillery-fire has decreased. The situation is nowhere near solved however. Until the slavic peoples of this no longer existing southern slavic land can put away their differences, and realize that orthodox is no worse than catholic is no worse than Islam, tensions will remain. Israel is trying to make peace with Palestinians and other Muslims. After years of simply kicking the daylights out of any objections of their taking back their promised land, they have decided that perhaps if they try to be nice to the people who have called the middle eastern deserts home for centuries, there might be room for both peoples. The United States have stayed fairly uninvolved internationally, either because they have enough problems at home, or because Bill Clinton is more of an internal affairs type president and doesn't want to humiliate himself by screwing up abroad.
Prepared with that knowledge, it should be easy to now pick up a newspaper and understand what message the words printed are trying to convey. Of course, if geography still remains an obstacle, learning where the US is would be a good place to start. And the names of the continents couldn't hurt either. But that's for someone else to teach you. Now you may be asking about quid pro quo. Well, I offer you this insight into current affairs, I ask for you in return to educate yourselves so maybe current affairs can have perhaps fewer death counts some day.