America

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich fell into handcuffs after alledgedly conspiring to "sell or trade" Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat. He may beat these charges in pre-trial or trial. The trial may affirm the charges: he attempted to misuse his constitutional powers.

The point of this essay is to highlight that a governor of one of the nation's economic power-houses can be accountable in a nonviolent way. (A disturbing amount of Roman Emperors were killed in action; guys like Robert Mugabe refuse to leave without being nudged away by a crowbar.) While people in other nations live in such conditions that suicide bombing seems attractive, Americans resort to lawsuits because the process is reasonably successful and fair. A well-run, and fair legal system is a primary barrier between order, and chaos (see Afghanistan, where many areas lack regulated law enforcement agencies, and even law enforcement has been accused of abusing prisoners).

Political corruption is like a bad milk stain on the carpet. It won't leave, despite calls to a common sense of decency, and attempts to scrub corruption out. For instance, three other Illinois Governors have landed in jail since 1973, for charges such as tax evasion, bank fraud, and treating favorites to state contracts. Should the current Governor be found guilty, it would seem that more must be done to prevent corruption. The point of this little memo, however, is to remind us that his indictment is a success in regards to cleaning up the stain, if failing prevent it. In America: No one, we hope, can get away with the abuse of power, even politcal power.

That is our country, or, at least, it's political philosophy. So to speak, everyone is accountable to everyone else. You to me, me to you, us to them, them to us.

A definition of Dangerous Idealogy

I.
He said, I hope they don't catch Bin Laden before the election, or it would hurt Obama. This statement uttered sometime in June. I worked with this man in a certain job, and urged by curiosity and the tightness in my stomach, I asked why he believed that Osama Bin Laden's capture would hurt Barack Obama's chances. Co-worker said that an apprehension would put the GOP in a positive light. Obama would lose the election.

But, I said, wouldn't the capture of Al-Qaeda's leader lead to a great number of benefits?

No, he said, Bin Laden's threat is over rated. (Several miles south, in downtown Manhattan, exists a giant hole.) Co-worker's ring phone: a rap song that blurted, "O-BA-MA! O-BA-MA!" Hardcore liberal. A real member of the group.

II.
The danger of ideology stems from an intense loyalty to a group. When group affiliation outweighs the application of the ideas, then the ideas lose ground. The group reigns supreme, but the ideas they spout retain the meaning of breaths.

A Writing Exercise--What Internet Interactions Show About Humanity--Stream of Consciousness Essay

1) First, Internet comments like those from YouTube and BoredAtButler.com do not necessarily come from a representative sample of society. They come from people who enter those sites, and then take the time to comment. It is the case that many pages open to user comments are viewed more than contributed to. A video from The Young Turks YouTube Account received 1,618 views, and 79 text comments. Though repeated views and comments by the certain users can distort these numbers, it shows that most viewers of a webpage remain quiet. There is very little to be learned about the quiet ones from these statistics besides the fact that they seemed to have Interests in videos with titles such as "DWTS At Blvd 3 Part 2" and "Love Is A Lie." With this information alone, however, we know little about why the viewers find find whatever they have interest in interesting.

2) If you use the Internet to teach you about humanity, you will believe that people are jerks who make rape-jokes, believe 9-11 was a false-flag operation, and/or disdain capital letters.

3) An interesting thought: that some loud people, or "Internet gangsters," are more demure in person. Even polite. Due to cowardness?

4) Another thought: most rude behavior performed when jerk is in a position of perceived safety. Perhaps when surrounded by friends, or the abused seems less likely to defend in manner meaningful to jerk.

5) Certain acts of kindness performed from position of weakness. "Kiss up, kick down." A convicted murderer asking the court for mercy.

6) A thought: our perceptions of others are warped by our personalities, our desires, our fears, our experiences. Our views of the world are centered, strictly, around the self. Our ability to handle conflict may affect our willingness to appreciate headstrong people; whether we cling to them, or disdain them. Perhaps a fear that personal appearance will pervent meaningful interpersonal contact will promote shy behavior, thereby perventing meaningul interpersonal contact.

7) Misogyny, racism, any sort of bigotry are aspects of the more broad problems interpersonal conflict. The abuse of other people: requires explanations more broad than "I hate his face." The results and expression are the interplay of personal psychology, the psychology of others, accessibility of resources. Misogyny is nothing like a monster with a chain-saw teeth. It a variety of ideas shared by people, the varieties are more pronounced between individuals than cultures, really.

8) The Devil lives in the abstract world, pulling strings that connect him to the physical world. Metaphorically, I mean.

Who The Superheroes Would Vote For

I can't help but write this:

- Captain America: First off, Steve Rogers would never use his identity as the Sentinel of Liberty to campaign for any politician ever. It has been established that he won't even consider running for public office, even though he is aware that people would sure as hell gravitate toward him as a leader. Captain America is a symbol for the nation. This means keeping politics away in lieu of coloring the symbol in a divisive slant. Now...personally, though, he would lean toward Ron Paul. If he were even alive. He would appreciate Paul's candor, and constant, open championing of the consistitution. Stable societies rest on fair rules, which every one respects.

Bucky, the new Captain America, is technically dead. So, too bad for him. He can't even vote.


- The Fantastic Four is divided on this one.

The Thing is definitely for McCain. Obama seems too much like a hotshot for him; a man who spent at least half of his Senate career running for president may have too big a head for the job. Anyway, The Thing likes that McCain promises to help people with their mortgages because it's the biggest problem that he sees.

The Human Torch knows nothing about politics. His eyes glaze over at the words "Habeas Corpus" and "dividends." But he remembers McCain's first appearance on SNL, where the Senator sang Streisand songs. He thinks that the man is f-ing awesome for that reason alone, and yet it is a great, great reason.

The Invisible Woman believes that it is important for women to keep their right to choose, so she leans toward Obama.

Mr. Fantastic really really likes Obama's 10-year, $15 billion dollar a year to get the US off foreign sources of energy. "Actually, I have some ideas..."


- Spider-Man's life is so hectic, he feels he knows way too little to make a choice he feels comfortable about. He saw Obama in the third debate, and thinks Obama has a very cool head. Besides, the Parkers are registered Democrats.

- The Punisher doesn't care, but his father voted for Barry Goldwater (McCain's predecessor in the Senate) in the 1964 election.

- Ms. Marvel is definitely up for aggressive, responsible military defense (read Mighty Avengers #1). Also, she cut her teeth in the Air Force. From a president, McCain, for sure.

- She-Hulk is a lawyer. Though she loves her superhero life more than her lawyer life, she respects Obama's temperment. She's been in enough universe-shattering events to appreciate a guy who sits back, digests a situation, then makes a responsible descision.

- Iron Man is totally torn on this one. The former Secretary of Defense is no war monger, but he respects and knows the need to maintain peace through force. But he knows it can cause just as many problems as if fixes. In any case, if Obama had been running against the John McCain of 2000, it would have been McCain, easy. But the McCain of today bothers him. McCain has flipped his opinion on Roe v. Wade, Bush Tax Cuts, and cozied up to certain constituencies not out of real interest, but to win votes. McCain has alienated Stark, and Stark, though trusting in McCain, is really not all that trusting of McCain.

****

- Wonder Woman dislikes both candidates' interventionist policies. But she wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, a noninterventionist, because she has the feeling that Paul is a coot, albiet lovable. Besides, she's not even a US citizen.

- Superman grew up in Kansas, baby. The friggin heartland. Smallville ain't seeing any meaningful federal assistance from nobody since...when?...but Clark Kent is putting his vote for Obama, for the man's promise to move out of Iraq.

- Now, I actually asked Batman who he was for. In Midtown Manhattan, on 1st ave, he had no mask on, calling for a taxi. I was in a white 1937 cadillac town car with some friends. This is a true story. I rolled down my window, and asked, "Is Batman for McCain or Obama?"

"McCain!"

Several Characteristics of My Ideal Government (1st draft)

1) A representative democracy is the one major detail I will refuse to back off from. A representive democracy would be less messy than a direct democracy, and less prone to national unhappiness than a dictator ship.

A) Giving all adult citizens the ability to vote for politicians and constitutional amendments (state, federal) will provide flexibility in the system. Yes, the leaders in Washington make the decisions, but once constituents are dissapointed in a leader, they can kick him out for some one who they like. Leaders must know they that are in this position of power not because they are necessarily smarter than every one else, but because it is easier for only several hundred congressman to write a bill rather than several thousand, hundreds of thousands, or millions.
Now, depostism shares the same fundamental problem with anarchism: human nature. All systems of government share this problem, but depostism and anarchism are especially sensitive. Consider the Roman Empire, where Pertinax got murdered by soldiers. He was replaced by Didius Julianus, who was sentenced to death by the Senate after only a couple of months of being Emperor. He was replaced by Septimius Severus, who died from illness, thank God for that. But then Caracalla, assassinated. Geta, assassinated by Caracalla (!). Macrinus, executed. Diadumnian, executed. Elagabalus, assassinated. Alexander Severus, assassinated. Look, I don't need to list every body else. Let's just say that the only job more dangerous than Roman Emperor is a taxi driver who works on a mine field.
There was no system in place to make things kosher. It was run like the heavyweight championship. No simple line of succession. Or peaceful system to remove rulers who want to stay. If people don't like a lawmaker or executive, they can kick him out come election day.

2. A voting system garners respect for the government because voting will know that they stake in the system. They respect the system because they own it. That means keeping unruly mobs to a minimum. Know why there were so many riots in the 60s? Because the rioters felt that they had no other recourse. They felt powerless in the greater scheme of things. Giving people the vote--as many as physically possible--is the best means to garner respect for the system. Yes, that means giving felons the vote, too (except when they are in prison, since politics is a great way to light short tempers). The minute convicts leave prison is the minute their registration process should begin in their state.

In short: Any economic system can thrive. Any general philosohpy for law enforcement can work for the betterment of society. All you need is good management, and democracy is the best way to move with the many variables involved with governing. For example, consider when Americans during the Great Depression replaced the laissez-faire President Hoover with FDR.

2) Transparancy

The number one reason why no one trusts government. First...you need mandatory waiting periods before bill are enacted or even voted on, where the exact text of the bill is available to the public online, and in appropriate physical publications. That means 3 - 5 days for any legislative body, and 3-5 days before the executive office will sign the bill into law. When the waiting period is over, the lawmakers will vote on the bill. Appropriate parlimentary procedure will ensure that no one can amend the bill from the moment the lawmaking body decides to send the bill into its waiting period to the moment that they as a body vote for it. If it passes and goes to another law making body (eg. from the House to the Senate), and that new body decides to vote on the bill, they must wait another 3-5 days where the bill is published for the general public. Then if they pass the bill, then it is sent to the executive, who waits antoehr 3-5 day. No earlier than the exact moment of the bill's online publication should the waiting period be considered to have begun, in any governmental body.

All government funding is revealed to the general public.

All court cases are open to the general public.

Government pays for advertising to run on prime time television listing the candidates for local, state, and national office from the beginning of the 30 days before the election to the night before the election. (Television networks can reject the government's request to buy ad time, but the government must have found a byer by the relevant date.)


3) Federation

A national government handles issues that are strictly interstate, where state governments handle issues that are relevant to them. This is just a better management principle than having too many relevant decisions made for you by people who have no stake in your community. That would be like a sandwich franchise telling a New Jersey location of the franchise to overstock on mustard, but, apparantly, mustard is unpopular in New Jersey.

A quick thought at an ungodly hour

Why not spend more attention in the media on unemployment rates? This would, while also looking at the Federal debt and DOW Jones, would give a more detailed understanding of the economy for the lay man.

The Legacies of Presidents

Respected presidents served during turbulent times in history. The men we tend to place on the top of the president's list, like FDR, Lincoln, and Washington, all served during a time when the future of the country itself was really uncertain, and no one would have been nutty to predict a bleak future. The Great Depression, the Civil War, the founding of the freaking country itself. Yet, they, their aides, congress, and the citizens all teamed up and reasserted the strength of the nation, and they are considered great, even though few people would love to visit 1931, 1862, or 1790. The great presidents served at times when life in the nation was rough.

Yes, Bill Clinton seems to have been a pretty good president. Sure, he left office with a surplus in the budget. But he didn't save the country from dissolution. All the military actions committed during his presidency had to due with locations and interests with no direct effect on most citizens. Yeah, he helped improve the economy, but he didn't have to deal with a complete, utter and unprecidented failure in the system, where even the federal government doesn't seem to have the money to fund it's own programs, the credit markets seem to be drying up, and the ultimate damage on most people has yet to occur. That's why Bill only gets a gold star and a handshake, even if he had the ability to confront a calamity.

Dow dropping below 8,500. Nobody can buy their own home. Gas sucks. Debt sucks. A 10 trillion dollar national debt. Hell, I am more worried about the health of the national government than I am about what's happening on 'Main Street.' People are robust, and can watch their own backs; governments are transitory entities held together by enough consent from the governed, and enough power from the governors. And the governors are running out of cash. Ron Paul would probably pop a vein to see my analysis of this, but a successful president would get a lot of credit should he implent and support a variety of policies that turn around this financial failure.

Whoever wins the presidency will go down in history as one of the greats (FDR, Lincoln, Washington) or as one of the greatest asshats (Buchanan, Hoover, George Walker Bush). It doesn't matter how hard he tries, how many hours he puts into the job, how hard he sweats; the results are what matters. If he is unable to have a prominent hand in turning things around, historians will be likely to plant a big 'dunce' cap on him.

How John McCain Broke My Heart (1st draft)

In 2002ish, he sang Barbara Steisand songs before a national TV audience.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=12&gps=22_13_600_498&f=00&tt=9&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//vodpod.com/watch/835874-mccain-sings-streisand

Even after reviewing the video now, I am sort of inclined to vote for him. Look at him with his microphone, and shameless love of making an ass out of himself. In that same episode, he played a creepy husband, and overzealous hippie school teacher. He fielded questions from Psuedo-Tim Russert.

Think of all the damn cliches. He had that spring in his step, that glint in his eye. You must respect a person who can stand up and make an ass of themself, then turn around and basically says, with a straight face, "I want to represent you in government. I want to use the tax money that the government takes from you, and use it for initiatives that will benefit our land."

I knew very little about his policies of that time. I did not know how long he had served as senator, or that he had served in The House. I did not know what division of the US armed forces he was in. I did not know who his wife was, or that she was his second spouse, and far younger than he. I did not know what legislation he introduced and helped pass. I only knew that he once ran for the Republican nomination for General Election of 2000, and that, if he ran again, he would be my first choice for president. Once I came of voting age. And bothered the vote.

I missed the 2004 election due to my age (I was 17) and missed the midterm election due to a friggin address issue that is my fault because I didn't stick a neddle in the gov't's eye long enough to make sure my application really get enterned into the system, and I ended up getting turned away on election day. I am definitely registered this time, as a Democrat in Queens. And I have learned that four years is a long time. A long time.

This has nothing to do with presidential terms. This has nothing to do with a senator's 6 year term, or Congressman's 2 year term. Nothing about Bush or Dick. Nothing about going from Colin to Rice. Just growing up is the thing. A person at 17 is several personalities away from who (s)he will be at 21. That just seems to be the law of life.

So, it's the very last day of high school. The very very last day. The seniors were forced to sit in the auditorium to watch a slideshow of photos of prom. And all of the pictures features just about the same circle of friends. Pay attention to the loud whispers in the audience, and you would notice more than one complaint about the students who set up the slide show.

People stay in their circles, no matter how physically small that circle. This was true in my high school. The teenage cliche of different cliques sitting in different lunch tables were pronounced in several different ways. We were a performance art high school, so creative writing majors might sit with their CW classmates. Actors with actors, artists with artists, sports players with sports players. Of course, people Simply came together due to similar interests.

And then there is the race thing. About over 50 percent of the people there, at Howard W. Blake High School in downtown Tampa, FL.


Malcolm X got it right, I feel, when he disparaged legal attempts at integration, and said the only real integration would happen in marriage. Now, he was defining real cultural integration too thin, but people can't just be allowed to hang out with each other. They can't be given gov't incentives to hang out together, do business. They have to willingly, with a limit on agenda, go up to the other person and say, "Hi, how are you. How was your day? What are your interests?" That quotes, and any embodiment of it performed sincerely, represents my image of integration. Something happens on a micro level between any two people. Fuck race. That's just a red herring for humanity's problems (but more on that some other time).

Let me just mention that some of the magnet school students in the school had a name for the rowdy kids: "Ghettys." As in Ghetto, not the gas station, chief.

Now, this apparently wasn't racist. Apparently. It was a reference to the perception of the school being pretty uncomfortable. Because a number of the student body enjoyed writing gang signs on the wall, and occasionally starting fights, and being rude to the women, and the most vocal of these rowdy people were black dudes. most of these black dudes were neighborhood students, from surrounding areas, including the housing project right across the street. The white kids getting bused in from other areas didn't aways appreciate the atmosphere, and the users of the ghetty word were more mostly white. And their defense of the word had to do with the perception of the rowdy kids being from an immature culture. A 'ghettoish' culture of cursing, disrespect for authority, homophobia, misogyny, reverse racism, at least from my view point.

Now I'm not going to spend too much time on the word ghetty, and it is an interesting subject to spend a good little time on, to try to get a 3D coverage of it, because that is really interest. So I will only state the opinion I had when I originally had and kept personal at the time: Let's face it. That shit is tap dancing on the border to racist. It is walking on the edge of racist. Simply because of the association, man. I mean, that word is suspicious.

And this essay is now officially wack and represents why 2nd drafts are a good idea. Never write an essay while often leaving the apt. to do laundry, or you will lose coherent train of thought, but this all has to do with indirectly shaping my perception of John McCain, our silver hair champion of liberty, free market, unborn fetuses, and Sarah Palin, the most promising and disappointing Vice-Pres candidate ever.

So, to some up high school, everyone was a ghetty, in some way. Self-righteous, sometimes petty, sometimes bereft of complete acceptance of others, very un-Carl-Rodgers-like And while I pretty much kept out of the ghettyness (overtly), it was soon to infect me, and blow up like HIV.

I DON'T have HIV.

But I do have the disease of ghettyness, the pervasive disease in the humanity. and when you act ghetto, you are ignorant of the fact.

Slipknot is an underrated band, by the way, though the lyrics of their latest single is pretty sloppy. Just so you know.

So in the fall of 2006, I went to college, and John McCain was two years into his fourth senate term. And I kept to myself, and took my spanish class, and other classes to finish the college's core requirement, and John McCain, who has been in the senator longer than I have been alive(!) prepped for his run for the presidency. And over this time, I noticed that his pupils had gotten bigger. His jowls hung lower than before.

His mom is in her 90s, and doing great. Okay.

And then his paternal grandfather died at 61. Okay.

And then his pop died at 70. Well, medicine has made advances since then, 1981. Okay.

And John S. McCain, III, senator from Arizona, is 72. The oldest man ever to run for office.

(quick McCain tidbit, "[McCain] recalls in his writings how, as a toddler, he sometimes held his breath and fainted during moments of fury." - Washington Post's Michael Leahy, regarding his infamous temper)

Is he crisp? Is it the best decision to run for

Will I get to 70, and think of 21 year old me as a presumptuous dweeb?

Hell, never mind his age. I just don't like his campaign. I dislike his he dismisses Obama's tax plan as merely raising taxes. I dislike how he blames his opponent for having no real plan, yet speaking in "Hooray terms" without substain. How are you going to reform the system, dude?

I agree with the Obama's policy toward companies that happen to pollute; simply set caps for how much they can pollute, and make them pay to go over that amount.

I am fond of his tax plan.

i am skeptical of his health plan, especially in this environment.

i am pleased with his policy on Iraq and Afghanistan, considering the past 7 years.

It's 11pm, and sleep must come, and the second draft of this will wait.

BUt if Ron Paul were still running, I'd vote for him. Seriously.

And Sarah Palin, what? She's a hardass lady. *Fill in blanks; I'm setting about watching her interview with Charlie Gibson, but so far it seems for some reason is NOT answering questions from the press. Wow.

Personal bitchyiness, personal ghettyness, internship, yada, yada.

Something something about Lincoln and Doris Goodwin Kearns, Team of Rivals is a great book.

Meditations on power, pride, Fidel Castro, people, why they go after all that responsibility. Do they really do this for other people? messiah complex. Obama, wanting him to lose to Clinton just so maybe he would get humbled. Because it was painful to figure things out. Blah blah

Okay, step by step, how are you going to reform things. I don't mind you holding back on precise details, but I'd like actual specific policies before I invest the next 4 years on you. you're making me have to dig up your plan, John.


research research

solution?
****

Hosanna to the highest! Our LOUD


*

Our LORD has cast down his cross, and immitation of sacrifice, he has painted red on his hands and feet. He dabs a part of his ribs with water from Aquafina, and says that he has been stabbed. And he cries what a voice, supported by loud speakers, "you are my children, and i am your father, who loves you, and cares for you, and

Our LORD ordered 'plumbers' to break into Watergate.

Our LORD bathed in White Water.

Our LORD flirts with pages.

Our LORD shot himself through the mouth.

Our LORD cheated on his wife.

Our LORD might actually not care that her husband cheats on her, but that's just a brief assumption.

Our LORD gets caught banging hookers after publicly condemning prostitution. The media pretty much ignores his state's severe deficit.

Our LORD onced fathered a part-black kid, and later made damn sure black people would have nothing to do with white people (what, dude, the mom break your heart or something?)

Our LORD is going to cut health insurance for underpriviledged children.

Our LORD is 9 trillion dollars in debt, and even cannot pay for at least (at least) over 400 billion in programs he wants to accomplish. He asked me for a loan, about 20 twenty dollars, just for laundry. I said, "Uh."

The LORD took our faith in Him, and very probably used it to hide child pornography in his computer (seriously! An assemblyman from New Jersey is accused of doing that!)

"My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Casting The Muppets/Sesame Street 2008 Presidential Campaign Movie

* Barack Obama -- Kermit the Frog

* John McCain -- Kermit the Frog, with a white wig

* Sarah Palin / Hillary Clinton / Cindy McCain -- Miss Piggy (Who else can do all three?)

* Joseph Biden -- Gonzo

* Ted Kennedy -- Fozzie Bear

* Bob Barr -- The Swedish Chef

* Fred Thompson -- Mr. Snuffleupaguses

* Pat Buchanan -- Statler

* Robert Byrd, Senator and former member of the KKK -- Waldorf

* Sean Hannity -- Bert

* Alan Colmes -- Ernie

* Bill O'Reilly -- Oscar the Grouch

* Al Franken -- Scooter

* Oprah -- Nanny

* various protesters -- Animal

A Brief Explanation: why this is the best campaign season ever.

McCain doesn't answer questions about how many how much property he owns.

He is a damn War Hero.

His appearences on SNL are classic.

Parent of a Columbia alum.


****

Obama kisses a white woman on the cheek, and NOBODY in the media freaks out.

The senator from Illinois has an interesting trait for a politician: he gives the air of truly considering an idea before making a decision on it.

Jeremiah Wright!

Fist bump!

His kids are endearing and hilarious.

Ms. Obama's appearance on The Colbert Report was classic.

***

Biden...is Biden.

His speech at the DNC was very heartwarming. His family seems really cool, and sincerely sweet.

***

Gov Palin is the ex-beauty queen who canceled the controversial Bridge to Nowhere.

Her husband, Mr. Palin is such a hardass that he won the Iron Dog Snowmachine Race four times, and once came in fourth place--having broken his arm the day before.

****

HILL! R! E!

Clinton, that is.

Sexual abuse in the military

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/31/military.sexabuse/index.html

An organization that fails to protect its own members from each other is unstable and poorly run.

Marty Bahamonde is pretty awesome

http://derenegade.blogspot.com/2005/10/someone-needs-to-tap-marty-bahamonde.html

Crabs

A market below a LIRR bridge. Fruits, and vegetable exhibited in their shelves on the sidewalk, with human traffic creeping by to the subway station. And flies flies flies resting on the grapes. Fish occupy one-fourth of the building. Just along the wall, fish laid side by side, on ice. And on the end of that row, crabs in boxes. Stacked together like dirt. Twitching, snapping crabs. And the man watching over them picked at them with his gripper to make sure they still twitched. He chucked a dead one in the garbage. He then picked up another one he had doubts about, and the others crabs grabbed it before it was out of their range. The man and the crabs engaged tug-of-war for a good ten seconds until the man won. He tossed the crab upside down onto a cardboard surface. It twitched. Still good to eat. He returned it to the crab box.

MSG (1st draft)

Two blocks down the street from Madison Square Garden,
and its digital, massive billboards, these huge men,
bald, bearded, or both,
carried billboards of mushroom clouds swallowing the sky.
In the midst of girls in diva sunglasses and blackberrys,
they preached against racial injustice,
and preached of the onset of Ammaggedon,
and Ammeggedon that clenses the world of the disease they called America,
and bring forth a new world, once and for all.
And so that a new world will come,
I think, like maggots from a dead alligator on river side.
And maggots will chew on the alligator,
and expand.
And little beetles will eat the maggots.
And a bigger beetle will eat a little beetle,
and that biggle beetle will find itself in
the beak of a sparrow.
And sparrow will spirit away
from a sharp-shinned hawk.
They will go at this for about a minute,
and the hawk will swat the sparrow onto the treektrunk,
and all that will be left is pieces
that cannot be known for bones.
And that hawk will rest one day on the side of a swamp***.
A crocodile will eat it.
And one day that crocodile will wither, and die on the lake side,
and from, maggots will emerge.
They will chew the rough skin into nonexistence.
They will chew the heart.
They will chew the brain,
and the vains,
and the stomach.
And approaching the corpse,
a little bird, or a hungry frog,
hungry for maggots
that are plump, and juicy.

Flushing, NY

Flushing, Queens, like the rest of the city, covered in black spots that used to be gum, chewed, chewed, chewed, chewed, chewed, chewed, and spit onto the sidewalk and dried up from pink to black. Flushing comprises about the center, north portion of Queens, pretty close the La Guardia Airport, and often you will see airplanes hovering close, close enough to remind you of terrorist attacks, debris, and buildings collapsing due to structural damage.

It is what the rest of New York purports to be, with its racially diverse area. Hispanics, Asians, and an assortment of brown people from eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the region around India. In a Walgreens, you will see a woman in a head-to-toe black burqa, a slit revealing only her eyes, pushing a cart, children accompanying her. I hold back from constructing jokes.

Men in their cylinder white caps.

Hispanics. The freaking high schoolers playing wiffleball in the middle of a street occupied on both sides by parked cars. Once, a car almost ran over their ball.

(Microsoft Works Word Processor fails to register ‘wiffleball’ or ‘whiffleball’ as real words)

Lots and lots of Asians, recent immigrants, and you will know their territory by the language of the billboards, and storefronts. You will also know by how 99% of the sidewalk is Asian. They own Main Street.

A KKK member’s worst nightmare.

Very few white people. Black people, here and there.

There is one man. Wiry, about my height, age 50ish, yet to become plagued by grey hairs. You will often see him somewhere near the Main Street Station for the 7 train, or down Kissena avenue. He wears sunglasses, even at 10 o’clock in the evening, as he sits in a door step for a pet shop. Walks with a stylish cane, walks in this wiggly strut I find my writing too poor to convey. His fingerless black gloves. Imagine the very best and worst of 80s fashion, with jackets rolled up past the elbow. In red one day, black the next, then white, then violet. He often sits on the bench by the escalators leading out of the subway station.

(In other news, Cold Case is a show with badly written dialogue. “Rabble-rouser!”)

You will know Flushing by the Library, shiny, gray, massive, and half encased by glass. They will not be throwing stones from there any time soon.

You will know Flushing by the appearance of cards in a patriotic blue promoting Peter Koo for state Senate.

You will also know Flushing by the fact that it shares a name with the only action that a toilet does.

By the way, it’s such a shame that toilet businessman Thomas Crapper had to be remembered the way he was.

We haven’t had a president who sported facial hair since Taft.

---

Random status lines.

Alberto Luperon…

…is running for the presidency of your heart.

…is unconstitutional.

…likes polluting your news feed.

…feels like orange juice. As in he would like to drink some.

…feels like steak. As in he feels seasoned, cooked on a stove top, and eaten with a fork and knife.

…is for interracial couplings, because without them, he wouldn’t exist.

…thinks Stephen Colbert is a national treasure.

…just found out Colbert’s middle name is Tyrone.

…thinks Tyrone is just about the best name to give your kid.

…is dangerously self-important.

…is is is is is is is is is is is is…

…is pretty sure 2000 feels like a long time ago.

Habeas Corpus, Federalism, and Human Societies (incomplete)

I. Habeas Corpus, and other procedural matters
Habeas corpus exists for the sake of the wrongly accused. The idea behind the writ: the defendant, once imprisoned, can challenge the imprisonment. And from this, the backbone of criminal law, other procedures take shape. The prisoner can get a trial, (s)he can get a lawyer, (s)he can abstain, (s)he can post bail, etc.

How this plays out, and what gets people so disgusted with this situation is that Charles Manson gets to appeal his imprisonment every several years. How this plays out is that, on paper, it is a very structured system. For example, evidence needs to be introduced into trial in a certain way. That's one thing judges do: they make sure procedure is followed, and see what evidence is permissible, depending on procedure. For example, evidence that could convict a robber could be denied access in court because it failed to fit certain guidelines. The problem with law, however, is that any amount of text can fail to anticipate all of the possibilities that reality can become. Remember that those lawyers who came forward with proof that their late client had committed a murder that another man was convicted for? The convicted man lost almost three decades in prison. And why did those lawyer stay back for so long? Apparently, if they came forward while their client was alive, they would have violated attorney-client privilege. Their information would have been inadmissible in a court room, and therefore, the innocent man would still be in jail, all other things being equal. Procedures like these can the sinew of habeas corpus.

Make sure that only the guilty are convicted. Alan Dershowitz, the other side of the coin on which Antonin Scalia lives, supports the idea that many human legal system, including that of the USA, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Better to free the guilty than punish the innocent. The opposite of this chaotic mess of law is just chaos.

For example, just as easily, physically speaking, as those lawyers could have came out with the truth before their client died, another person, Person A, could say he saw the convicted man commit the killing, and Person A lying. Without procedures to make sure the legal system is fair, the alternative is pretty crappy. Instead of just getting murder, murderers can get away with accusing other people of murder.

And the accused gets arrested, and he stays in jail. Without a trial, or at least a fair trail. Because habeas corpus is dead.


II. Federalism
Let's pretend you disbelieve that corporations and the rich run everything. So, looking at the general structure of our government, we find that it is built so that the power of government is divided amongst the rulers. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the decision of Congress; the President's vetoes can be overridden by a semi-unified Congress, and his Orders can be nullified by the Court; Congress can be vetoed by the President, and its laws can be nullified by the Court. And the People choose Congress and the President, and therefore indirectly choose the Court. Power is divided so that no one is King.

This nation, the United States of America, was founded on the truth that men feast on one another, and that in order to create a stable society, power needs to be reasonably divided. Not the truth "that all men are created equal," at least in the idealistic sense. The equality thing is what the PR department during the Revolution said, but what the nation is really founded on is that these men, the Founding Fathers, realized that people take advantage of one another. Geniuses, they were. The first people in millennia thrifty enough to both get power, and also realize that power can be abused and that they could be the abusers. After the war ended, they didn't trust one another. They made the first central gov't, the Confederation, and it was weak. They only replaced it with the current structure of government because the confederation was too weak to succeed. But they knew that anyone with too much power could abuse it. It was like a reality show.

And a lot of people still believed that the constitution was imperfectly formed. New York State accepted the document by 3 votes. 3 votes!

And George Washington. Let's just clap the man. A landmark moment, when he chose to abstain from a third term. Perhaps the first time in History that a powerful ruler stepped down from power without having to die, or get pulled out.

Robert Mugabe is 100 years old, and he can't not be President.


III. Human Societies
Stable human societies rely on compromise.

Secretary of the Interior resigns over ‘Flag-gate’

May 5, 2020

WASHINGTON, DC--The Secretary of the Interior resigned following a catastrophic exhibition in which he burned an American flag to ashes.

The exhibition was designed to showcase fire-proof fabric manufactured by Dow Jong Industries. Several weeks ago, Dow Jong had received a contract to produce flags used by the federal government.

Observers assumed that the flags would be comprised of the fire-proof fabric that has earned the Chinese company billions in the international market. Laboratory tests show that the flag burned by the Secretary was 100% cotton.

In aftermath of the flag burning, a press release from Dow Jong said, “The use of our Fire-Fighter Fabric was not included in the contract…This is not our fault.” The contract specifies that flags made for the US government will be made of cotton, and the use of any other material will render the contract void.

Federal authorities are looking into the legal mishap.

In a signed statement, the former-Secretary lamented his decision to burn the American flag in front of a crowd of reporters. “My intention was to show the world of America’s ability to handle any situation…I am sorry, and regret any shame brought upon my family.”

Video of the flag burning incident is the most-viewed selection this week on YouTube.

The President held a press conference to declare that the flag contract will be cancelled, pending further negotiations.

“This just shows the dangers of outsourcing to a hostile power, and the harm it can do,” The President said. A week ago, he had been the biggest supporter of the contract.

The President declined to comment on a replacement for the departing Secretary. A White House employee who spoke under the condition of anonymity said that a front-runner for the position was the governor of California, Jessica Marie Alba.

Chinese corporation receives no-bid contract to produce US flag

April 21, 2020

SHANGHAI, China--Dow Jong Industies has received a no-bid contract from the federal government to manufacture flags used at government facilities and events. The five-year contract will begin October 1.

Dow-Jong, a state-owned conglomerate located in Guangdong, China, is best known for producing action figures, kitchen knives, and fire-proof fabric.

The Secretary of the Interior praised the move, saying that it would save tax payers millions, and ease pressure from the $50 trillion debt. He promises to soon exhibit the resiliency of the new flags by exposing one to a flamethrower.

General: Laws of War Cause Lame Wars

SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina--During a speech to students at the University of Sarajevo, General Slobodan Douchebagovich called the Geneva and Hague Conventions anti-peace documents in that the six treaties, substantial parts of the laws of war, limit effective military operations, and cause prolonged wars.

“What do we need rights in war for?” the Serbian general said. “We must be nice to adversary? ‘Here is pillow and lemonade. Now I shoot you.’”

Douchebagovich had been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, but the case was dropped due to several technicalities. He worried little about the movement to once again prosecute him, and, besides, he continues to look back fondly to his service at Srebrenica, where he and his men played soccer using infants as balls.

“Muslim babies are resilient people.”

He is the founder of GAW, Generals for Awesome Wars. The preamble to their constitution states that war law should be considered void because few organizations and governments only follow the treaties when convenient, besides Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

“Pussies,” Douchebagovich said about the humanitarian institutions. He and his organization advocate the development of Assertive Acquisition From Civilians Of Supplies To Be Used By Military Personnel (AAFCOSTBUBMP), and Interpersonal Relations Between Troops and Insurgents (IRBTAI). Such tactics aid troop morale, and tactical intelligence.

For example, AAFCOSTBUBMP eases financial pressure .

In regard to allegations that victims of the tactics would be abhorred at rape, pillage and torture, the General said, “First, in some dictionaries, ‘no’ means ‘no.’ But in the real ones, like the one my cousin made, ‘no’ sometimes means ‘yes.’ So you never know what they mean by, ‘Please, please, please don‘t.’”

Douchebagovich’s primary concern, however, lies with the reform in the regulation of nuclear weapons. He said that the current requirement of the use of such weapons, in which the existence of the State is in direct danger, is far too limited.

“If the existence of the State is not in danger today, it will in danger be tomorrow. Therefore, it is always in danger.”

He said that the reluctance to use nuclear weapons encourages armed resistance, and causes higher casualty rates in the long run. He cited the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to support his claim that nuclear attacks would stifle all sentiment toward opposition.

“Now that was shock and awe.”

Skull invasion begins, New Yorkers remain in city

NEW YORK, NY--This morning, shape shifting aliens called skrulls attacked New York City, causing billions in property damage and untold loss of life. As of press time, little is known about the fate of the superheroes engaged in the battle in Midtown Manhattan.

Both Director of SHIELD, Anthony Stark, and his superhero team the Mighty Avengers also remain missing.

Reports indicate that the invasion proper began months ago with the replacement by skrulls of hundreds throughout planet earth, including 10 members of the city council, 3 out of the 5 borough presidents, and city comptroller Bill Thompson.

Yesterday, SHIELD agents revealed city comptroller Bill Thompson as a skrull shortly after witnesses video taped the imposter engaging in an anti-black tirade. The real Thompson is (was?) African-American.

Experts speculate that the replacements hid in plain sight to gather intelligence for the intergalactic Skrull Empire.

Hours after the beginning of the attack, Mayor Michael Bloomberg held an emergency press conference at the stairs of the Thurgood Marshall US Courthouse.

"Today has showcased the resiliency of the good people of New York," the mayor said. "Even in the midst of this ongoing tragedy, our population continues to stand over 8 million, tourists worldwide visit our glorious streets, and the economy continues to grow. People want to go to the Big Apple."

"Indeed, the demand for NYC housing has never been more competitive, with the rest of the nation burned by the bursting at the housing bubble," he added, before a laser beam melted him into a green stain.

"Everyone, follow me!" the real Michael Bloomberg said, carrying a smoking, high-tech rifle the size of a grown man. He was accompanied by the remaining members of the New York State Militia Forces. Bloomberg, the Militia, and volunteers will stage a counter invasion from an undisclosed location.

"They should all leave," Martin Martinez, the Chief Operating Officer of Damage Control, Inc., said.

Damage Control is the government sponsored enterprise that repairs property damage in the wake of acts of superpowered violence, and has repaired New York City property in the wake of dozens of attacks from mutant terrorists, alien species, a deposed Latvarian Prime Minister, the Incredible Hulk, extradimensional forces, demons, runaway science experiments, time bombs, and multiple occurances of the collapse of time and space. As of press time, researchers are still calculating how many times New York City has faced certain destruction.

Martinez expresses surprise that European tourists continue to take advantage of the weak US dollar, and spend their money in the Big Apple. He says he cannot understand why the city remains the tourist hotspot, why people continue to move into the city, and why the flight of the middle class is moving as slowly as it is.

"New York is not worth it," Martinez said. "Even before the Skrulls, they were walking into a deficit of several billions of dollars, overpopulation, a broken transporation system. You can rent a piece of crap hole in Queens for the same price you can rent a decent, two bedroom apartment in Florida."

"What kind of crazy #$&@ wants to stay in Manhattan?" Martinez said shortly before the phone lines died.

"I love this city," Lauren Rose, a Columbia University student and Lieutenant of the Counter Invasion, said. "Where else could you be walking down the street, cup of coffee in hand, and witness such cultural diversity? Such history? I mean, where else can you see a three hundred pound man with unbreakable skin punch an anthropomorphic baboon through a brick wall? No where!"

Bush Auctions Louisiana

WASHINGTON--Congress has passed a joint resolution that allows President Bush to auction the state of Louisiana. Proceeds will be used to reduce the federal government's $9.5 trillion debt.

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal criticized the sale in a radio interview. "#$%@ Bush!" he said.

"Bidding will begin at $1 million," Bush said during the White House Rose Garden signing ceremony. The number symbolizes the original price of the so-called Louisiana Purchase, encompassing 15 current states.

Then-president Thomas Jefferson brought the land from Napoleon Bonaparte in 1803. Critics had disparged the move as an excessive use of executive power.

Bush called the auction a return to small government principles, and a sign of bipartisan cooperation on Capitol Hill. He hopes that the proceeds will signal to the rest of the world that the United States is committed to positive international relations.

He outlined his contingency plan to move current residents of Louisiana to neighboring states, in the event that the highest bidder enforces strict regulations on "aliens-to-be." Refugees would relocate to FEMA trailers.

Experts predict that follow-up auctions will occur, featuring such states as Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. Bush dismissed speculation.

"As of this moment in time, considering this unpresidented act, and the benefit this will have on families, we cannot say that we will not not rule out

another sale, depending on the result," he said. "You get me? We will definitely not not consider another auction. And that's the truth."

Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain praised the move, saying that the most pressing issue in America today is the economy.

He said that the residents of Louisiana could soon witness a transformation similar to the economic renassiance in Dubai, a popular vacation spot for millionaires, and location of a number of high-priced man-made islands. Much of Lousiana experienced extensive property damage in the 2005 hurricane season, and many remain homeless.

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, also supported the auction. At a rally in Hanover, New Hampshire, Obama mused that auction proceeds could be used to support failing corporations. "What happened to Bear Stearns is unacceptable. We need to save our multibillion dollar corporations," he said.

Obama stopped mid-speech, and looked at his hands for several moments. "What have I become?" the Illinois senator said.

The audience roared its approval. Even men bared their breasts.

Representatives from the United Arab Emirates, France, China, Mexico, Iraq, and 20 other nations plan to attend the auction, to be held August 1st, at the lower 9th Ward of New Orleans.

***

But, seriously, the debt is really #$%@!

Angelina Jolie gives birth to twins, paparazzo

By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer

NICE, France (DP) -- Angelina Jolie has given birth to twins and a photogapher who snuck into her womb 6 months ago. The Paparazzo is Ronald Johansen, who is 2 feet, 6 inches tall, and suffers from primoridial dwarfism. He is best known for snapping photos of Russel Crowe strangling a hot dog vendor with the strap of a bookbag.

Jolie's partner, Brad Pitt, was reported to be outraged in response to the discovery of Johannsen. Security apprehended Johansen, and confiscated his camera, which he had taken into the womb. Observers expect the camera to contain photos of the twins, Knox Leon and Vivienne Marcheline.

Johansen posted bail, but has yet to receive his camera.

"This is a travesty," the Swedish national said in an interview with the Dissociated Press. "I put in months of hard work in order to take those pictures. What is the world coming to?"

He declined to answer questions about the contents of the camera, how he snuck into Angelina Jolie, and how he avoided detection on ultrasound tests. "The world will soon discover what the pictures show," he said. "It is my best work, and I plan to follow up with memoirs detailing the challenges I had to overcome."

Johansen maintains that his rights as a member of the press were violated once Pitt reached into the caesarean section and tore him into the womb. He sustained several bruises, and plans to sue Pitt for the assault and the Nice Police Department for failing to return his camera.

"I have never felt more discriminated against in my life."

Neither Pitt nor Jolie could be reached for comment.

Bill Regulates Rape Accusations

By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer

July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).

"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."

FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.

"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."

Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.

Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.

Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.

He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."

The Value of Life Plummets $900,000

***Based on a real article. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/10/national/main4250299.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4250299#ccmm


By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer

July 12, 2008 -- The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) estimates the value of the average American's life to be $6.9 million, a $900,000 drop from 2003 levels.

The statistic results from other statistics, such as what people pay to avoid risks. Like other Government agencies, the EPA uses such a number to determine whether certain initiatives, such as regulations on pollution and thereby saving lives in the long run, are worth supporting with public funds.

If the cost of a initiative exceeds the dollar amount of human life benefitted, then the can consider the initiative impracticle. Americans nationwide are buzzing about the finding.

Yesterday, protesters stormed the front steps of the EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. to call for the agency to return the value to previous levels, saying the finding was an affront to human dignity.

"It hurts my feelings," Ronald Cathater, a protester from Los Angeles, California, said. "But I'm special. No body can take away the value of my life. What I give to the world cannot be calculated in dollars and cents." Cathater lives with his mother, and spends over $300 a year on pornography.

In addition, immates in high-security prisons across the country are suing for more amenities, stating that their civil rights are being undermined by the low standards of living found at correctional facilities.

Mark Johnson, Esq., an attorney for several inmates at Rikers Island Prison in New York City, called the movement a milestone in American history.

"This is bigger than the Civil War," Johnson, said. "Perhaps, finally, the downtrodden can get the respect they deserve. You hear that, Sandra? You were wrong. I am worth something."

The change in the value of life has weaved itself into every part of society, as organizations across the nation used the drop as rationale for budget cuts. 50 counties removed chocolate milk from local public schools. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg removed the Administration for Children's Services from the city budget for the 2010-to-2011 fiscal year. In Alabama, Reginald Truman pawned his childrens' X-Box, and told them to finally get jobs, "goddammnit."

In Utah, the wife of kidnapped millionaire Paul Jackson has pushed for renegotiations with her husband's kidnappers. Tanya Jackson had leaned toward conceeding to the orginal demand for $10 million. Upon reading of the EPA's recalculation, however, she changed her mind, and called the kidnappers, "thieves" and "terrorists" for their high price.

If there is going to be a transaction, Jackson says, then they should accept her new offer of $6.9 million. "It's what Paul would've wanted. He was always about being frugal. He never spent more on something than what it was worth."

Five questions politicians will never hear (or maybe they will)

1) "Senator Obama, how will your being Muslim affect the Zionist conspiracy?"

2) "Senator Clinton, why was your Sopranos spoof sooooooo awkward?"

3) "Dr. [Ron] Paul, why are you Don Quixote?"

4) "Senator McCain, why are your pupils so HUGE?"

5) "President Bush, what do you think about criticism that says your administration botched the staging of 9-11?"

Yahoo.com

Okay...today, on Yahoo.com, the featured stories are 1) The Seattle Sonics will be moving out of Seattle. 2) Reality Show nonsense, 3) "Why [Christina] Aquilera is happy to be a non-partying mom" and last, in the bottom right corner of the Featured Box, 4) "Rampant job loss to continue into 2009."

4 to 1, or 3 to 2, depending how you see it. The Seattle move will affect the lives of many people, economically speaking. And then Aguilera? Reality shows?

Shoved into the box for secondary news: information on Alzheimer's, MASSIVE FIRES RAGING IN CALIFORNIA, a missing girl's body found, freed hostages, and information on the Justice Dept. considering the use of racial profiling. This Justice Dept. article can be found here. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080702/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_profiling)

I just reloaded the page, while typing this, and the reality show article was replaced on the Featured Box by an article about baseball.

Many of the arguments against The Media come from The Media. "The media, the media, the media."
"The media is biased."
"The media fails to cover important information."
"The media talks too much about celebrities."
Indeed, they focus on crap. They focus on crap because we, the viewers, watch this crap. A certain food is only considered food because most people eat it.

And Britney Spears is news because certain people make it a point to watch her. They watch ET. They buy pointless crap about Angelina Jolie's 1,000 children. Good for Angelina. So why do you care . Sure, it's entertaining. And my walking up to you physically and berating you and your magazine renders me a nut. This essay is best left for a semi-formal atmosphere like this.

And so we view crap. We view crap that has very little influence on our lives. As sweet as Jolie may be as a person, you could do better things than

memorize her childrens' names. And the more you view this crap of the magazine stand, of the TV, of the Internet, the more the media craps this crap. It's a vicious cycle.

They give. You take. They give more. You take more. And so on. Forever.

People blame the media for this surplus of crap. "The media should put out more useful information." They do. People simply fail the read it. See, the

media are slave to their sponsors. They are slave to McDonalds, and everyone else who buys ad-space. the media is a business. Money is needed to run a

business. The media needs money. They get money from advertizers. The more viewers a media outlet commands, the higher prices they command in ad-space.

Ad-space, ad-space, ad-space. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ It's your money, too. And so the more you tune into TMZ, and ET, the more money these shows stand to receive.

So they put out more useless information. Clogging the arteries of the international bank of knowledge. Outlets that put out useful information, well, tend to fail or do just a little worse.

Maybe Rupert Murdoch and the Evil Conglomerates of the Word really do want us stupid so as to stay rich. But guess what? Only so they can stay rich. If we turn our attention to some other TV show, advertisers will put their money with that show. And even if that fails, so what? The media can't force us to do anything. They can't force us to read what we read. They can't force us to believe what we believe. They only take up a visible, but small corner of the world.

If you want to live, live your damn life.

We believe what we believe, and read what we read, and write what we write, and do what we do. Our emotions are involuntary, and we guide those emotions toward whichever actions we choose.

I wrote this essay. Fuck Rupert Murdoch.

People have no excuse for ignorance, for laziness. "It's the only thing they give us." Other information is available. In the library. In the Internet.

Hint, hint. If you want to sit on your ass, it's your fault.

If I want to sit on my ass, it's my fault.

If they want to sit on their asses, it's their fault.

It's our fault the world sucks. Cut out this 'us vs. them' crap. 'They' do what we would do in their situation. If we stood what they stood to gain and lose, we'd do the same.

I mean, we're so stupid.

I'm stupid. Have you ever heard me speak? You're better off reading my writing. In my head, I compose these glorious essays about human nature, philosophy, psychology. And the vocal expression of these ideas trips up. Word weaves out over word. It's clumsy. And yet I continue to speak. I speak even sometimes when I damn well know the other person is hardly interested, because I need the practice. Because I like the practice, and the practice makes me better.

And you can practice too. And you can read, too. And you can erase your limitations as much as possible, too. And you can get over your shit, too.

This essay sounds like a coke-induced advertisement for Zoloft. Speaking of which, be happy. I say this so as not to be mistaken for Ayn Rand.

Be happy. Always happy. Life is short. Too damn short. SO be happy. If you stub your toe, be happy. If you get the runs, be happy. If you get into a car accident, be happy. Try it. It works.

Corollary to "Five Problems In Contemplating God"

1.1) "The existence of the world itself, and the beauty of the world prove God's existence."

Again, you are apply values to Something you know Nothing about. Canst thou measure God's hair molecules under a microscope? Canst thou take a DNA swab from the inside of his right cheek, and compare against human DNA? Canst thou ask him to stand against a wall, and measure His height? "Jesus - Age 6...Jesus - Age 7..."

Therefore, thou shouldst take a minute to really ponder. Until you know the very nature of God--the very stuff of God--the brick to his house--the H2O to his water-- you will find it difficult to prove or disprove his nature by way of nature itself.


2.1) "The absence of evidence against God's existence proves His existence."

It's the same kind of logic as saying "God is fake because I cannot see Him." The absence of evidence only reveals unanswered questions. Both belief and nonbelief require an amount of faith. The subject--a believer or nonbeliever--assumes the general nature of the answers to unanswered questions. The subject assumes. (S)he has no way to substantiate those beliefs.

1) This Just In...

...50 minutes ago, one of the women who live across the hall is jumping rope on a trampolene. In the middle of the hall way, which is about a little shorter than the length from fingertip-to-fingertip if I stretched out my arms.

****

2) The US Supreme Court kind of sucks for saying the death penalty doesn't apply to child rapists.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-343

(Kennedy v. Louisiana. Kennedy being a stepfather convicted of raping his stepdaughter.)

Now, the death penalty itself opens up a slew of philosophical, and moral problems. But it you're going to have it, child rapists seem like a wonderful group of people to use it on. At least the stereotypical, greasy, van-driving, sandal wearing, playground-stalking rapist.

The Court declared that to execute these men would violate the 8th Amendment, since rape fails to reach homicide's level of damage to the victims and to society.

I disagree. Rape places psychological hurdles in front of the victim. Indeed, mild sexual harassment produces much greater levels of mental stress than similar types of assault.

The pleasure centers are prominent features our lives, and rape literally perverts these centers.

The act of rape spills vile on sexual feelings. Rape of underaged children can cause serious injury, extensive mental trauma, and warps the child's view of society as a whole, and hinders the child's ability to become a member of society who can both give and take from the society in a responsible manner. Rape is a strong spark of depression, and to myraid of issues that result from depression itself (Read Robin Warshaw's "I Never Called It Rape"). Even the possibility that the victim will grow to one day participate in the rape of another, if only as a casual bystander. Eg. A mother, raped as a child, will ignore signs that the grandfather is molesting her daughter.

But...

In a press release, The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault highlights the limits of the law in protecting children.

"Most child sexual abuse victims are abused by a family member or close family friend...The reality is that child victims and their families don't want to be responsible for sending a grandparent, cousin or long time family friend to death row. addition, capital punishment trials are notoriously stressful for the witnesses involved, and typically face a lengthy appeals process.

This forces the child witness to relive these painful events over and over again, severely disrupting their healing process." The Court echoed a similar worry.
Sheeyit. And if you disbelieve that most victims are victimized by family, then you have yet to gain the trust of someone who has been molested in this fasion.

****

3) Yay to the US Supreme Court of knocking down a DC gun-control ban.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-290

District of Columbia V. Heller

Unless you outright ban the construction of these weapons (for both private and military puposes), then a regional ban on them seems outright ridiculous. The problem with the DC was hardly flexible enough to allow the ownership of firearms to trust-worthy individuals. Firearm purchases, if not banned, still be to be regulated so that any purchase . The mentally ill and formerly convicted should be restricted from purchasing firearms, and even using them, except in some sort of extraordinary circumstance when the use is justified.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56" (from the introduction)

Five Problems in Contemplating God

1) Assuming God to necessarily exhibit specific personality traits, and then using though traits to prove God's existence or non-existence.

"Life is terrible and therefore, God is a myth, because God, who would be wonderful, loving, would make the world a perfect."

Your perception of perfection has failed to cling onto the foundation of reality. You need to prove that God having certain traits, and the nature of reality in light of those traits, proves or disproves his existence. Reality can still be if your percetion of God is false.

If you see that the sky is beautiful and the grass is green, you only know that the skiy is beautiful and the grass is green. You only know that you feel good. You may think God is there, but you've yet to see him. You have what you call evidence of his existence--and this evidence is the product of life. For evidence, however, you need a visible culprit to pin it on. Where is God, visible to us all (in a literal sense, not metaphorical)?


2) Assuming absense of evidence to prove God's nonexistence.

"I see no God. Therefore, God doesn't exist."

It's like saying, I have never met George C. Hoover or heard of him, or seen a photograph, though I have stories. Therefore, Hoover is a myth. He does not exist. You only know that stories about God have failed to convince you of the being's existence. You nothing showing direct evidence of God's existence. You have science, and test evidence to affirm this lack of direct evidence. Also, however, you understand that there is a lot you don't know. You knwo there is a big shadow out there, the unknown. And the only way to understand that shadow is to jump in it. So, never mind guessing--test it. Jump into the shadows, and shed light on it. Then: repeat, for infinity. If God exists, okay. If God is a myth, okay. Either way, you've poked at the truth. Just remember that self-proclaimed rational atheists who assume anything are just theists playing a different song with the same instrument.


3) Assuming God to be male. Or female. Or both. Or neither. Or everything.

I was almost going to ask, "What would got need a pair of genitals for?" And then realized that I would falling into the same trap.


4) Confusing attacks on religious establishments as attacks on God.

Just because a person criticizes a policy of the Pope, may not mean that the person aims to personally talk smack about God. But a traditional Catholic would be inclined to view direct criticism and insults against the Pope to be sinful and displeasing to God, regardless of the criticizer's point. To some sects of believers, the earthly institution of worship is inseperable from the heavenly overcast.


5) Assuming that every religion reveals a path toward understanding the ultimate nature of reality.

The similarities may say more about humanity than about our environment. A multidisclipinary study on this subject would be fascinating--psychology, biology, history, political science, literature and religion. Anyone recommend really good books? The closest thing I can think of now that I have already read is America's Constitution: A Biography, by Akhil Reed Amar, which covers a legal, historical, and political aspects of the US Constitution and its relationship with the nation itself.

Disagreements and Free Speech

I. DISCOURSE
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.

This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.

Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.

Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.

These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.

Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.

Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.

M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.

Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.


II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm

Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."

Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.

Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.


III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.

Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47

In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.

It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php

Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.

A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)

In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.

America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.

Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.

So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?

The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.

Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.

The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.

In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.

I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.

And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.

This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.


IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.

Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."

As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?

We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.

The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."

So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.

To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.

(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)

Comments on an Obama Bill -- S.2111

I figure the best way to know a candidate is to read their damn bills. (The bill mentioned in this note was written/Sponsered by Barack Obama, with the aid of Richard Durbin, Bernard Sanders, and Charles Schumer)

S.2111 Positive Behavior for Effective Schools Acts a proposed bill
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2111/text

- I agree with the bill on an idealogical and logical basis. Good to focus on certain, if not outright proven, methods of rearing students. Haphazard, instinctive methods, such as, say, yelling at the kids or threatening them with a referral or detention, simply makes the kids scream louder if they have no respect for school itself. And a number of students have little respect for school. This bill has guts in confronting the abstract, and psychological problems of education.

- Puts the ball in the hands of local educations and education officials. The overall effectiveness of this proposed bill is subject to the brillance and/or bumbling of those people. Which is unavoidable, since a Congress in Washington is hardly in the best position to decide what exactly is the best, precise way to educate children. In regard to expansive social programs, they probably best serve as delegators, as guidance. This bill serves to balance Federal support with appropriate Federal restraint about the exact details of such programs.

- The proposed Director in this bill sounds like a good peson to have around, since it institutionalizes accountability. It creates a chain of command in this. I am unsure about details of the interplay between Executive and Legisative branches, but I hope there are yearly, concrete reports to congress about how the program is carrying on. The more accountability among politicans and The People, the better.

- Potential problems in its executive implementation. since promises made are different than promises kept:
1 - if both the Director, and the Deputy Secretary of Education is incompetant, and both the Sec. of Edu. and the President do nothing (which sure is hell is possible, because of the expansiveness of the jobs of latter two), God Help Us All;

2 - who is the best authority on "Positive Behavior Support"? Science is exact, but also slow, and sometimes contradicts earlier findings. And using science to raise a child's mind?--don't even get me started. Don't think this bill will simply create a perfect world in one week. If it works, it will be an arduous process, with a lot of disagreements among implementers about what techniques will work best. Parents and teachers will need patience. The bill is only a first step.

3 - also, the issue of religious instruction in public schools is going to hover around this bill (if the bill is even passed), and cause a number of ulcers

I am unfamiliar with the the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which this bill amends. That big bill, in its current form, will definitely have a lot of influence on how S.2111 would play out, and I definitely missed something that needs mentioning.

The Presidential Election

McNasty
http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/300071_john_mccain
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071

BarackStar
http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400629_barack_obama
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
Getting too political for my own good. Figure if I am going to vote, then I should understand these men as best I can. I read their policy notes in the websites. I've skimmed over McCain, and am on the first section of Obama's 'Blueprint for Change.' Obama has a much more specific plan than McCain (I like the Transperancy section). But, anyway, the websites show what they want people to see. I've shared these links to third party sites for the hell of it. I've read some of the laws, and want to better consider their activity in congress. Like not only how many bills they introduction, but how many that pushed, etc. (I hope you like law-readin'.)

Barack says he'll yada yada, but has he shown the ability to do it? I am leaning toward him right now, but I'll like a lot more evidence in his activity before I throw my vote at a man who I've never meet, and may never meet. It'd be nice to vote on something more substantial than expressed policy.

Anyway, I may just vote against McCain because, according to his website, he likes the judiciary to stick to the decisions of the legislative and executive branch. He says he will appoint judges "who respect the lawmaking powers of Congress, and the powers of the President." A president will tend to appoint judges after his/her own heart. Granted, and necessary. And those judges, after that president leaves office, may even become a thorn in the side of the new president. And that's how I like it. The judiciary should and must have the ability to become a sharp pain in the ribs of the legislative and executive branches. Checks and balances. The job of the judiciary system is to referree--using the Constitution as a guide--the laws that the other two branches may support. So, if that proves a stumbling block to congress or the president, too bad. Yes, I like an appropriate amount of friction in my government.

By the way: Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? Hm.

Religion: Belief; and Effect on People

Miss Sarah Itzkoff mentioned this film trailer on her status line.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/religulous

The movie is Religulous. It stars Bill Maher, and is about him interviewing religious people about religion's absurdities. I saw the trailer. It got me to thinking. The essay is not a direct answer to the trailer, but definitely birthed from it. Placenta and all.
**

I.
Religion is only secondary in:
- method of social control
and
- means to explaining how the universe was created

Religion, first and foremost, is a coping mechanism.

To believe "I don't know" about the nature of life or afterlife is pretty creepy for most people. If you are unable to feel fear in considering "I don't know" you've either spent your patience considering it as I have, or lack all parts of the brain used to feel fear.

Life sucks when your life might mean nothing. When you are only skin, muscle, and organs. When your heart stops, and the body falls apart, and ants pick at your remains to return to their Queen. When you look at some guy on the subway follow his ex-girlfriend around, and he is obviously harrassing her. When you see a child with a fresh bruise under his eye. When you see that a murder remains unsolved, and the police will probably fail in catching the killer. When you sit down and look at your children, and worry that they, despite your preference to the opposite, are only meat.

Religion and God are means to deal with the crappy parts of life. It's pretty damn nice to believe that after that murderer dies, he'll get what he deserves. It's nice to believe that abused children are cared for. It's nice to think that your life is more than meat.

If the sincere belief in God reflects an insanity in the believer, then the insanity is a reaction to a kind of despair.

Atheists, too, have dealt with this despair in their own personal way. Whether or not you have God in your consciousness, you must deal with life's absurdity and apparent hopelessness in some way, and many, religious or not, do. To live, people tend to support their living with a kind of logic, even if that logic is plugged with a hole or two.

Ultimately, our presence clinches the deal. We're already here, and few of us, upon believing life's meaninglessness, would commit suicide. Why? Because suicide hurts. If you eat chocolate, your tounge is happy. If you get a message, your back feels great. If you watch a funny movie, you laugh. If you have sex, you're probably in a good mood. Pleasure, even if that pleasure is scant. That's why people continue living, even when their explaination of life is irrational (religion), or incomplete (atheism).

The logic of living serves the reality of living. Rarely the other way around. When you find yourself alive (in the maternity ward, among the other babies, figuring out how your fingers work) you will from then on dedicate life to the act of living. The only trick from then on is explaining the reason for that living, so as to make that living more pleasant.

Maybe you could believe in Christ. Or some other God. Or maybe believe in some vague lifeforce in the universe. Or be apathetic, sweep the life question into the closet, and continue eating tostitos with cheese dip (a delicious meal). Either way, life is nicer when backed by a pleasant ideaology (eg. Human beings have dignity, and dignity is a true sort of substance.)

Faith. Faith, ever present. That the work that you do is actually worthwhile, beyond the pleasure you recieve from it. That people do good for you, and that good is really altruistic, etc, etc.

****

II.It seems that a lot of criticism against religion has to do with religion as a corrupting institution.

That religion has been associated with violence cannot be disputed. ("Christ be with you," said the Crusader, and then he threw the baby into the well.)

So if we prove that religions are the source or major cause of brutality among people--at least when those religions are used as a reason for this brutality (like the Crusades)--then yes, religion can be a corrupting institution like slavery. In other words, if we simply removed religion from an area, or the world, then people would act more civilly from one another.

Ir seems, however, people are beasts, in general. Beast: a creature that lives at excessive expense of others. If religion has no real effect on how people act, then even if we remove all traces of traditional religion from the Earth, people would still commit acts of brutality and oppression. Indeed, I argue that violence in the name of religion is in fact a perversion of religion. It has nothing to do with the true idea behind the religion except cometically. These jerks just happen to worship a God, for personal gain.

I think that commentators overestimate the power of social institutions. These institutions come and go. But the thing that brings them together, again and again, is the human desire to live and to succeed at living even at the expense of others. This personal desire is the Ultimate Institution, and it originates in the heart. If we miss this core, then we can remove religion, the corporations, the gov'ts, etc, yet we will keep running into the same problem of depravity among peopole.

With or without the idea of God hanging above us: the Holocaust, that Waco mess, the War on Terror (R), and Priests diddling children. These or similar events will still occur. Because people are feeders. Because the act of violence is satisfying. Because sex is satisfying. Etc. And in the face of that satisfaction, Man submits. He submits to his only true Lord. The only question know is how he will justifying his worship to himself. And, trust me, he will find a way.

I will say no more for now.

This subject requires a lot more experience, research, and wisdom than I am able to provide at this time. It's better to keep the mouth shut rather than blab in a public, idiot way.