...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)
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.
"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.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, June 9, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)