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.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
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.
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.
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.)
Monday, June 9, 2008
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.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Rape, and the Spread of Evil
A short version of what happened: a 16-year-old girl, Crystal, posts a video on YouTube. She calls out for help to get her alleged rapist charged with the crime. Later, the case is dropped. According to police documents (look at Smokinggun.com), she had said to police that the sex was consensual, legally speaking. I wasn't there for that. I don't know, so there won't be too much comments on that here, though I will disagree with the FL prosecutor who walked away from the case because the accuser was "a mere 1 month from her 16th birthday." I may be too hard on the prosecutor, since she may have thought that the case was very difficult to push on a jury. In any case, let's look at the ideal here: If the law says statuatory rape occurs with children age 15 and younger, then we must prosecute people who have knowingly had sex with such children.
And beyond this, I have little to spit about the case itself. That's on the sidelines of this post. What happened, what's in Crystal's head. I wasn't there for that. I am not a cop, or a lawyer, nor the accused, nor the accusor's father.
What I do know are the comments left on the video, such as
- "you little slut. you probably had it coming."
- "You are such a little whore! ew!"
- "Someone take an iron poker and stick it in her pooper..."
Wow. That's amazing. As if she had shat on their doorsteps.
If you can give me evidence that proves she burned their houses down, then I can understand why they'd use so many insults.
- "I'd rape her"
- "come to london so i can knock you out and end you misery you silly bitch"
- "Well guys the thing is, there is no "what if it's real...And if you ever make any videos as stupid as this ever again. I'm going to come rape you myself. FOR REAL. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID...FOR REAL"
Wow. Now, people step on logic. Obviously. How do people justify threatening another human being like this, for these reasons. Imagine if someone stepped on your foot by accident.Would you most likely to
A) Walk away?
or
B) Punch them?
I shouldn't have to give you the answer. Really. So logic doesn't explain why they wrote what they wrote. How can we explain their ill logic?
Because people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I'll tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts.
They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts. If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes.
Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
This, I believe, is because of our reaction to seeing how other people act. You see how other people seem to think, and then your thinking changes for a variety of reasons.
Now. Upon seeing the comments toward the YouTube clip, you get a little glimpse into the posters' universes. Only a little glimpse. Even if you knew this person for years, and ate dinner with them on a daily basis, you'd have to work hard to understand the world exactly how they view it. We don't know what these people were thinking when they type; we are ignorant of their earlier memories, what fills them, etc, etc.
What we know, what we sure as hell know: how their action affects us. Or, at least, can affect us. Upon seeing their comments, I am inclined to feel like maybe people are generally bad. That, even if people act civil in public, their private universes fume with venom. And when I think of this, take it to heart, my private little universe get tainted with a little more venom. Their venom encourages the growth of my venom.
Let's repeat: people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I can tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts. They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts.
If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes. Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
So, angry universes can lead into angry universes, which can lead into angry universes, which can in turn lead into other angry universes, and so forth. Angry universes lead into angry actions. Sad to sad, happy to happy, goofy to goofy, etc. And I know that I sometimes lean toward distrusting people, even when they smile to my face. Especially when they smile to my face. That seems like a signal that that person is planning something.
And I remember reading this book called "I Never Called It Rape" by Robin Warshaw. The report that acts as the foundation for the book says that about 25% have been raped, mostly by people they knew: boyfriends, and friends. RAINN--the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network--says that 1 out of 6 American women will be sexually assaulted (acts including rape and acts that fall short of rape), most of them were assaulted by people they know. The most restrained estimate belongs to the US Bureau of Justice that says less than one rape victim exists for every 1000 people over age 11. The reason for the discrepancy, apparently, is that rapes are underreported.
So, let's assume that the 1 in 6 stat is the truth. I want you to go to a public space, and count each woman you pass, starting at one, going to six, then start over back to one, go to 6, then again, making note each time you get to 6. So, that sixth woman, chances are, has been sexually assaulted. Look at all that venom getting built up. Look at all those universes getting a little moldly, a little bit more messed up. Those universes in turn influence other universes to get gunked up.
So it goes. Etc, etc, forever and forever. If we lament about the world fall apart, we make a mistake. The truth is that we only realize that the world can suck. Nothing is new except that realization. Nothing is new except our universe getting altered by the universes of others.
And the shape of the change is a choice. We choose how we change, and a lot of times it takes effort to mold ourselves if the environment fights against our actions. Yet that's possible. Every act, every piece of writing, every single thing we do is an expression of our control over our universe. Though the nature of that control remains vague and strangled, it exists.
Books, Systems of Government, Architecture, Transporation, and even YouTube. Leaving our footprints on the Earth.
If I believe in the human race, it is a forced belief. A choice, rather than a conviction--because without the belief, decay sets in. And mold sets in, and shivels the peach, and shrinks it into a hard little ball. And the nectarines grey, and the roaches take over the kitchen, and here, here, the devil reigns, where people are only meat. So, yes, yes, I believe in our Better Angels.
And beyond this, I have little to spit about the case itself. That's on the sidelines of this post. What happened, what's in Crystal's head. I wasn't there for that. I am not a cop, or a lawyer, nor the accused, nor the accusor's father.
What I do know are the comments left on the video, such as
- "you little slut. you probably had it coming."
- "You are such a little whore! ew!"
- "Someone take an iron poker and stick it in her pooper..."
Wow. That's amazing. As if she had shat on their doorsteps.
If you can give me evidence that proves she burned their houses down, then I can understand why they'd use so many insults.
- "I'd rape her"
- "come to london so i can knock you out and end you misery you silly bitch"
- "Well guys the thing is, there is no "what if it's real...And if you ever make any videos as stupid as this ever again. I'm going to come rape you myself. FOR REAL. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID...FOR REAL"
Wow. Now, people step on logic. Obviously. How do people justify threatening another human being like this, for these reasons. Imagine if someone stepped on your foot by accident.Would you most likely to
A) Walk away?
or
B) Punch them?
I shouldn't have to give you the answer. Really. So logic doesn't explain why they wrote what they wrote. How can we explain their ill logic?
Because people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I'll tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts.
They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts. If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes.
Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
This, I believe, is because of our reaction to seeing how other people act. You see how other people seem to think, and then your thinking changes for a variety of reasons.
Now. Upon seeing the comments toward the YouTube clip, you get a little glimpse into the posters' universes. Only a little glimpse. Even if you knew this person for years, and ate dinner with them on a daily basis, you'd have to work hard to understand the world exactly how they view it. We don't know what these people were thinking when they type; we are ignorant of their earlier memories, what fills them, etc, etc.
What we know, what we sure as hell know: how their action affects us. Or, at least, can affect us. Upon seeing their comments, I am inclined to feel like maybe people are generally bad. That, even if people act civil in public, their private universes fume with venom. And when I think of this, take it to heart, my private little universe get tainted with a little more venom. Their venom encourages the growth of my venom.
Let's repeat: people work from emotion. Their emotion guides their actions (I can tell you from personal experience). A person feels angry, they will tend to construct angry thoughts. They feel happy, they tend to make happy thoughts.
If you feel good, the world resembles heaven. If you feel bad, the world gets a little closer to hell, even if everyone else is having a good day. We each have a universe in our heads. You have a universe, I have a universe. When we interact with each other, we see little windows into those universes. Then each time we see into those windows, there is the opportunity for our universes to change.
So, angry universes can lead into angry universes, which can lead into angry universes, which can in turn lead into other angry universes, and so forth. Angry universes lead into angry actions. Sad to sad, happy to happy, goofy to goofy, etc. And I know that I sometimes lean toward distrusting people, even when they smile to my face. Especially when they smile to my face. That seems like a signal that that person is planning something.
And I remember reading this book called "I Never Called It Rape" by Robin Warshaw. The report that acts as the foundation for the book says that about 25% have been raped, mostly by people they knew: boyfriends, and friends. RAINN--the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network--says that 1 out of 6 American women will be sexually assaulted (acts including rape and acts that fall short of rape), most of them were assaulted by people they know. The most restrained estimate belongs to the US Bureau of Justice that says less than one rape victim exists for every 1000 people over age 11. The reason for the discrepancy, apparently, is that rapes are underreported.
So, let's assume that the 1 in 6 stat is the truth. I want you to go to a public space, and count each woman you pass, starting at one, going to six, then start over back to one, go to 6, then again, making note each time you get to 6. So, that sixth woman, chances are, has been sexually assaulted. Look at all that venom getting built up. Look at all those universes getting a little moldly, a little bit more messed up. Those universes in turn influence other universes to get gunked up.
So it goes. Etc, etc, forever and forever. If we lament about the world fall apart, we make a mistake. The truth is that we only realize that the world can suck. Nothing is new except that realization. Nothing is new except our universe getting altered by the universes of others.
And the shape of the change is a choice. We choose how we change, and a lot of times it takes effort to mold ourselves if the environment fights against our actions. Yet that's possible. Every act, every piece of writing, every single thing we do is an expression of our control over our universe. Though the nature of that control remains vague and strangled, it exists.
Books, Systems of Government, Architecture, Transporation, and even YouTube. Leaving our footprints on the Earth.
If I believe in the human race, it is a forced belief. A choice, rather than a conviction--because without the belief, decay sets in. And mold sets in, and shivels the peach, and shrinks it into a hard little ball. And the nectarines grey, and the roaches take over the kitchen, and here, here, the devil reigns, where people are only meat. So, yes, yes, I believe in our Better Angels.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Turning the Other Cheek
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
This is why I fall short of calling myself a Christian. That’s a hard rule to follow. ‘Do not resist an evil person.’ That means, should a person attack you, you should be meek. You should take harm rather than give back harm. This results in another bruised cheek. This results in criminals walking the streets, this results in your family getting hurt.
I think this is the make it or break it rule. The dividing line between the ideal Christianity and Christianity in practice. Quite a few people accept the text so far as following the text will help sustain them in the present, physical life. Some will justify their violence using the New Testament.
That’s how Christian people call for assassination or war. Because they are unable to follow the rule, and sometimes justify breaking it as going for the public good. That’s like Michael Corleone going to church. So to me, when a Christian shows or feels ill will toward another, that is about the most serious sign that that Christian lacks an adequate faith.
I know, because when I learned, some time ago, that ill will was the definitive sign of a lack of faith. I find believing in God difficult. If I believed in God, using the heart, I would mind my ill will. Instead, bitterness carried itself to the point that I lost the affection of quite a few acquaintances. I learned that death, loneliness and pain are only feared in the absence of faith. Without faith, family members cry at funerals. Etc.
Yet what Christianity seems to be about the aspiration toward holiness. It accepts sinners. It takes it for granted that practitioners have sinned. Jesus died for sinner. Sin is the major, even definitive, point of the religion. It serves as the foil of how people should act. It serves to show that life should be lived in the service, for the sake, to the goodwill of others so that they can have Heaven on Earth.
I aspire to become a Christian. I aspire to purge my heart of evil. To become a selfless person, or close enough. I am definitely at the stage where when I see that Christianity is used as a justification of ill will, I get pretty pissed.
Imagine a guy with a club shouting: “God loves you, faggot,” and bashing another man in the skull.
It’s something beautiful warped inside out.
—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV
This is why I fall short of calling myself a Christian. That’s a hard rule to follow. ‘Do not resist an evil person.’ That means, should a person attack you, you should be meek. You should take harm rather than give back harm. This results in another bruised cheek. This results in criminals walking the streets, this results in your family getting hurt.
I think this is the make it or break it rule. The dividing line between the ideal Christianity and Christianity in practice. Quite a few people accept the text so far as following the text will help sustain them in the present, physical life. Some will justify their violence using the New Testament.
That’s how Christian people call for assassination or war. Because they are unable to follow the rule, and sometimes justify breaking it as going for the public good. That’s like Michael Corleone going to church. So to me, when a Christian shows or feels ill will toward another, that is about the most serious sign that that Christian lacks an adequate faith.
I know, because when I learned, some time ago, that ill will was the definitive sign of a lack of faith. I find believing in God difficult. If I believed in God, using the heart, I would mind my ill will. Instead, bitterness carried itself to the point that I lost the affection of quite a few acquaintances. I learned that death, loneliness and pain are only feared in the absence of faith. Without faith, family members cry at funerals. Etc.
Yet what Christianity seems to be about the aspiration toward holiness. It accepts sinners. It takes it for granted that practitioners have sinned. Jesus died for sinner. Sin is the major, even definitive, point of the religion. It serves as the foil of how people should act. It serves to show that life should be lived in the service, for the sake, to the goodwill of others so that they can have Heaven on Earth.
I aspire to become a Christian. I aspire to purge my heart of evil. To become a selfless person, or close enough. I am definitely at the stage where when I see that Christianity is used as a justification of ill will, I get pretty pissed.
Imagine a guy with a club shouting: “God loves you, faggot,” and bashing another man in the skull.
It’s something beautiful warped inside out.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Meanspiritedness
People never get in your head. No more of this "I'm in your head shit." This-and-that and mind games. Never mind "I'm a cat and you're the mouse, so run run run."
BS. It's what people do when they want to blow up a situation to be bigger than it is. Drama.
If a person was "in your head" they would understand why you understood the world as you did. They would know something of your history, motivations to a point that they would have sympathy and maybe even empathy for you. None of this "I'm in your head" shit "to knock around your brain." No. If they knew you, they would have mercy for you. If they had to fight you in a boxing match, they would punch with the upmost respect, and only punch because that's their living--to punch and get punched--and you share that living. None of that headbutting, cheating.
So when people come at you in an aggressive, and/or, selfish, and/or antisocial manner, they come at you from what is a detached mental condition. They are distant from your motives, from your history, and this distance can be achieved from either ignorance or aloofness. Actually, a combination of ignorance and aloofness, usually.
Instead of a burglar, people shooting evil juju at you are more like the annoying kids who run up to your door and knock on the door, and hide away. You had happened to be washing dishes, and left the sink on while you opened the door to find no one there.
Then you shut the door, and "no one" knocks again and hides again. And then you open the door again. They are at the side of the house to rap on the window. You check the window. They rap the window on the other side of the house. You check. They knock on the backdoor. You check. They knock on front door. You check.
They knock here. You check. They knock there. You check.
They knock here. They knock there. They knock here. They knock there.
You check. You check. You check.
And now, when you were checking, you're distracted from washing dishes. Instead, running around the house, accidental knocking a chair over, breaking the TV, accidentally knocking over the dishes, hitting the wall frustrated, letting the sink overflow because you're frustrated.
And you caused the damage. The kids didn't break your stuff. The kids may have made noises outside; yet, staying outside the entire time. You broke your stuff. You kept running at their knocking, and forgot to take care of your house.
###
BS. It's what people do when they want to blow up a situation to be bigger than it is. Drama.
If a person was "in your head" they would understand why you understood the world as you did. They would know something of your history, motivations to a point that they would have sympathy and maybe even empathy for you. None of this "I'm in your head" shit "to knock around your brain." No. If they knew you, they would have mercy for you. If they had to fight you in a boxing match, they would punch with the upmost respect, and only punch because that's their living--to punch and get punched--and you share that living. None of that headbutting, cheating.
So when people come at you in an aggressive, and/or, selfish, and/or antisocial manner, they come at you from what is a detached mental condition. They are distant from your motives, from your history, and this distance can be achieved from either ignorance or aloofness. Actually, a combination of ignorance and aloofness, usually.
Instead of a burglar, people shooting evil juju at you are more like the annoying kids who run up to your door and knock on the door, and hide away. You had happened to be washing dishes, and left the sink on while you opened the door to find no one there.
Then you shut the door, and "no one" knocks again and hides again. And then you open the door again. They are at the side of the house to rap on the window. You check the window. They rap the window on the other side of the house. You check. They knock on the backdoor. You check. They knock on front door. You check.
They knock here. You check. They knock there. You check.
They knock here. They knock there. They knock here. They knock there.
You check. You check. You check.
And now, when you were checking, you're distracted from washing dishes. Instead, running around the house, accidental knocking a chair over, breaking the TV, accidentally knocking over the dishes, hitting the wall frustrated, letting the sink overflow because you're frustrated.
And you caused the damage. The kids didn't break your stuff. The kids may have made noises outside; yet, staying outside the entire time. You broke your stuff. You kept running at their knocking, and forgot to take care of your house.
###
Monday, March 31, 2008
Atheism: Faith in God, part 2
A argument states that any sort of theism, at least Christianity, is irrational because of the lack of evidence of a God outside of "the Bible says so." Fair enough.
It is fair to debate the form of God. whether He is a he or a she. Whether He of the nature to be refered to using capitalized pronouns. His form, size, power, limitations, and quintessential nature. Because of his apparent absence from human affairs, it is fair to debate whether he is Jehovah, Allah, Christ, Zeus, or someone else. This is up to debate like the particular color of the skin of certain dinosaurs.
To assume God's form, let alone existence, is irrational. Just as irrational, however, is atheism that assumes God's nonexistence. Or, at least the nonexistence of a force that fills the shoes of God.
*Tangential note: we can assume this force to have a conciousness because we, people, have individual consciousnesses. God needn't set out to produce specific creatures*
Dr. Albert Ellis, I believe, explained his atheism by saying the existence of a God is so improbable as not to be worth anyone's attention. Even if I am quoting him out of context, let's analyze this argument anyway. To assume the probability of the existence of an object requires knowledge of that object. Eg. The probability of a pipe leaking, the probability of a car running out of gas after a certain amount of driving. Now, we can observe the form of a pipe or gas tank. The existence of God presents a different problem. If He exists, we, in general, fail to notice him in any meaningful way.
He cannot be observed as does a pipe or gas tank. In order to consider the probability of His existence, we must narrow down something of His 'Godness.'
To compare, consider the bottle of Mountain Dew I am drinking. Whether the bottle contains urine can probably be proven. Scientists have analyzed the components of urine. If urine was introduced into the Dew during production (say, an unruly employee pees in the mixture of the drink, and the urine gets so deluted that it cannot discolor or make the drink smell or taste bad) we could find it out. Provided, however, I cannot note the urine with my naked senses, I will choose to leave the matter at faith, and continue to drink the drink. The probability is so improbable, I believe, that that it is hardly worth my attention.
Not so with God. For as long as I am uncertain about the nature of God, I should stay away from passionate declarations about the probability of His existence.
A good place to start in considering his existence would be science and related topics. Biology, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy, other subjects, and how these subjects interact. Especially how they interact. Learning more about the world can show us its origins. Perhaps the more interesting discovery ever will be discovering the nature of consciousness. How it works, how and when and why it arrives at birth, how and when and why and where it ends at death. What changes during certain situations. How consciousness differs between individuals, and between species.
Perhaps a better understanding of consciousness will lead to a better understand of God. Without this understanding, then any belief or nonbelief in God remains faith-based.
It is fair to debate the form of God. whether He is a he or a she. Whether He of the nature to be refered to using capitalized pronouns. His form, size, power, limitations, and quintessential nature. Because of his apparent absence from human affairs, it is fair to debate whether he is Jehovah, Allah, Christ, Zeus, or someone else. This is up to debate like the particular color of the skin of certain dinosaurs.
To assume God's form, let alone existence, is irrational. Just as irrational, however, is atheism that assumes God's nonexistence. Or, at least the nonexistence of a force that fills the shoes of God.
*Tangential note: we can assume this force to have a conciousness because we, people, have individual consciousnesses. God needn't set out to produce specific creatures*
Dr. Albert Ellis, I believe, explained his atheism by saying the existence of a God is so improbable as not to be worth anyone's attention. Even if I am quoting him out of context, let's analyze this argument anyway. To assume the probability of the existence of an object requires knowledge of that object. Eg. The probability of a pipe leaking, the probability of a car running out of gas after a certain amount of driving. Now, we can observe the form of a pipe or gas tank. The existence of God presents a different problem. If He exists, we, in general, fail to notice him in any meaningful way.
He cannot be observed as does a pipe or gas tank. In order to consider the probability of His existence, we must narrow down something of His 'Godness.'
To compare, consider the bottle of Mountain Dew I am drinking. Whether the bottle contains urine can probably be proven. Scientists have analyzed the components of urine. If urine was introduced into the Dew during production (say, an unruly employee pees in the mixture of the drink, and the urine gets so deluted that it cannot discolor or make the drink smell or taste bad) we could find it out. Provided, however, I cannot note the urine with my naked senses, I will choose to leave the matter at faith, and continue to drink the drink. The probability is so improbable, I believe, that that it is hardly worth my attention.
Not so with God. For as long as I am uncertain about the nature of God, I should stay away from passionate declarations about the probability of His existence.
A good place to start in considering his existence would be science and related topics. Biology, Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Astronomy, other subjects, and how these subjects interact. Especially how they interact. Learning more about the world can show us its origins. Perhaps the more interesting discovery ever will be discovering the nature of consciousness. How it works, how and when and why it arrives at birth, how and when and why and where it ends at death. What changes during certain situations. How consciousness differs between individuals, and between species.
Perhaps a better understanding of consciousness will lead to a better understand of God. Without this understanding, then any belief or nonbelief in God remains faith-based.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Faith in God
I.
The existence of God remains in doubt. Either he exists or he doesn’t. Or he exists in some of kind of semi-existence, or as a creature birthed by human imagination, like the deities in Neil Gaiman’s novel, American Gods. Or something completely different.
The problem with the human experience of God is God’s immeasurability. Regardless of his status, it seems unlikely with our current level of technology that we can measure him/she/it. We cannot ask Him to stand with his back to the wall so we can measure His height. We cannot place Him on a scale to find His weight. We have failed to trap Him inside a room. We cannot do interact with him in these ways, by virtue of his apparent absence from our ability to sense the world.
The beautiful thing about the idea of God is that it is both apparently improvable and definitely undeniable. Yes, He could present himself to us, provided he is omnipotent and able to appear and disappear at will. Otherwise, we are left with the hearsay of the religious and their religious texts. The religious texts declare that God’s apparent absence is trivial. They would say that he exists, nonetheless, like an extrasolar planet yet to be discovered, or the ruins of Atlantis. People hundreds of years ago may have unappreciated the existence of extrasolar planets, but those planets did exist when our telescopes could only reach as far as Jupiter (or maybe God is playing a trick on us).
God is unlike the color of the sky. People can agree about the color of the sky because it is there. Outside of whether two people share the same mental concept of ‘blue,’ they will agree that the sky is blue.
Not so with God. His absence insures we cannot disprove his existence. The existence of God in an atheistic world is an example of the ultimate assumption because there would be no God at all to assume God’s existence. In an atheistic world, we made Him up. Even here, however, the assumption dies hard. The nonexistent cannot be disproven. We can disprove erroneous theories of gravity. We can disprove erroneous theories of how water interacts with fire. We fail to disprove imaginary objects and beings, however.
Besides, if he existed, he can evade our methods of detection. An eternity can pass, and humanity’s technological sources can rise exponentially, but an omnipotent God, in an Abrahamic context, has more power in His pinky than we ever could as a collective whole. If God has a pinky, anyway. Some say he does. Some say he doesn't. Some say it is sacriledge to suggest he has a physical form. For any one to state this claims, they must choose to believe in something that cannot be proven, or is yet to be proven. Even atheists need to take a leap of faith in order to say that God is nonexistant. But He could very well exist despite His absense.
II.
With or without God, we are limited creatures. Despite advances in technology, we still struggle with abstract concepts, like duty, love, and peace. Without an agreement on the physical embodiment of such concepts, we continue to live half-lives, kill ourselves, kill each other, eat ourselves to obesity, and waste time on illogical acts like Unrequited Love, and video games.
The trick of this "disagreement" goes further than broad socialculturaleconomicreligioushistorical definitions and buries itself in the consciousness of each individual. This explains why a man in a relgious society will murder his children, commit adultery at the risk of death, and why people contradict themselves, why they become hypocrites, saying one thing and doing something that contradicts the spoken word. Big talk of "Christianity, the military-industrial complex, and Hate" fail to pin down why individuals are so different from one another, and subject to behavior that works outside the bounds of accepted ethics. Individuals, rather than societies, must pin down the idea of God. And this is always the case for individuals make up societies, not the other way around. People find God and value systems for themselves.
Though generations have passed, and the dead leave behind books and books and books of information, the information remains useless as long as the young have yet to discover the information. The experiences of a past generation influence the environment of succeeding generations; but the interpretation of that experience and the interpretation of the environment are up to the succeeding generations. The succeeding generations choose a vaue system--let's say, capitalism or communism--and live their version of the value system. Great Britiain's socialist programs are different from Cuba's socialist programs. To look at this from another angle: even though a son takes after his father, the son's life will be unique from the father's. So even though the son may consider himself to have the same value system as the father, his unique experiences will insure that he interprets his value system in a manner different from how the father interprets his value system.
For example: even though different groups of Christians share the same holy book, their worshop of God differs from one another. Catholics practice in a way different from the practice of Baptists. These different groups interpret the Bible in their own way (and don't get me started about the beliefs of individual members...).
More chaos exists for economic systems, because economic systems are based wholly on theory and must be implemented before it can be accepted or critiqued with authority. Therefore, countries tend to revamp the economy and bank system only after serious economic depression. The regulating bodies of the economy were simply ignorant to the fact that a depression would happen. Experience can teach us what certain events bring about, and experience can lead us to have different interpretations of the same event. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center will produce a more emotional effect on a war veteran than a 5-year-old from Kansas. Even among veterans, the opinions will vary. Our experiences, the value systems we grew up with, and the value systems we choose to follow, are our Gods.
And this is a chaotic system, because the value systems are unfixed. They change from person-to-person, moment-to-moment. Even among war veterans, the emotional response to the 9/11 attacks will vary. In a sense, because of this chaos of thought, people live without God. At the very least, God refrains from programming us to operate under uniform and specific values...so it would seem; I could be wrong; God could be causing me to type these letters without my knowledge and/or your knoweldge. I cannot prove that God is doing this, and I cannot disprove that he is. When you get down to it, the absence of God leads to this delicious paradox.
We are left, for all intents and purposes, to fend for ourselves. And because nothing is certain, everything relating the value systems is an act of faith. When we point at the point, and say, "This side is America; this side is Mexico," we are a chain in a link of faith that began with the creation of the world, continued when the nomads from Asia settled in what is now the southern United States, continued when they themselves broke into different groups, continued when the European settlers fought with the "Natives" and kicked the Natives out to form "The United States of America, though the land is only the United States of America to anyone who believes what maps say. The only reason the border is where it is is because of an agreement between the US and Mexican governments. Nothing metaphsical, just arbitrary.
Even the effect of war can be artbitary. Though bullets often play the role of the fearsome LORD, but the truth found in bullets must still be interpreted and misinterpretation begins with an interpretation. So if metaphyiscal truth can be found in a bullet, the truth can confuse the truthseeker despite the clear effect of a bullet fired from a gun.
III.
And so when we look for that truth, we are stuck with our assumptions. Not because we want to, but because we have to. Every act is an act of faith. Our first lesson in faith arrives when we are
babies, and assume our parents continue to exist when they hide behind a blanket.
"Peekaboo! You can't see me!" "Mom? Where are you?" We paused, and looked. "Mom? Mom!
Ahhh!"
And then she lowered the blanket and revealed herself.
"Oh, Mom, there you are."
And then she again covered herself with the blanket.
"Ahhhh!"
Sooner or later, we came to assume Mom's existence, even though she was absent from the room. Our relationship with God is similar, and even more one-sided because while we can find our mother if she is physically present, an omnipotent God can choose to remain hidden despite our best efforts to discover Him. Yes, He plays the most fabulous game of Peekaboo.
Yet, we some of us assume God, even without hard evidence of His existence. We assume this as we assume that other people share our mental concept of the color blue. I wrote the first draft of this essay in a subway train in New York City. Your only evidence of this claim, unless you happened to see me, is this very sentence. I may be lying or otherwise incorrect. I am telling the truth. I can't prove it to you, and therefore, your acceptance or declining of these claims is an act of faith. And faith is an act of resignation to reality due to lack of certainty about that reality. We simply believe. Or don't
The existence of God remains in doubt. Either he exists or he doesn’t. Or he exists in some of kind of semi-existence, or as a creature birthed by human imagination, like the deities in Neil Gaiman’s novel, American Gods. Or something completely different.
The problem with the human experience of God is God’s immeasurability. Regardless of his status, it seems unlikely with our current level of technology that we can measure him/she/it. We cannot ask Him to stand with his back to the wall so we can measure His height. We cannot place Him on a scale to find His weight. We have failed to trap Him inside a room. We cannot do interact with him in these ways, by virtue of his apparent absence from our ability to sense the world.
The beautiful thing about the idea of God is that it is both apparently improvable and definitely undeniable. Yes, He could present himself to us, provided he is omnipotent and able to appear and disappear at will. Otherwise, we are left with the hearsay of the religious and their religious texts. The religious texts declare that God’s apparent absence is trivial. They would say that he exists, nonetheless, like an extrasolar planet yet to be discovered, or the ruins of Atlantis. People hundreds of years ago may have unappreciated the existence of extrasolar planets, but those planets did exist when our telescopes could only reach as far as Jupiter (or maybe God is playing a trick on us).
God is unlike the color of the sky. People can agree about the color of the sky because it is there. Outside of whether two people share the same mental concept of ‘blue,’ they will agree that the sky is blue.
Not so with God. His absence insures we cannot disprove his existence. The existence of God in an atheistic world is an example of the ultimate assumption because there would be no God at all to assume God’s existence. In an atheistic world, we made Him up. Even here, however, the assumption dies hard. The nonexistent cannot be disproven. We can disprove erroneous theories of gravity. We can disprove erroneous theories of how water interacts with fire. We fail to disprove imaginary objects and beings, however.
Besides, if he existed, he can evade our methods of detection. An eternity can pass, and humanity’s technological sources can rise exponentially, but an omnipotent God, in an Abrahamic context, has more power in His pinky than we ever could as a collective whole. If God has a pinky, anyway. Some say he does. Some say he doesn't. Some say it is sacriledge to suggest he has a physical form. For any one to state this claims, they must choose to believe in something that cannot be proven, or is yet to be proven. Even atheists need to take a leap of faith in order to say that God is nonexistant. But He could very well exist despite His absense.
II.
With or without God, we are limited creatures. Despite advances in technology, we still struggle with abstract concepts, like duty, love, and peace. Without an agreement on the physical embodiment of such concepts, we continue to live half-lives, kill ourselves, kill each other, eat ourselves to obesity, and waste time on illogical acts like Unrequited Love, and video games.
The trick of this "disagreement" goes further than broad socialculturaleconomicreligioushistorical definitions and buries itself in the consciousness of each individual. This explains why a man in a relgious society will murder his children, commit adultery at the risk of death, and why people contradict themselves, why they become hypocrites, saying one thing and doing something that contradicts the spoken word. Big talk of "Christianity, the military-industrial complex, and Hate" fail to pin down why individuals are so different from one another, and subject to behavior that works outside the bounds of accepted ethics. Individuals, rather than societies, must pin down the idea of God. And this is always the case for individuals make up societies, not the other way around. People find God and value systems for themselves.
Though generations have passed, and the dead leave behind books and books and books of information, the information remains useless as long as the young have yet to discover the information. The experiences of a past generation influence the environment of succeeding generations; but the interpretation of that experience and the interpretation of the environment are up to the succeeding generations. The succeeding generations choose a vaue system--let's say, capitalism or communism--and live their version of the value system. Great Britiain's socialist programs are different from Cuba's socialist programs. To look at this from another angle: even though a son takes after his father, the son's life will be unique from the father's. So even though the son may consider himself to have the same value system as the father, his unique experiences will insure that he interprets his value system in a manner different from how the father interprets his value system.
For example: even though different groups of Christians share the same holy book, their worshop of God differs from one another. Catholics practice in a way different from the practice of Baptists. These different groups interpret the Bible in their own way (and don't get me started about the beliefs of individual members...).
More chaos exists for economic systems, because economic systems are based wholly on theory and must be implemented before it can be accepted or critiqued with authority. Therefore, countries tend to revamp the economy and bank system only after serious economic depression. The regulating bodies of the economy were simply ignorant to the fact that a depression would happen. Experience can teach us what certain events bring about, and experience can lead us to have different interpretations of the same event. The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center will produce a more emotional effect on a war veteran than a 5-year-old from Kansas. Even among veterans, the opinions will vary. Our experiences, the value systems we grew up with, and the value systems we choose to follow, are our Gods.
And this is a chaotic system, because the value systems are unfixed. They change from person-to-person, moment-to-moment. Even among war veterans, the emotional response to the 9/11 attacks will vary. In a sense, because of this chaos of thought, people live without God. At the very least, God refrains from programming us to operate under uniform and specific values...so it would seem; I could be wrong; God could be causing me to type these letters without my knowledge and/or your knoweldge. I cannot prove that God is doing this, and I cannot disprove that he is. When you get down to it, the absence of God leads to this delicious paradox.
We are left, for all intents and purposes, to fend for ourselves. And because nothing is certain, everything relating the value systems is an act of faith. When we point at the point, and say, "This side is America; this side is Mexico," we are a chain in a link of faith that began with the creation of the world, continued when the nomads from Asia settled in what is now the southern United States, continued when they themselves broke into different groups, continued when the European settlers fought with the "Natives" and kicked the Natives out to form "The United States of America, though the land is only the United States of America to anyone who believes what maps say. The only reason the border is where it is is because of an agreement between the US and Mexican governments. Nothing metaphsical, just arbitrary.
Even the effect of war can be artbitary. Though bullets often play the role of the fearsome LORD, but the truth found in bullets must still be interpreted and misinterpretation begins with an interpretation. So if metaphyiscal truth can be found in a bullet, the truth can confuse the truthseeker despite the clear effect of a bullet fired from a gun.
III.
And so when we look for that truth, we are stuck with our assumptions. Not because we want to, but because we have to. Every act is an act of faith. Our first lesson in faith arrives when we are
babies, and assume our parents continue to exist when they hide behind a blanket.
"Peekaboo! You can't see me!" "Mom? Where are you?" We paused, and looked. "Mom? Mom!
Ahhh!"
And then she lowered the blanket and revealed herself.
"Oh, Mom, there you are."
And then she again covered herself with the blanket.
"Ahhhh!"
Sooner or later, we came to assume Mom's existence, even though she was absent from the room. Our relationship with God is similar, and even more one-sided because while we can find our mother if she is physically present, an omnipotent God can choose to remain hidden despite our best efforts to discover Him. Yes, He plays the most fabulous game of Peekaboo.
Yet, we some of us assume God, even without hard evidence of His existence. We assume this as we assume that other people share our mental concept of the color blue. I wrote the first draft of this essay in a subway train in New York City. Your only evidence of this claim, unless you happened to see me, is this very sentence. I may be lying or otherwise incorrect. I am telling the truth. I can't prove it to you, and therefore, your acceptance or declining of these claims is an act of faith. And faith is an act of resignation to reality due to lack of certainty about that reality. We simply believe. Or don't
Friday, March 14, 2008
Pity
A man on the 1 train asked the people in the car for money. He wore a yellow coat, and jeans and was white and skinny. He spoke in a monotone, almost computer-like voice, and paced the car abd with a script that came out so easily, so quickly, it must have been practiced. He must have been doing this all day.
"I'm going to be upfront with you," he said, and told us, the other people in the car and myself, that he had just gotten out of jail, and his family wouldn't let him live in their house. He has been staying at a shelter, which he gave the address to, where others had beat him up. He didn't want to return, and needed money for a better place to stay, which cost $15 a night (he gave the address to this too). Monday, he will get his old job back. He gave a lot of detail for a panhandler telling a story (he said he wasn't a panhandler, drug dealing, etc). Two white people across the aisle from me, dug into their pockets in the middle of his speech, and gave him wads of cash. Others on my left, and I am sure others throughout the train, gave him money too. I refrained from staring or making a show of staring.
Most panhandlers I have seen in NYC are black, and I wonder if the apparent, relative success of this guy was due either to the fact it is the beginning of the spring break tourist season, when people have more spare change, or his skin color, or both, or both other elements. The skin color element would have to be tested, and also the financial situation of the donators must be considered. A single mother working as a nurse would probably give less than a real estate salesman on vacation since the salesman will probably have more money. The nurse had herself and her children to think of if she feels inclined to give money to panhandlers and buskers. When people give money, they lose money, and the choice to give or take must be considered under this light.
Should a white panhandler get more money than a black panhandler on any given attempt for money, other elements besides skin color could play a factor. The delivery of the pandhandlers' requests for money could play a factor, if the white guy gave a better delivery than the black guy. His method of dress, the believability of his story. The white man I saw today had a slightly more detailed story than most panhandlers I've come across from. His included his work status, specific dates, cash amount he needed, and why he was homeless. Other panhandlers give a brief overview of their lives, but detail always help get people to understand where the storyteller is coming from. Many simply say that they have a terminal illness, that they have kids they need to feed. But leave it at that. They don't even say how
many kids they have. The man in the yellow jacket spoke the best script of them all.
A woman panhandler who frequents the Flushing, Queens area sits Indian-style and holds a sign saying she has children, and needs help feeding them. She is white (Flushing is an Asian neighborhood) and always slumps down, looking at the ground, and I've never heard her speak or seen her lips move whenever I pass her. My first impression of her and my plain idea of her is that she is a victim. By victim, I mean she is dependant on others fo survival when she very well could take care of herself but for some reason like laziness or mental barriers, she has trouble making ends meet. This is a one-way street in regard to give and take of resources. Of course, her life is bigger than days sitting on a sidewalk, holding a sign. I am ignorant of her childhood, the pain she might have gone through,, her strengths, and what she is working to get autonomy over her life, so she can better provide for her children.
She may be unemployed, or employed. She may take more from her kids than she gives. I am unsure. I only know that I am inclined to see her as weak. That is how her posture and script are designed. The same goes for the man in the yellow jacket. They both bring to mind images of those who need to be protected. They bring to mind the desire to support children and help the needy.
Across time and cultures, protecting the week had been an action looked upon a duty. What I wonder, though, is if the desire to help is based on actually caring for others, or the tinge of pity, or other self-serving motives, like using a donation to a charity as a tax write-off. I consider actual caring to be different from pity because pity is only a motivator to help others. Without pity, a person may keep their money in the prescence of a panhandler. Pity does not exist when the needy are not present. So as long as the needy are elsewhere, donators will fail to give to them because they (the donators) don't feel like they do.
Say we come across a starving child. Malnurished, suffering from Kwashiorkor, a condition where the child has too little protein in the system and has a swollen abdomen, though suffering from starvation. We will probably buy a Happy Meal for the kid, and call the police so that authorities can place the child with those who can provide for it. If we had the money, we may even offer to adopt it ourselves. Now, this is hypothetical.
We do all this because the child is present. Now, the starving children miles away--we know of their existance, but care little because they are not present. We need to be reminded by commercials on TV asking for 95 cents a daily. Upon viewing these commercials, we are struck by pity. And pity hurts. Without pity, a person will keep their money. Givers only give because their themselves hurt, and not so the needy give comfort. If we truly cared about starving African children, instead of spending money on going to the movies, we would use that money on the kids. Instead of overeating, we would give the extra food to the poor. Instead, people need to be stung by pity before they give money and food, so that the pity will go away, not our of any sincere care for the impoverished.
Now, a person who feels pity may be sincere in caring. It is just that for a strong feeling of empathy to occur, a person must consider how bad the other person feels. Without a consideration of the feelings of others, the action of giving is only done for the giver's sake--to reduce pity--though the panhandler reaps the physical benefits of giving.
"I'm going to be upfront with you," he said, and told us, the other people in the car and myself, that he had just gotten out of jail, and his family wouldn't let him live in their house. He has been staying at a shelter, which he gave the address to, where others had beat him up. He didn't want to return, and needed money for a better place to stay, which cost $15 a night (he gave the address to this too). Monday, he will get his old job back. He gave a lot of detail for a panhandler telling a story (he said he wasn't a panhandler, drug dealing, etc). Two white people across the aisle from me, dug into their pockets in the middle of his speech, and gave him wads of cash. Others on my left, and I am sure others throughout the train, gave him money too. I refrained from staring or making a show of staring.
Most panhandlers I have seen in NYC are black, and I wonder if the apparent, relative success of this guy was due either to the fact it is the beginning of the spring break tourist season, when people have more spare change, or his skin color, or both, or both other elements. The skin color element would have to be tested, and also the financial situation of the donators must be considered. A single mother working as a nurse would probably give less than a real estate salesman on vacation since the salesman will probably have more money. The nurse had herself and her children to think of if she feels inclined to give money to panhandlers and buskers. When people give money, they lose money, and the choice to give or take must be considered under this light.
Should a white panhandler get more money than a black panhandler on any given attempt for money, other elements besides skin color could play a factor. The delivery of the pandhandlers' requests for money could play a factor, if the white guy gave a better delivery than the black guy. His method of dress, the believability of his story. The white man I saw today had a slightly more detailed story than most panhandlers I've come across from. His included his work status, specific dates, cash amount he needed, and why he was homeless. Other panhandlers give a brief overview of their lives, but detail always help get people to understand where the storyteller is coming from. Many simply say that they have a terminal illness, that they have kids they need to feed. But leave it at that. They don't even say how
many kids they have. The man in the yellow jacket spoke the best script of them all.
A woman panhandler who frequents the Flushing, Queens area sits Indian-style and holds a sign saying she has children, and needs help feeding them. She is white (Flushing is an Asian neighborhood) and always slumps down, looking at the ground, and I've never heard her speak or seen her lips move whenever I pass her. My first impression of her and my plain idea of her is that she is a victim. By victim, I mean she is dependant on others fo survival when she very well could take care of herself but for some reason like laziness or mental barriers, she has trouble making ends meet. This is a one-way street in regard to give and take of resources. Of course, her life is bigger than days sitting on a sidewalk, holding a sign. I am ignorant of her childhood, the pain she might have gone through,, her strengths, and what she is working to get autonomy over her life, so she can better provide for her children.
She may be unemployed, or employed. She may take more from her kids than she gives. I am unsure. I only know that I am inclined to see her as weak. That is how her posture and script are designed. The same goes for the man in the yellow jacket. They both bring to mind images of those who need to be protected. They bring to mind the desire to support children and help the needy.
Across time and cultures, protecting the week had been an action looked upon a duty. What I wonder, though, is if the desire to help is based on actually caring for others, or the tinge of pity, or other self-serving motives, like using a donation to a charity as a tax write-off. I consider actual caring to be different from pity because pity is only a motivator to help others. Without pity, a person may keep their money in the prescence of a panhandler. Pity does not exist when the needy are not present. So as long as the needy are elsewhere, donators will fail to give to them because they (the donators) don't feel like they do.
Say we come across a starving child. Malnurished, suffering from Kwashiorkor, a condition where the child has too little protein in the system and has a swollen abdomen, though suffering from starvation. We will probably buy a Happy Meal for the kid, and call the police so that authorities can place the child with those who can provide for it. If we had the money, we may even offer to adopt it ourselves. Now, this is hypothetical.
We do all this because the child is present. Now, the starving children miles away--we know of their existance, but care little because they are not present. We need to be reminded by commercials on TV asking for 95 cents a daily. Upon viewing these commercials, we are struck by pity. And pity hurts. Without pity, a person will keep their money. Givers only give because their themselves hurt, and not so the needy give comfort. If we truly cared about starving African children, instead of spending money on going to the movies, we would use that money on the kids. Instead of overeating, we would give the extra food to the poor. Instead, people need to be stung by pity before they give money and food, so that the pity will go away, not our of any sincere care for the impoverished.
Now, a person who feels pity may be sincere in caring. It is just that for a strong feeling of empathy to occur, a person must consider how bad the other person feels. Without a consideration of the feelings of others, the action of giving is only done for the giver's sake--to reduce pity--though the panhandler reaps the physical benefits of giving.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Lots of questions.
In any case, even if the universe had a beginning (from a big bang, or a creator God), there is still the question of what happened before creation. And the question of what will happen in the future--as in, what is the end of time? What is the nature of infinity?
Even if the universe, aa Hindis put it, repeats itself, there is still the question of how and when that repetition began, or at least the nature of infinity.
All matter in the universe could become nonexistant. And light and energy would dissapate 100%. But what would be left? Nothing. But what is nothing? It is the absense of matter and energy and anything else of substance. But am I assuming that substance and things of being have to be subject to observation in order to truly exist?
Time could go on. Forever. But what's at the end of eternity? How can time stretch out backwards and forwards? We can comprehend the nature of a regular rubber band, or a regular line, with beginning and end. But what about a line that stretches out forever in both directions? Is this even really possible? Is our experience or capatity to comprehend this too limited to answer this question?
And Physicists out there who can help with this?
God? You out there?
:(
I think it's time to increase my reading load in physics.
Even if the universe, aa Hindis put it, repeats itself, there is still the question of how and when that repetition began, or at least the nature of infinity.
All matter in the universe could become nonexistant. And light and energy would dissapate 100%. But what would be left? Nothing. But what is nothing? It is the absense of matter and energy and anything else of substance. But am I assuming that substance and things of being have to be subject to observation in order to truly exist?
Time could go on. Forever. But what's at the end of eternity? How can time stretch out backwards and forwards? We can comprehend the nature of a regular rubber band, or a regular line, with beginning and end. But what about a line that stretches out forever in both directions? Is this even really possible? Is our experience or capatity to comprehend this too limited to answer this question?
And Physicists out there who can help with this?
God? You out there?
:(
I think it's time to increase my reading load in physics.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
On Spitzer (aka Client 9)
People are fueled by passion and guided by logic. And sometimes a match ignites the fuel and obliterates the logic.
Governor Spitzer put his marriage and career in danger. For sex. Apparently, he's purchased the company of ladies several times. It makes little since that he would do this, since he has been a top figure in NYS politics for about a decade, but, well, he did. So why?
He might be a sex freak. Now, it seems that this is a weak argument. It makes little sense for a man in his position, no matter how horny he is, to risk things on illicit sex.
There is no logic involved. An experienced politician who graduated from Harvard Law-- my dream school <3 --with a reputation from cracking down on corruption. Seems to be a man guided by logic and wisdom.
However, the most important experience a person can have is in dealing with their passions. Gov. Spitzer seems to be a very smart man, but possibly has little experience in dealing with his secret passions, or at least having to deal with his in such a way that he has to deny himself certain activities. He allowed his passion guide his logic. That was his choice, I must clarify. No "heat of the passion" argument. He decided to dwell on those passions and chose to put gratification ahead of duty--that's my speculative argument. And that's how people work, and Gov. Spitzer is a human being. Quite simply human, and he had to learn a human lesson at the worst possible time.
So, oh well. He's screwed. Time to move on. Even if he wants to still be Gov, he should resign, because he will be dealing with too much drama to do his job as well as he could. Let's see how Paterson does.
PS. By the way, his short speech in response to every is full of BS. It was cute, and written in with an eye toward his duty as public servant, but his actions say that his duty is not always going to be the first thing on his mind.
Governor Spitzer put his marriage and career in danger. For sex. Apparently, he's purchased the company of ladies several times. It makes little since that he would do this, since he has been a top figure in NYS politics for about a decade, but, well, he did. So why?
He might be a sex freak. Now, it seems that this is a weak argument. It makes little sense for a man in his position, no matter how horny he is, to risk things on illicit sex.
There is no logic involved. An experienced politician who graduated from Harvard Law-- my dream school <3 --with a reputation from cracking down on corruption. Seems to be a man guided by logic and wisdom.
However, the most important experience a person can have is in dealing with their passions. Gov. Spitzer seems to be a very smart man, but possibly has little experience in dealing with his secret passions, or at least having to deal with his in such a way that he has to deny himself certain activities. He allowed his passion guide his logic. That was his choice, I must clarify. No "heat of the passion" argument. He decided to dwell on those passions and chose to put gratification ahead of duty--that's my speculative argument. And that's how people work, and Gov. Spitzer is a human being. Quite simply human, and he had to learn a human lesson at the worst possible time.
So, oh well. He's screwed. Time to move on. Even if he wants to still be Gov, he should resign, because he will be dealing with too much drama to do his job as well as he could. Let's see how Paterson does.
PS. By the way, his short speech in response to every is full of BS. It was cute, and written in with an eye toward his duty as public servant, but his actions say that his duty is not always going to be the first thing on his mind.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Resolved: The Health Effects of Smoking are Outweighed by How Cool They Make You Look
Written September 2007
Smoking doesn’t make you look cool. It makes you look like a wimp.
I remember in high school, when I was walking home from the bus, I’d pass the Chick Fil’A, and the K Mart, and see the employees on their breaks, They were smoking. They huddled together, bent over, and, by the way they pursed their lips, they resembled little mice nibbling on lunch.
Little fucking mice.
Smoking is equivalent to thumb-sucking. It’s nibbling on a paper, ashy stick. When a person smokes, he lets everybody know how nervous and agitated he is. You never see any body smoke when they were already comfortable, only when they need some sort of comfort.
Now, some of you may bring up famous smokers.
Such as journalist Oriana Fallaci, prime-minister Winston Churchill, actress Audrey Hepburn, writer Oscar Wilde, and everybody’s favorite body-builder-turned-actor-turned-governor: Arnold Swartzennegger. These are very, cool, talented people who have been seem smoking many times. It seems, from those instances of them smoking, that the act can be considered cool.
But it isn’t smoking that made those people cool. Those people were already cool. They already made great accomplishments.
Cool people—truly awesome people—do what they have to do when they have to do it. They make eye contact. They have goals, and attempt to fulfill those goals despite opposition. When faced with opposition, cool people grab their balls, and say, "bring it, fuckers."
So when cool people are seen smoking, observers begin to see smoking as cool. And that was where the association began, the situation that created the myth.
Smoking doesn’t make you look cool. It makes you look like a wimp.
I remember in high school, when I was walking home from the bus, I’d pass the Chick Fil’A, and the K Mart, and see the employees on their breaks, They were smoking. They huddled together, bent over, and, by the way they pursed their lips, they resembled little mice nibbling on lunch.
Little fucking mice.
Smoking is equivalent to thumb-sucking. It’s nibbling on a paper, ashy stick. When a person smokes, he lets everybody know how nervous and agitated he is. You never see any body smoke when they were already comfortable, only when they need some sort of comfort.
Now, some of you may bring up famous smokers.
Such as journalist Oriana Fallaci, prime-minister Winston Churchill, actress Audrey Hepburn, writer Oscar Wilde, and everybody’s favorite body-builder-turned-actor-turned-governor: Arnold Swartzennegger. These are very, cool, talented people who have been seem smoking many times. It seems, from those instances of them smoking, that the act can be considered cool.
But it isn’t smoking that made those people cool. Those people were already cool. They already made great accomplishments.
Cool people—truly awesome people—do what they have to do when they have to do it. They make eye contact. They have goals, and attempt to fulfill those goals despite opposition. When faced with opposition, cool people grab their balls, and say, "bring it, fuckers."
So when cool people are seen smoking, observers begin to see smoking as cool. And that was where the association began, the situation that created the myth.
Resolved: As the total population of human beings grow, the value of an individual life falls.
Written October, 2007; Never ever read aloud to an audience
I’m speaking against this resolution, and I’ll attack it from different philosophical aspects.
First, the religious aspect. Many world religions reject the idea of the murder or death of any creature. The Roman Catholic Church itself prohibits the use of contraceptives for this reason. Even semen is considered sacred.
Now, in regard to population, the Bible says something about this. Cain slew Abel at a time when there were very few people on planet earth. This illustrates that one human may see another as being unworthy of life, regardless of the low population of their group. Of course, God disagrees with Cain, and punishes him. Therefore, we must acknowledge that in figuring this resolution out, we must take an objective, not subjective route. This is because a subjective POV is subject to opinion rather than fact.
So, what if the world is inherently meaningless? What if we merely exist in a world without God? Consider that, even if you disagree. In this case, there is no God to set the value of human life. So, now, I set out to define to value of a human life in an atheistic context.
Imagine that I’m 5 years old. Yeah high, big dimples, curly hair. And I’m playing with a bouncy ball on the sidewalk. And I fumble the bouncy ball, and the ball bounces onto the street, and I run after it. And a truck hits me. (Mime this, fall)
So, I’m dead. Or I died long ago. In any case, I wouldn’t matter to you people because you never met me.
But despite this, my life would still have value. It would still affect yours; or, at least, its lack of affect would affect you. Ladies and gentlemen, every resolution in this stump speech hat was written by me. When you go up here tonight, every word you say has been influenced by me. If I were dead, you wouldn’t be doing this stump speech night. My life has had an affect on the world, and it has had an affect on you.
If I were dead, obviously, somebody else would be speaking here tonight. Maybe (name people in the audience) Mr. K---, Ms. D----, Ms. C-----, Mr. Ed. You’d be doing something differently right now if it weren’t for me. Likewise, if our roles were reversed, I’d be doing something differently if it weren’t for you.
And even if we believe that our actions we have no meaning, they do have meaning. Our lives have meaning by virtue of our existence.
(turn to Dr. F-------) Dr. F-------, didn’t you and Ms. S---- used to date? And wouldn’t you say that both of you enriched each other’s lives for the better?
(Wait for reply. Kiss Dr. F------- on the forehead.)
Doctor, your life has meaning, as a cab driver’s live has meaning, as a politician’s live has meaning, as a baby’s life has meaning. And I thank you for existing, and I thank you for affect, influence my life, and I thank you all.
Thank you.
I’m speaking against this resolution, and I’ll attack it from different philosophical aspects.
First, the religious aspect. Many world religions reject the idea of the murder or death of any creature. The Roman Catholic Church itself prohibits the use of contraceptives for this reason. Even semen is considered sacred.
Now, in regard to population, the Bible says something about this. Cain slew Abel at a time when there were very few people on planet earth. This illustrates that one human may see another as being unworthy of life, regardless of the low population of their group. Of course, God disagrees with Cain, and punishes him. Therefore, we must acknowledge that in figuring this resolution out, we must take an objective, not subjective route. This is because a subjective POV is subject to opinion rather than fact.
So, what if the world is inherently meaningless? What if we merely exist in a world without God? Consider that, even if you disagree. In this case, there is no God to set the value of human life. So, now, I set out to define to value of a human life in an atheistic context.
Imagine that I’m 5 years old. Yeah high, big dimples, curly hair. And I’m playing with a bouncy ball on the sidewalk. And I fumble the bouncy ball, and the ball bounces onto the street, and I run after it. And a truck hits me. (Mime this, fall)
So, I’m dead. Or I died long ago. In any case, I wouldn’t matter to you people because you never met me.
But despite this, my life would still have value. It would still affect yours; or, at least, its lack of affect would affect you. Ladies and gentlemen, every resolution in this stump speech hat was written by me. When you go up here tonight, every word you say has been influenced by me. If I were dead, you wouldn’t be doing this stump speech night. My life has had an affect on the world, and it has had an affect on you.
If I were dead, obviously, somebody else would be speaking here tonight. Maybe (name people in the audience) Mr. K---, Ms. D----, Ms. C-----, Mr. Ed. You’d be doing something differently right now if it weren’t for me. Likewise, if our roles were reversed, I’d be doing something differently if it weren’t for you.
And even if we believe that our actions we have no meaning, they do have meaning. Our lives have meaning by virtue of our existence.
(turn to Dr. F-------) Dr. F-------, didn’t you and Ms. S---- used to date? And wouldn’t you say that both of you enriched each other’s lives for the better?
(Wait for reply. Kiss Dr. F------- on the forehead.)
Doctor, your life has meaning, as a cab driver’s live has meaning, as a politician’s live has meaning, as a baby’s life has meaning. And I thank you for existing, and I thank you for affect, influence my life, and I thank you all.
Thank you.
Resolved: Organized Sports are More Dangerous Than Organized Religion
Written December 2006
Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.
On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.
Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.
But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.
You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.
And he’s a convicted rapist.
You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.
You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.
Beer, beer, beer, beer,
And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems
The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying
"TAZER"
"TAZER""TAZER"
Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.
So let me review.
You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.
You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.
You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.
And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."
Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.
On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.
Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.
But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.
You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.
And he’s a convicted rapist.
You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.
You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.
Beer, beer, beer, beer,
And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems
The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying
"TAZER"
"TAZER""TAZER"
Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.
So let me review.
You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.
You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.
You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.
And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Nine Statements
1) Plain logic is difficult, if not impossible, to separate from emotion; as emotion is difficult to separate from logic. They guide each other. Imagine men made of silly putty in a wrestling match. They grab each other and alter the shape of the other one. In the same way, emotions and logic (ie, explicit thoughts) guide each other. (I owe much to the late Albert Ellis for the foundation to this idea. In fact, this has been more of my interpretation of his REBT.)
2) If a person has been taught that roaches are full of disease--potentially dangerous--then he may be setting himself up for fear of roaches. And if he does feel this fear at the sight or memory of a roach, he will reinforce the negative view of roaches. However, another person, with a neutral logic about roaches, will probably have less fear and disgust. He may be fine with having a roach crawl on their arm.
3) People talk about "Crimes of Passion," or impulsive actions with negative consequences--How their actions are immediately guided by intense, sudden passion to do things that wouldn't be done in a less distraught state. I'd like to alter this statement. Though emotions may fuel actions, preexisting logic permits those actions. (Logic influences emotion in the same manner.) This is why two different people--in the same stimulating reaction--will commit different responses. Why one person will find a particular incident neutral, and another may find that same incident to be excessively negative. If a person perceives people to be generally selfish and evil, then he or she may be inclined to distrust people, because of their faults, and less likely to be open toward them for said faults--he may feel that the faults are of humanity's bad nature.
4) In the end, with this logic of humanity's worthlessness embedded in his head, the person may be inclined to observe proof to sustain that logic. He will be sensitive to negative events, however small. He will be crushed by the mildest, kindest rejections; he will sneer at the most neutral of snubs; he will read hostility in voices of little affection. Unless he catches himself to alter his thinking process, those negative thoughts become habit. His depressing view of humanity and himself will continue unless he does what he can to stop it. Like all habits, bad thinking must be stopped in the process, or it will continue. The problem is that limited, negative thinking often appears benign. They are mistaken for 'realism.' They become a big problem when SO MANY negative thoughts build up over time. This is the danger of sustained negative thinking.
5) With such a sweeping condemnation of humanity sustained, this kind of person will consider himself evil, even when he has NOT done evil things. In any case, he is painfully aware of his faults and limitations (ie. too many pimples; lack of uncertainty about how life will turn out; etc). He might find himself exaggerating these faults. After enough time, he will convince himself fully of these thoughts, regardless of how other people see him. At this point, he will be more likely to commit inappropriate acts, because he is convinced of his worthlessness. The first step toward self-destructive evil, then, is the sustained feeling of worthlessness. The destructiveness is ready to be initiated once hopelessness sets in.
6) I would like to take a moment say: avoid labels. If you wanted a God's-eye-view of people, then you need to be able to view both their actions and their thoughts. Unfortunately, we can only view their actions within the lens of our thoughts. Our thinking is limited in that we can only observe others, not read their minds. Because we not Professor X, we are in danger of negatively interpreting benign actions. So many misinterpretations can take their toll on us. Therefore, we may do better to only view actions for what they are (must view them only as best as we can), then handle our own business. We must, as Kevin Costner once said in a (shitty) movie, "Be present." We're better off focusing on our immediate environment. We will jump the hurdles when we get to them. If we return to past events, and even interpret new events in the lens of those past events, then a negative past will upset our present. If we focus on an imaginary future, then we can upset our present. In ruminating, we are in danger of limiting our current potential. What's done is done. So, don't let what happened in Arkansas fuck you up in Alabama. This goes for witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.
7) The only thing alcohol does is remove feelings of inhibition. It removes fear. Everything else (besides reaction time and balance) are sustained. When a drunk tells you that he loves you, "I LOVE YOU GUYS," then he really fucking loves you guys. Consider Mel Gibson. No way in hell he is NOT anti-semetic, in some way. Those are the thoughts he thinks, if he said them when drunk...and to a cop. He was definitely thinking them when was drunk. God knows if he's been thinking the word "sugartits" every time he sees a good-looking woman. Beer allows people to confidently do things they'd only confidently do when drunk, or after a change in overall point-of-view. Sometimes, only two kinds of people can be trusted to always tell the truth: drunks; and confident, (sober) honest people. They usually say what they mean. For bad and good. And bad. And good. (PS. The only time I've ever been drunk, I was in a FANTASTIC mood. "I love you guys.")
8) Love is a key to living well; and loving sucks. By love, I mean mutual unconditional respect towards people. By love, I mean 'turn the other cheek.' By love, I mean 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' And love sucks because even if one person loves another, the person being loved might show disrespect. Turning the other cheek results in two bruised cheeks. Also, it's hardest and most unpleasant for a person to love when he doesn't believe that others can love. He fears people; he fears the attempt to love. When the belief and fear are sustained, he finds himself loving less. In this state, he feels safer to be aggressive, rather than wait for things to happen. He feels safer hurting others, rather than to wait for hurt.
9) Another key to living well is attempting to keep steady. "Don't let what happened in Arkansas fuck you up in Alabama." The past can be messy, messy motherfucker. For people to live more happily, we must attempt to avoid getting shackled by the past. I'm sorry to say that the most trite cliches are the most true. We just got to worry about what what's in front of us. Be present. Now, the world doesn't have to be perfect, but we can certainly avoid unnecessary harm. And if we run into unnecessary harm? Oh, well. Sometimes the biggest roadblock to a perfect world is the fear of never reaching it.
2) If a person has been taught that roaches are full of disease--potentially dangerous--then he may be setting himself up for fear of roaches. And if he does feel this fear at the sight or memory of a roach, he will reinforce the negative view of roaches. However, another person, with a neutral logic about roaches, will probably have less fear and disgust. He may be fine with having a roach crawl on their arm.
3) People talk about "Crimes of Passion," or impulsive actions with negative consequences--How their actions are immediately guided by intense, sudden passion to do things that wouldn't be done in a less distraught state. I'd like to alter this statement. Though emotions may fuel actions, preexisting logic permits those actions. (Logic influences emotion in the same manner.) This is why two different people--in the same stimulating reaction--will commit different responses. Why one person will find a particular incident neutral, and another may find that same incident to be excessively negative. If a person perceives people to be generally selfish and evil, then he or she may be inclined to distrust people, because of their faults, and less likely to be open toward them for said faults--he may feel that the faults are of humanity's bad nature.
4) In the end, with this logic of humanity's worthlessness embedded in his head, the person may be inclined to observe proof to sustain that logic. He will be sensitive to negative events, however small. He will be crushed by the mildest, kindest rejections; he will sneer at the most neutral of snubs; he will read hostility in voices of little affection. Unless he catches himself to alter his thinking process, those negative thoughts become habit. His depressing view of humanity and himself will continue unless he does what he can to stop it. Like all habits, bad thinking must be stopped in the process, or it will continue. The problem is that limited, negative thinking often appears benign. They are mistaken for 'realism.' They become a big problem when SO MANY negative thoughts build up over time. This is the danger of sustained negative thinking.
5) With such a sweeping condemnation of humanity sustained, this kind of person will consider himself evil, even when he has NOT done evil things. In any case, he is painfully aware of his faults and limitations (ie. too many pimples; lack of uncertainty about how life will turn out; etc). He might find himself exaggerating these faults. After enough time, he will convince himself fully of these thoughts, regardless of how other people see him. At this point, he will be more likely to commit inappropriate acts, because he is convinced of his worthlessness. The first step toward self-destructive evil, then, is the sustained feeling of worthlessness. The destructiveness is ready to be initiated once hopelessness sets in.
6) I would like to take a moment say: avoid labels. If you wanted a God's-eye-view of people, then you need to be able to view both their actions and their thoughts. Unfortunately, we can only view their actions within the lens of our thoughts. Our thinking is limited in that we can only observe others, not read their minds. Because we not Professor X, we are in danger of negatively interpreting benign actions. So many misinterpretations can take their toll on us. Therefore, we may do better to only view actions for what they are (must view them only as best as we can), then handle our own business. We must, as Kevin Costner once said in a (shitty) movie, "Be present." We're better off focusing on our immediate environment. We will jump the hurdles when we get to them. If we return to past events, and even interpret new events in the lens of those past events, then a negative past will upset our present. If we focus on an imaginary future, then we can upset our present. In ruminating, we are in danger of limiting our current potential. What's done is done. So, don't let what happened in Arkansas fuck you up in Alabama. This goes for witnesses, plaintiffs, and defendants.
7) The only thing alcohol does is remove feelings of inhibition. It removes fear. Everything else (besides reaction time and balance) are sustained. When a drunk tells you that he loves you, "I LOVE YOU GUYS," then he really fucking loves you guys. Consider Mel Gibson. No way in hell he is NOT anti-semetic, in some way. Those are the thoughts he thinks, if he said them when drunk...and to a cop. He was definitely thinking them when was drunk. God knows if he's been thinking the word "sugartits" every time he sees a good-looking woman. Beer allows people to confidently do things they'd only confidently do when drunk, or after a change in overall point-of-view. Sometimes, only two kinds of people can be trusted to always tell the truth: drunks; and confident, (sober) honest people. They usually say what they mean. For bad and good. And bad. And good. (PS. The only time I've ever been drunk, I was in a FANTASTIC mood. "I love you guys.")
8) Love is a key to living well; and loving sucks. By love, I mean mutual unconditional respect towards people. By love, I mean 'turn the other cheek.' By love, I mean 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' And love sucks because even if one person loves another, the person being loved might show disrespect. Turning the other cheek results in two bruised cheeks. Also, it's hardest and most unpleasant for a person to love when he doesn't believe that others can love. He fears people; he fears the attempt to love. When the belief and fear are sustained, he finds himself loving less. In this state, he feels safer to be aggressive, rather than wait for things to happen. He feels safer hurting others, rather than to wait for hurt.
9) Another key to living well is attempting to keep steady. "Don't let what happened in Arkansas fuck you up in Alabama." The past can be messy, messy motherfucker. For people to live more happily, we must attempt to avoid getting shackled by the past. I'm sorry to say that the most trite cliches are the most true. We just got to worry about what what's in front of us. Be present. Now, the world doesn't have to be perfect, but we can certainly avoid unnecessary harm. And if we run into unnecessary harm? Oh, well. Sometimes the biggest roadblock to a perfect world is the fear of never reaching it.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
A quote
"One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs, and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine."
- The Doctor, Doctor Who
- The Doctor, Doctor Who
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)