Flushing, Queens, like the rest of the city, covered in black spots that used to be gum, chewed, chewed, chewed, chewed, chewed, chewed, and spit onto the sidewalk and dried up from pink to black. Flushing comprises about the center, north portion of Queens, pretty close the La Guardia Airport, and often you will see airplanes hovering close, close enough to remind you of terrorist attacks, debris, and buildings collapsing due to structural damage.
It is what the rest of New York purports to be, with its racially diverse area. Hispanics, Asians, and an assortment of brown people from eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the region around India. In a Walgreens, you will see a woman in a head-to-toe black burqa, a slit revealing only her eyes, pushing a cart, children accompanying her. I hold back from constructing jokes.
Men in their cylinder white caps.
Hispanics. The freaking high schoolers playing wiffleball in the middle of a street occupied on both sides by parked cars. Once, a car almost ran over their ball.
(Microsoft Works Word Processor fails to register ‘wiffleball’ or ‘whiffleball’ as real words)
Lots and lots of Asians, recent immigrants, and you will know their territory by the language of the billboards, and storefronts. You will also know by how 99% of the sidewalk is Asian. They own Main Street.
A KKK member’s worst nightmare.
Very few white people. Black people, here and there.
There is one man. Wiry, about my height, age 50ish, yet to become plagued by grey hairs. You will often see him somewhere near the Main Street Station for the 7 train, or down Kissena avenue. He wears sunglasses, even at 10 o’clock in the evening, as he sits in a door step for a pet shop. Walks with a stylish cane, walks in this wiggly strut I find my writing too poor to convey. His fingerless black gloves. Imagine the very best and worst of 80s fashion, with jackets rolled up past the elbow. In red one day, black the next, then white, then violet. He often sits on the bench by the escalators leading out of the subway station.
(In other news, Cold Case is a show with badly written dialogue. “Rabble-rouser!”)
You will know Flushing by the Library, shiny, gray, massive, and half encased by glass. They will not be throwing stones from there any time soon.
You will know Flushing by the appearance of cards in a patriotic blue promoting Peter Koo for state Senate.
You will also know Flushing by the fact that it shares a name with the only action that a toilet does.
By the way, it’s such a shame that toilet businessman Thomas Crapper had to be remembered the way he was.
We haven’t had a president who sported facial hair since Taft.
---
Random status lines.
Alberto Luperon…
…is running for the presidency of your heart.
…is unconstitutional.
…likes polluting your news feed.
…feels like orange juice. As in he would like to drink some.
…feels like steak. As in he feels seasoned, cooked on a stove top, and eaten with a fork and knife.
…is for interracial couplings, because without them, he wouldn’t exist.
…thinks Stephen Colbert is a national treasure.
…just found out Colbert’s middle name is Tyrone.
…thinks Tyrone is just about the best name to give your kid.
…is dangerously self-important.
…is is is is is is is is is is is is…
…is pretty sure 2000 feels like a long time ago.
Showing posts with label humanity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label humanity. Show all posts
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
General: Laws of War Cause Lame Wars
SARAJEVO, Bosnia and Herzegovina--During a speech to students at the University of Sarajevo, General Slobodan Douchebagovich called the Geneva and Hague Conventions anti-peace documents in that the six treaties, substantial parts of the laws of war, limit effective military operations, and cause prolonged wars.
“What do we need rights in war for?” the Serbian general said. “We must be nice to adversary? ‘Here is pillow and lemonade. Now I shoot you.’”
Douchebagovich had been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, but the case was dropped due to several technicalities. He worried little about the movement to once again prosecute him, and, besides, he continues to look back fondly to his service at Srebrenica, where he and his men played soccer using infants as balls.
“Muslim babies are resilient people.”
He is the founder of GAW, Generals for Awesome Wars. The preamble to their constitution states that war law should be considered void because few organizations and governments only follow the treaties when convenient, besides Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
“Pussies,” Douchebagovich said about the humanitarian institutions. He and his organization advocate the development of Assertive Acquisition From Civilians Of Supplies To Be Used By Military Personnel (AAFCOSTBUBMP), and Interpersonal Relations Between Troops and Insurgents (IRBTAI). Such tactics aid troop morale, and tactical intelligence.
For example, AAFCOSTBUBMP eases financial pressure .
In regard to allegations that victims of the tactics would be abhorred at rape, pillage and torture, the General said, “First, in some dictionaries, ‘no’ means ‘no.’ But in the real ones, like the one my cousin made, ‘no’ sometimes means ‘yes.’ So you never know what they mean by, ‘Please, please, please don‘t.’”
Douchebagovich’s primary concern, however, lies with the reform in the regulation of nuclear weapons. He said that the current requirement of the use of such weapons, in which the existence of the State is in direct danger, is far too limited.
“If the existence of the State is not in danger today, it will in danger be tomorrow. Therefore, it is always in danger.”
He said that the reluctance to use nuclear weapons encourages armed resistance, and causes higher casualty rates in the long run. He cited the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to support his claim that nuclear attacks would stifle all sentiment toward opposition.
“Now that was shock and awe.”
“What do we need rights in war for?” the Serbian general said. “We must be nice to adversary? ‘Here is pillow and lemonade. Now I shoot you.’”
Douchebagovich had been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, but the case was dropped due to several technicalities. He worried little about the movement to once again prosecute him, and, besides, he continues to look back fondly to his service at Srebrenica, where he and his men played soccer using infants as balls.
“Muslim babies are resilient people.”
He is the founder of GAW, Generals for Awesome Wars. The preamble to their constitution states that war law should be considered void because few organizations and governments only follow the treaties when convenient, besides Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross.
“Pussies,” Douchebagovich said about the humanitarian institutions. He and his organization advocate the development of Assertive Acquisition From Civilians Of Supplies To Be Used By Military Personnel (AAFCOSTBUBMP), and Interpersonal Relations Between Troops and Insurgents (IRBTAI). Such tactics aid troop morale, and tactical intelligence.
For example, AAFCOSTBUBMP eases financial pressure .
In regard to allegations that victims of the tactics would be abhorred at rape, pillage and torture, the General said, “First, in some dictionaries, ‘no’ means ‘no.’ But in the real ones, like the one my cousin made, ‘no’ sometimes means ‘yes.’ So you never know what they mean by, ‘Please, please, please don‘t.’”
Douchebagovich’s primary concern, however, lies with the reform in the regulation of nuclear weapons. He said that the current requirement of the use of such weapons, in which the existence of the State is in direct danger, is far too limited.
“If the existence of the State is not in danger today, it will in danger be tomorrow. Therefore, it is always in danger.”
He said that the reluctance to use nuclear weapons encourages armed resistance, and causes higher casualty rates in the long run. He cited the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima to support his claim that nuclear attacks would stifle all sentiment toward opposition.
“Now that was shock and awe.”
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.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
A conversation with Lucifer
*Lucifer frequents Burger Heaven at 62th st and Lexington. Once a week, Thursday or Friday, he stops by at about 5:30pm, buys a Cheeseburger Special, with French fries, and a glass of Sprite. He usually eats alone, at the bar.*
*4/17/08. 5:35pm, the restaurant is pretty much empty. A young man in his early twenties sits two seats to Lucifer’s right. Lucifer scans the young man’s fingers, as the young man flips through the menu.*
Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend’
Man (turns his head to Lucifier): Pardon me?
Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend.’
Man: Oh. Ok.
Lucifer: I mean, how many friends do we have anyway?
Man: We’ve got friend, some friends, I’m sure
Lucifer: Sure. Why not?
Man: Oh. No reason.
Lucifer: Then we got lots of friends, everyone we meet, speak to, breath on, look at, feel, hold. We have a lot of friends, we do.
Man: Sure.
Lucifer: What are you getting?Man: Probably a cheeseburger special.
Lucifer (points to plate) : That’s what I got.
Man: Oh. It looks good.
Lucifer: It’s ok.
*The waitress comes, takes the Mans order, and leaves. Minutes pass, and neither man speaks. They stare up at the TVs hanging from the ceiling. CNN. After a story on the current death toll in Iraq, there is a story on Lindsay Lohan getting caught on footage picking her nose. The waitress returns with the Man’s plate of food. The man begins to eat.*
Lucifer: What’s your name?
Man (places a French fry in his mouth, chews for a moment, swallows): Greg.
Lucifer: Greg?
Man: Gregorio. Call me Greg.
Lucifer: Yes. Greg. Well, Greg, I have a theory. I think people are looking for every opportunity not to speak to one another. People want to get away from each other. No matter what. The less talking they have to do, the better. If they can, just sit in the room and not be seen, they would do so. They would sit in the background.
*Greg pops a few French fries into his mouth.
Lucifer: Ever see a man sit alone during a paty.
Greg: Yes.
Lucifer: It’s disgusting. Nursing his beer, staring at his feet, then glancing at some girl’s ass as she passes by. Disgusting. And you know why he’s there.
Greg chews.
Lucifer: He wants pussy. But he’s too damn scared to get it. And you know what’s the only thing worse than that?
Greg: What?
Lucifer: A person who tries too hard. Who really, really wants one particular human being. The person—the lover—thinks the lovee is so damn special, so damn awesome, so unique. Out of 7 billion people. So unique, when another would do. Makes you think.
Greg: Yes it does.
Lucifer: But he doesn’t really want to talk to her. No. Romantic love? That shit in movies when only one girlfriend will provide happiness in the world, or life is fucked up? It’s BS. Any person will do. Any husband, any wife. The trick is to be mature enough to understand this. To understand that love—friendships—is about consumption. People are like chocolate cakes. But what we forget about chocolate cakes is that after passing through the intestines the cakes become poop. The same with people. People are disposable.
Greg: Really?
Lucifer: Hell yes. That’s what the Bond movies get right. Ever wonder why every movie had a different chick? Because people are disposable. Agent James Bond is the representation of the male fantas y where the man can exist outside of the boundaries placed upon him. That he can go anywhere. That he can do anything. That he can fuck anybody. And this fantasy is a one man show. The name ‘Pussy Galore’ represents an ideal more than a human being. Represents more of an urge than a soul. People are uninterested in each other’s soul. An individual wants the most gain with the least pain, and burying ourselves into each other’s souls require effort. It requires pain. The man totally obsessed with a woman fails to understand her soul. He is in love with ‘Pussy Galore’
Greg begins to eat his burger.
Lucifer: Not the woman. If the learns to love the woman as he loves himself, he must learn to acknowledge her habits, her desires rather than his own. And that bitch better be reciprocal. Because when two people pay more attention to personal urges than extrapersonal urges, then the relationship suffers. Now, they don’t have to spend all damn day with one another, they just need to understand each other, that’s all. And people have no strength to understand. They just don’t, they just wrapped up in their own thing, and worry little about the world of others. Seven billion narcissists. Do you own a MySpace account?
Greg (bites, chews, and swallows): Check please?
*4/17/08. 5:35pm, the restaurant is pretty much empty. A young man in his early twenties sits two seats to Lucifer’s right. Lucifer scans the young man’s fingers, as the young man flips through the menu.*
Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend’
Man (turns his head to Lucifier): Pardon me?
Lucifer: I distrust the word, ‘Friend.’
Man: Oh. Ok.
Lucifer: I mean, how many friends do we have anyway?
Man: We’ve got friend, some friends, I’m sure
Lucifer: Sure. Why not?
Man: Oh. No reason.
Lucifer: Then we got lots of friends, everyone we meet, speak to, breath on, look at, feel, hold. We have a lot of friends, we do.
Man: Sure.
Lucifer: What are you getting?Man: Probably a cheeseburger special.
Lucifer (points to plate) : That’s what I got.
Man: Oh. It looks good.
Lucifer: It’s ok.
*The waitress comes, takes the Mans order, and leaves. Minutes pass, and neither man speaks. They stare up at the TVs hanging from the ceiling. CNN. After a story on the current death toll in Iraq, there is a story on Lindsay Lohan getting caught on footage picking her nose. The waitress returns with the Man’s plate of food. The man begins to eat.*
Lucifer: What’s your name?
Man (places a French fry in his mouth, chews for a moment, swallows): Greg.
Lucifer: Greg?
Man: Gregorio. Call me Greg.
Lucifer: Yes. Greg. Well, Greg, I have a theory. I think people are looking for every opportunity not to speak to one another. People want to get away from each other. No matter what. The less talking they have to do, the better. If they can, just sit in the room and not be seen, they would do so. They would sit in the background.
*Greg pops a few French fries into his mouth.
Lucifer: Ever see a man sit alone during a paty.
Greg: Yes.
Lucifer: It’s disgusting. Nursing his beer, staring at his feet, then glancing at some girl’s ass as she passes by. Disgusting. And you know why he’s there.
Greg chews.
Lucifer: He wants pussy. But he’s too damn scared to get it. And you know what’s the only thing worse than that?
Greg: What?
Lucifer: A person who tries too hard. Who really, really wants one particular human being. The person—the lover—thinks the lovee is so damn special, so damn awesome, so unique. Out of 7 billion people. So unique, when another would do. Makes you think.
Greg: Yes it does.
Lucifer: But he doesn’t really want to talk to her. No. Romantic love? That shit in movies when only one girlfriend will provide happiness in the world, or life is fucked up? It’s BS. Any person will do. Any husband, any wife. The trick is to be mature enough to understand this. To understand that love—friendships—is about consumption. People are like chocolate cakes. But what we forget about chocolate cakes is that after passing through the intestines the cakes become poop. The same with people. People are disposable.
Greg: Really?
Lucifer: Hell yes. That’s what the Bond movies get right. Ever wonder why every movie had a different chick? Because people are disposable. Agent James Bond is the representation of the male fantas y where the man can exist outside of the boundaries placed upon him. That he can go anywhere. That he can do anything. That he can fuck anybody. And this fantasy is a one man show. The name ‘Pussy Galore’ represents an ideal more than a human being. Represents more of an urge than a soul. People are uninterested in each other’s soul. An individual wants the most gain with the least pain, and burying ourselves into each other’s souls require effort. It requires pain. The man totally obsessed with a woman fails to understand her soul. He is in love with ‘Pussy Galore’
Greg begins to eat his burger.
Lucifer: Not the woman. If the learns to love the woman as he loves himself, he must learn to acknowledge her habits, her desires rather than his own. And that bitch better be reciprocal. Because when two people pay more attention to personal urges than extrapersonal urges, then the relationship suffers. Now, they don’t have to spend all damn day with one another, they just need to understand each other, that’s all. And people have no strength to understand. They just don’t, they just wrapped up in their own thing, and worry little about the world of others. Seven billion narcissists. Do you own a MySpace account?
Greg (bites, chews, and swallows): Check please?
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Vengeance (1st draft)
I have yet to meet God. I am uncertain of a metaphysical engine that fumes with love, and sneers at the slime dripping through the streets. I am uncertain of its form, and more uncertain of its existence. Therefore, this essay--and perhaps all my essays--restricts itself to the form of the universe. The way it seems to me rather than the way it has been told to us.
A completely ninhilistic viewpoint of the world fucks up the need for an essay, since it assumes that nothing matters, inherently speaking. IE. That all meaning stems from the biological, rather than biological steming from the meaning. Maybe that's true, that there is no substantial meaning in the world. People, do, however, react with feeling and constructed meaning. From this, I can only assume that they is a meaning in our heads. Should there be no God, and our lives built upon wholly biological processes, there is nothing to say that there is no meaning in the universe. Only that there is no God, and that what we call the souls rests in our skulls. But this fails logically knock out all ideas of morality. This may mean, however, that meaning varies from person to person, from biology to biology.
The problem of vengeance stems on the idea that those who have been hurt deserve to seek retribution. They should, in a moral sense, hurt those hurt who hurt them. For vengeance to be justified in a utilitarian sense, more good must come from it than harm. It the target of vengeance will likely hurt others again (eg. a serial killer) retribution will be warrented since an act of vengeance will eliminate all possibility of the future atrocity occuring. If the target serves the public good, however, then utilitarianism can mess things up. Should the target be a billionaire philanthropist, sending him to jail for an assault charge may cause more harm than allowing him to remain free, since his money should save hungry children, send people to college, aid the efforts to clean up after an environmental disaster, etc.Let's assume, to complicate things, that people have a difficulty understanding the public good. They have a difficulty separating their needs from the needs of others. In this case, which I believe to be pretty damn pervasive, utilitarianism is only an idea. It's pretty damn hard to stick to. Maybe if the billionaire's assault ended in an black eye, then the victim might be able to forgive and forget. But let's say the assault ended in the victim becoming a quadrepligic. Then the parents of that victim would sure as hell have a difficult time sticking to a utilitarian view of the word. I mean, shit, unless technology fixes things, their kids is going to be physically dependant forever.
FOREVER.
The parents will be inclined to purchase a weapon, repay the quadrepligia, and then some. Even if they decide to not seek vegeance, they will almost certainly have some trouble getting over the situation, if they ever do get over it.
"Vegeance is mine, I will repay" says the LORD, in the most hard-ass declaration of all time. If this is true, then everything is okay. No matter what happens, and who is hurt, GOD will settle the score. He will know what to do with the billionaire.
Let's assume, though, that God doesn't exist. So where are we? Obviously, in pretty fucky situation. And this situation gets evewn more fucky when people's perception of God allows them to take violence into their own hands. Many people of the Abrahamic faiths have been involved in a considerable amount of violence throughout history. I reject the notion, however, that the violence stemmed from the faiths, but from the interpretation of the faith (my interpretation, in all fairness, could be mostly wrong as well). That people have been able to skew the commandments of God to allow mass atrocities is something that says more about Man than about God.The 9-11 attacks are very interesting since they are direct antagonism between two cultures that serve separate religions--Christianity and Islam. My knowledge of the islamic tradition on violence is incomplete, so I'll focus on the Christian interpretation of this event.
America has been considered a Christian nation, in a cultural sense. this is true. Most of our presidents and people have been christian. Some would argue (perhaps incorrectly) that this nation was founded wholly on Christian ideals, and therefore should look at the Christian faith as a moral backbone.
"Turn the other cheek," Jesus says, in the most difficult-to-follow commandment of all time. Submit to others, though they persecute you. Love, though others hate you. For Jesus (I can't remember which gospel at the moment, I think it's in Matthew that he says this) loving our enemies is the most commendable act a person can do. However, some people can define love for friends differently from love for enemies. A mother protecting her son from a burgler, may think, "I love you enough not to wish death upon you," before stabbing the burgler in the eye with a butterknife."
Taking a leap of faith, and allowing God pay vengeance is very difficult to do. For anyone. Only iffier in a situation is someone taking vengeance, and hurting people who may deserve this.
The 9-11 attacks further illustrate this. Perhaps the attackers believed that the people in the planes and buildings deserved death since they were American. Or that God's judgement render the deaths of innocents justified. However, in an atheisitic sense, vengeance only leads to more vengeance. When they attacked the buildings, they gave the US gov't reason and an opportunity to engage in conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Deaths caused by US forces would make the friends and relatives of the dead wish for earthly retribution. When the attacked flew those planes into those buildings they began (actually, continued) the chain of violence.
"I'm going to go to Afghanistan to get the bad guys who did this to us," says a volunteer to the US marines in 9-12-01.
"I'm going to make those American pigs pay for this," says a farmer after a missile blows up his house.
And then the violence spills into more violence, and different groups go for what they think they deserve. And the chain goes on and on, with everyone saying in their hearts, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay."
Friday, April 18, 2008
Politicians
I.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.
Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?
2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.
Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.
Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.
III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.
An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.
IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.
I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.
It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.
Let's assume that humanity is comprised of two elements: the Angelic, and Demonic. Let's define these elements in the most broad, agnostic way possible, ie. with angelic representing 'desirable behavior' and demonic representing 'undesirable behavior'
Positive theories of government inherently assume that anarchy hurts the public good. They assume that the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough to create chaos, unless a benevolent 'Big Brother' exists to sustain order. It assumes that the act of murder must be punished, or other potential murderers will kill without fear of reprisal.It assumes that banks must be regulated, or money will be misused and placed in inappropriate hands in inappropraite amounts.It assumes that the chaotic part of humanity exists as a substantial force to occasionally override the Angelic.
Yet, if the Demon-part of humanity is substantial enough as a force, then the government--the 'Big Brother'--cannot be trusted as we would trust as a benevolent, omnipotent God. People make up governments, and therefore pollute that government with their flaws.
II.This all sounds pretty damn obvious. But we like to knock our politicians, or put them on pedestals. No middle ground. No acknowledging that 'They are who we would be in their situation.' The public, generally, paints their politicians as either Angels or Demons. The problem with this stems from the fact that 1) if we consider them angelic, we overlook their flaws. Democracy requires the public to be active in the government. Therefore, if the public official makes a mistake, the public should rectify this mistake. He is not God. He is only a man. And any one of us (of both sexes) are capable of doing his work about just as well. Indeed, if we can choose a good leader, and recognize the leader's good traits, then don't we have the potential to also having those traits?
2) If we paint the official as demonic, then we risk overlooking our own demons. We overlook that possibility that 'They are who we would be.' Again, you may disagree, considering that you are unlike the guy who spends $80,000 on hookers. But what if you were rich? What if you were tempted to do something that could damage your standard of living, your marriage, your life...and you had the chance to get away with it? You could cheat on your spouse, and never get caught. Would you do it? Did you do it? You could steal $1 million from the bank, and pay your way through college. You could cheat on the exam.
Again, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The only thing worse than this is when a little power corrupts absolutely, and in the case of some, this is true.
Opportunity, power. "They are who we would be' Ignorance to this fact, is like a tapeworm. And when we pull that fucker out of our ass, it's gonna hurt.
It's gonna HURT. So, it takes courage to acknowledge and battle our personal flaws. It takes the ability to look at what's happening, and choose righteousness. Rather than allow righteousness to choose us. Because if we wait for a situation to arrive that allows us to display our angelic side, we often fall into a demonic state. The demonic state is more vigorous than the angelic in choosing us.
III.
In 1963, Stanley Milgram tested people's obeidience to authority. Look it up, for your own benefit, but I'll give you a summary. A subject is deceived into thinking he will be the 'teacher' while one of the experimenters pretends to be another subject, a student. The real student, the teacher, is told by the main experimenter to ask the student a number of questions. The teacher is to give the student an electric shock for every wrong answer provided, and each subsequent shock will be more powerful than the last. The student will get questions wrong on purpose. At one point, the student will feign a heart condition, and ask for mercy. (In the classic application of this experiment, the teacher and student are in separate rooms, and they can only hear each other's voices.) The experimenter simply tells the teacher to continue the experiment, no matter what the student cries out. Finally, the student stays quiet, and the teacher is unsure if the student is still alive. The experimenter urges the teacher to continue, and shock the student again if the student fails to answer.
An average of over 60% teachers, in the many reproductions this experiment, continued it to the end: where the teacher will administer the maximum shock of 450-volts three times, despite quiet from the student all three times. This is how I interpret the results of this experiment: to be good people, we must take an active stance. We must acknowledge our temptations, and we must be ready to accept any discomfort. For the sake of rightheousness, we must be a sort of masochist. We must be ready to boycot a racist bus system. We must be ready to be arrested. We must be ready to disagree with our friends. We must be ready to be totally embarrassed. Otherwise, if we don't, then we are hypocrites when we declare our love of goodness. Instead, we would rather be comfortable in our own evil.
IV.
Many want a democratic president, a 'liberal' president because they are very disgusted with the actions of the current 'conservative' president. They--both the supports of the Democrats and Republicans--are caught up in a gang-mentality. But true Democracy rejects the gang mentality. It assumes that people make up their own mind. It assumes that every individual is a separate political party.
I am leaning toward Barack Obama for the upcoming election. He seems like a smart, strong man. I enjoyed his racism speech, and his speech on religion a few years back. I need to do more research on him before I can say I truly want him for president. (By the way, where is the love for our local politicians?) But, even when I do this research, I must acknowledge that this research falls short of knowing the real man. Falls short of what he might do in a stressful, compromising situtation. If we have lived at all, we have had experiences where the actions of others surprise and disappoint us. Our parents, our friends. They do things that shatter our positive, angelic perception of them. We, too, have performed acts that suprise others. We ran into a compromising situation, and fell in danger of choosing the greater of two evils. And often times we did choose that evil.
It's 2:07pm, and I've got to go somewhere. So let's wrap this up--Choose well, not just in the election, but in life, period. Choose the choice that you know is right. Not the choice of our parents, or our society, necessarily. Choose the choice of righteousness. Choose even though your heart will break. Choose though your feet hurt. Choose though the world sneer at you with its beastly glee.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Corrupt Law Enforcement
The fact that an individual is a cop or guard means nothing in regard to their personality as human beings. The promise to serve and protect and whatever are only peripheral. What matters is who the law enforcement person is as a person.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
Juvenile offenders at New York State The Louis Gossett Jr. Residential Center get hurt. A lot. According to a January, 2006 article for the Ithica Journal, some guards at the facility use unwarranted force on an inmate.
For instance, when a guard is escorting an inmate down the hall, the guard might create a situation where force can be considered legal. The guard slows, so the distance increased between the kid and him. At a distance greater than arms length, he has the legal right to restrain the kid because such a distance can make it seem like the kid/inmate is attempting to escape, and allows the guard to use force. The law allows it, so he can do it, and get away with it though the act is morally wrong and was unprovoked as far as the law is concerned.
Now this doesn't make all law enforcement bad. In fact, some of the people making the aligations were guards themself.
And a cop killing his girlfriend over a broken relationship fails to make all cops abusers. And a group of cops beating the snot out of a guy, even though the guy is incapacited, fails to prove that all cops would do such a thing.
When a cop or group of cops commit an immoral (or moral) act, it just means that those people have committed those acts. The acts of Cop A, considered alone, fail to shine light on the acts of Cop B.
People say they dislike cops because cops "are corrupt" or something like that. What they really mean is: "We hate cops because cops can commit immoral acts and get away unpunished with the immoral act by calling the act of means of doing their job."
When a person works for a law enforcement or military agency, they promise to follow the legislation of the agency. Though they may fail to internalize the promise. Once a situation arrives that highlights this failure, the cop does something that may be considered immoral, especially if he can hide his offending act. Furthermore, depending on his understanding of the regulations that govern him in regard to his behavior, he might work within the context of these regulations to commit immoral acts, have his act discovered by those with direct power over him, and go unpunished because his act was unrecognized as being illegal or otherwise wrong. He breaks the law without breaking the law.
Law enforcement live up to the idea designated by legislature, but have the potential to warp that idea to suit their ends.
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
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: Everyone is an asshole once you get to know them
Written April, 2007
Ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian society, arguing against this resolution feels futile, but I’m doing it anyway. And I will ask you to be patient because at first it’s going to sound like I am arguing in the affirmative.
In a stand-up performance of his called Bigger and Blacker, Chris Rock said that when you get into a relationship with somebody, you’re not really meeting the person; you’re meeting a quote-unquote, "representative." You’re meeting a preconceived image of that person, which he or she shows the world. That image is how the person would like to be seen. And that, at lot of times, is true. When we meet a person and we get a first impression, but that first impression is always in a precarious position. This is because the image tends to be an act, and, there will be moments when the act shuts down.
If you want to know a person—for real—observe them in a war zone. See how they handle abject poverty. Have them make Sophie’s choice. Or, better yet, see them in an opportunity to gain personally from hurting other people. And that’s what being an asshole is about—personal benefit at the expense of others. So if you want to see if someone is an asshole or not, you give them an opportunity to hurt others when something can be gained. And many people, you put them the opportunity and they’ll show you textbook definition of asshole.
I’ve heard of people killing each other simply out of anger, out of petty pride. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, he made reference to two prisoners at a concentration camp—A father and son. And the son stole the father’s food rations. No remorse. It was every man for himself. And in my life I have seen that sort of thing in many places. Not the same situation or arrangement, but events that included one person betraying another. Even between family members. Consider the case of Susan Smith, who, in 1994, drowned her two sons, and tried to cover it up by saying that a black guy had kidnapped them. According the lawyers who prosecuted her, she got rid of her children in other to seem more attractive an ex-lover. The fact she had already had kids was a reason for him breaking up with her.
And that’s the kind of thing that can happen. A family will live together for years, eat together, go on vacations together—knowing each other for decades—and then one day, something happens the whole relationship is changed. One person does something absolutely disgusting, absolutely vitriolic and unforgivable. And no one would have been able to predict it. But, from them on, the relationship between those family members becomes all about the single moment that reveals the truth. So I concede that a large number of people are assholes.
It’s really safe to say that if the balance of power in history were reversed, we’d still have the same kinds of things happening. If it were convenient for Jews to massacre Christians, they’d have done it. If it were convenient for Africans to enslave Europeans, they’d have done it. The way these incidences played out in reality were all about convenience.
But is there is still something I can’t let go of, and that is the evidence of sincere goodness. To return to examples of families, there are people who stick together during terrible circumstances. They are young fathers who stick by the mothers during an unexpected pregnancy. I met a mother, 50 years old, who, in order to support her sons, worked two jobs. Monday through Friday, she went to sleep from 1 to 2am, and woke up at 6am. And she cleaned the house. The only thing she expected from her kids were good grades. She had no regrets.
And remember the Subway Superman? Wesley Autrey. The most amazing thing is that he did it for a stranger. And the money he received from rich people because of his good deed, he deserved it, he’s got kids to feed. The President mentioned him during a State of the Union address. Hey, huess what, assholes of the world, learn to be good people, and maybe you, too, will get a shout-out during the State of the Union address. Fucking A.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian society, arguing against this resolution feels futile, but I’m doing it anyway. And I will ask you to be patient because at first it’s going to sound like I am arguing in the affirmative.
In a stand-up performance of his called Bigger and Blacker, Chris Rock said that when you get into a relationship with somebody, you’re not really meeting the person; you’re meeting a quote-unquote, "representative." You’re meeting a preconceived image of that person, which he or she shows the world. That image is how the person would like to be seen. And that, at lot of times, is true. When we meet a person and we get a first impression, but that first impression is always in a precarious position. This is because the image tends to be an act, and, there will be moments when the act shuts down.
If you want to know a person—for real—observe them in a war zone. See how they handle abject poverty. Have them make Sophie’s choice. Or, better yet, see them in an opportunity to gain personally from hurting other people. And that’s what being an asshole is about—personal benefit at the expense of others. So if you want to see if someone is an asshole or not, you give them an opportunity to hurt others when something can be gained. And many people, you put them the opportunity and they’ll show you textbook definition of asshole.
I’ve heard of people killing each other simply out of anger, out of petty pride. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, he made reference to two prisoners at a concentration camp—A father and son. And the son stole the father’s food rations. No remorse. It was every man for himself. And in my life I have seen that sort of thing in many places. Not the same situation or arrangement, but events that included one person betraying another. Even between family members. Consider the case of Susan Smith, who, in 1994, drowned her two sons, and tried to cover it up by saying that a black guy had kidnapped them. According the lawyers who prosecuted her, she got rid of her children in other to seem more attractive an ex-lover. The fact she had already had kids was a reason for him breaking up with her.
And that’s the kind of thing that can happen. A family will live together for years, eat together, go on vacations together—knowing each other for decades—and then one day, something happens the whole relationship is changed. One person does something absolutely disgusting, absolutely vitriolic and unforgivable. And no one would have been able to predict it. But, from them on, the relationship between those family members becomes all about the single moment that reveals the truth. So I concede that a large number of people are assholes.
It’s really safe to say that if the balance of power in history were reversed, we’d still have the same kinds of things happening. If it were convenient for Jews to massacre Christians, they’d have done it. If it were convenient for Africans to enslave Europeans, they’d have done it. The way these incidences played out in reality were all about convenience.
But is there is still something I can’t let go of, and that is the evidence of sincere goodness. To return to examples of families, there are people who stick together during terrible circumstances. They are young fathers who stick by the mothers during an unexpected pregnancy. I met a mother, 50 years old, who, in order to support her sons, worked two jobs. Monday through Friday, she went to sleep from 1 to 2am, and woke up at 6am. And she cleaned the house. The only thing she expected from her kids were good grades. She had no regrets.
And remember the Subway Superman? Wesley Autrey. The most amazing thing is that he did it for a stranger. And the money he received from rich people because of his good deed, he deserved it, he’s got kids to feed. The President mentioned him during a State of the Union address. Hey, huess what, assholes of the world, learn to be good people, and maybe you, too, will get a shout-out during the State of the Union address. Fucking A.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Two Hypotheses
1) Immoral acts by “religious” people stem from aspects of the person, not of the religious text. From what I’ve heard, most criticism against organized religion roughly states that religion (the Abrahamic religions in particular) justify immoral acts such as genocide. For instance, certain statements made in the Qur’an calling for a defense of the faith, and stories in the Tenakh (Old Testament) about the Israelites eliminating entire tribes seem to prove these critics right. The passages can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.
I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.
2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.
I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.
2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
A certain man
He said,
"You wanna get a woman,
you got to be willing to punch her,
so willing that when you have to punch her,
punching her is the first thing to come to your mind,
and when you do punch her, you have no problem punching her.
Punching her is the easy thing, rather than holding back.
You never see wimps getting laid,
or, if they do, they have to be rich,
so the women come to him, and leech off his money.
Wives of rich men,
strippers at a strip club.
The same kind of person, really.
They leech off a man's money
because they can. If they were ugly,
they'd be fine with working at the supermarket,
but they happen to have a round ass,
so they shake it. And they get their pick of man.
Of poor men, only rapists get laid.
Of men, they are the only ones who really try.
The wonderful thing is that the women
tend to love these rapist types--if by accident.
Even if the ladies, once the relationship,
goes sour, would rather die than be in the room with him,
the initial attraction--that spark that led her to him--
comes from the same place that enables him to smother her with a pillow,
and call her dumb and ugly. The same spark that gets him to be funny,
and sweet, and so manly and strong is the spark
that gets him to place a bullet in her purse when
she's not looking, and to follow her to her work,
and be outside of her home when she's leaving to hang out with friends.
Women never bitch about boring, nice guys. Not after the break up.
They only bitch out the mean, abusive ones,
who stole their necklaces, and cheat on them with their best friends.
The women bitch because they liked those guys.
Maybe they still do.
They usually do.
The boring ones are forgotten, if they even existed.
Women only remember--and love--the men who'd give them black eyes."
"And what kind of man are you?" his friend said.
The man showed his wedding ring. "The punching kind."
"That's sick," his friend said.
"It's the truth, you virgin-faggot."
"You wanna get a woman,
you got to be willing to punch her,
so willing that when you have to punch her,
punching her is the first thing to come to your mind,
and when you do punch her, you have no problem punching her.
Punching her is the easy thing, rather than holding back.
You never see wimps getting laid,
or, if they do, they have to be rich,
so the women come to him, and leech off his money.
Wives of rich men,
strippers at a strip club.
The same kind of person, really.
They leech off a man's money
because they can. If they were ugly,
they'd be fine with working at the supermarket,
but they happen to have a round ass,
so they shake it. And they get their pick of man.
Of poor men, only rapists get laid.
Of men, they are the only ones who really try.
The wonderful thing is that the women
tend to love these rapist types--if by accident.
Even if the ladies, once the relationship,
goes sour, would rather die than be in the room with him,
the initial attraction--that spark that led her to him--
comes from the same place that enables him to smother her with a pillow,
and call her dumb and ugly. The same spark that gets him to be funny,
and sweet, and so manly and strong is the spark
that gets him to place a bullet in her purse when
she's not looking, and to follow her to her work,
and be outside of her home when she's leaving to hang out with friends.
Women never bitch about boring, nice guys. Not after the break up.
They only bitch out the mean, abusive ones,
who stole their necklaces, and cheat on them with their best friends.
The women bitch because they liked those guys.
Maybe they still do.
They usually do.
The boring ones are forgotten, if they even existed.
Women only remember--and love--the men who'd give them black eyes."
"And what kind of man are you?" his friend said.
The man showed his wedding ring. "The punching kind."
"That's sick," his friend said.
"It's the truth, you virgin-faggot."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)