Sunday, July 29, 2007

07/28/2007 God As A Panel Of Celebrity Judges

07/28/2007 God As A Panel Of Celebrity Judges



Moving into the another Presidential campaign, the subjects of religion come, once again, to the forefront. As a mormon tries to win the nomination from the Christian party, and as they and we grapple over who most has the concepts of universal justice in mind, or whether or not our attempts to subvert racism are in line with our humanist values, the debate remains maddeningly superficial. With our outgoing President being one who fits staunchly into the category of “religious conservative” and our future seemingly wide open, thought must be given to our own values; where they do lead us, and whether or not we are being congruent with them.

I have heard many say, “If Jesus were on earth today, they'd put him in jail.” I rather believe he wouldn't be such a threat. After all, preaching today in the desert or on the street makes you just one of the many voices who no one listens to. Getting into the mainstream media costs money, and preaching that we “turn the other cheek” and that “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” is not exactly what that is about. Today's prophets are propped up with corporate funding; and no one who preaches peace, or suffering poverty to get into heaven, or self denial as a way of getting in touch with God as the ancient Christians did, is making anyone any dollars.

But while conservatives try to push their religion on us and liberals ignore the benefits of religion, does anyone realize that we are already living the totalitarian dream of a national religion?



All Bow



The first amendment's conceit, “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion”, is gone. Bush has seen to that, though he isn't alone. The fact that so many of the people on the right see the constitution as the Bible's appendix lets us know exactly how much respect our Constitution really commands. What's actually written on it is the stuff of trivia now, as is the “Sermon On The Mount.” But the right is not without it's thought, creativity, or merit.



Family Values Expressed On A Spreadsheet



When religious conservatives tell us that America is losing the values that made it great, they generally mean “family.” So family is a good place to start. Now, the subject of family and what conservatives really mean when they say family values, is no narrow subject. But in the line of understanding our national religion, it becomes rather enlightening. The original Christian concept of the family was conceived as somewhat of a compromise, you see. Though it's hard to find anyone admitting it today, the ancient Christians were unabashedly asceticist. That is, weaken the body (through starvation, deprivation of pleasure, of sex, of everything), strengthen the spirit. That's almost unconscionable to us today, but would we have an obesity epidemic if we embraced asceticism? Of course, we wouldn't have 25% of the world's economy, either.



Animals Who Pray



But the asceticist church decided that the majority of people (most of whom were slaves at the time; illiterate) were too animalistic to live the holy life that God wanted for us: the celibate life. So as a compromise, the church asked the people to marry, and dedicate their sex life to one person, in the context of raising a family, and as a means of keeping one's desires under control. This thought predates the idea of romantic love by many centuries. You were, of course, meant to “love” your wife. But not romantic love. The kind of love that you have for anyone, even “thine enemies”.

So fast forward to the present. The church has compromised again, and not just with the humanists. The idea of romantic love is now commonly accepted as the main reason people marry. This seems innocent enough, but actually is the root of a lot of the trouble. You see, by abandoning the idea that marriage was a way to get closer to God by reigning in one's desires, and to control the uncontrollable human sex drive to make society a more peaceful, orderly place, the church abandoned the value behind marriage. By abandoning that value, the dogma of marriage became an empty practice. If marriage is about romantic love, then why not marry another man? Or your sister? If they are your soulmate, then why not? And those that argue against the idea of marrying for romantic love, what do they have to say to us today? If the church accepts the idea of romantic love, then how do we ever recover the values that made the dogma alive?



The Skeleton Church



And marriage and family is not the only place that the church has been forced to abandon it's values. Where would our economy be if we practiced self-denial? If we didn't have Christmas? If we turned the other cheek in Iraq? If we didn't allow divorce? What is the engine that drives capitalism if we accept our lot in life as a means of getting to heaven? If denial of our urges leads to a closer relationship to God, how do we justify those cellphone bills? Internet porn? Our obsession with Paris Hilton? Our addiction to iced lattes?



Values Of The New Church



Yet while the Christian right has lost the values that fuel it's dogma- the old, now empty, tenants remain. And for a reason. They are the now tenants of capitalism. Why, if Jesus said, “turn the other cheek”, would anyone try to call themselves Christian if they support the war in Iraq? Especially given how conservatives so often equate opposing the war with insanity? The answer is, first, that humanism has scored a huge, decisive victory over Christianity. Even Christians believe in humanist values over the church's. The second part is that Humanism itself has been subjugated by capitalism. Our values must be in line with our values. The latter referring, of course, to monetary value. Capitalism, for all it's romance about rewarding innovation, has yet to find it's own words. Instead, it uses the values of the past. Or, some of them, anyway. So “humanism” is a capitalist value, the same way Christians think that the constitution is a Christian value. And where humanism doesn't benefit capitalism, it is disposed of. Ditto Christianity.

The reason Christianity still exists is that it's hard to develop enough irrational fervor whilst adhering to a philosophy rather than a religion. So the Christians, who name themselves for allegiance to the man who, again, said to turn the other cheek, charge into Iraq with the passion of men whose fears have been spiked. The new Christs are the talk show hosts, politicians, bloggers, propped up by the contributions of billionaires who stand to gain more market cap by investing in this piece of the media. It's unlikely Bush or Rush would have gotten humanists to go into Iraq by telling them that Muslims are out to get them. So religion still exists; it is a powerful tool of control, and of profit.



Corruption Isn't Just For Breakfast



As the new prophets are bought and paid for, the humanist concept of objectivity is also lost. Our outgoing leaders are still on corporate payrolls; as corruption at the local levels are common and accepted.

The new test of truth is exploit-ability. We go to school now to gain skills, not knowledge. The Greek's belief that knowledge should be free to all so that we can fulfill all human potential is considered nakedly illegal if not immoral (just watch the beginning of any DVD). Karl Marx may have been wrong when he said that all history has been about class struggle, but he was right when he said that the bourgeoisie “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous `cash payment'”.

With our national religion turned into just a name we rally around, the crucifix just another flag, it is now safe for business to support. Here, nationalism, then, can sleep soundly next to Christianity, and even have a mutually beneficial and gleefully incestuous relationship. Stripped of it's values, Christianity becomes something to be exploited, and thus can enter the realm of modern truth along with pornography, HDTVs, software, Ipods, antidepressants, celebutants, blogs, Reality TV, fast food, and gourmet coffee. The fine art of Bread And Circuses, finally perfected to a point where it encompasses all we see, including our own deception.



Morality As A Commodity



And with our morals now baseless conclusions founded more on feeling than the rational thought of the humanists, morals also become exploitables. All over the place is judgment. Talk radio presents it's host's paid for judgments of the news of the day. Dumb criminals, celebrity politics, liberals, get skewered. Reality TV gives us a panel of judges, telling the participants how to be a better supermodel. Happily, it's never us being judged. But at least we have some sort of authority telling us what is right. Don't we?

And as our immoral neighboring countries who don't care about freedom crack down on government and media corruption, our own government reveals it's own corruption both by being discovered and blatantly hiding that which hasn't been. As the circus plays on, as the government and the businesses that own them conceive of new ways to extract more money out of a nation in debt to it's eyeballs, can we ever begin to think again about the concept of universal justice outside of using the concept to inspire fear and racial hatred? Or the idea of fulfilling human potential outside of maximizing value and efficiency? Or just plain being freaking happy? Is this the world God intended? Did God really create the world to obscure himself?

A “Christian nation”, where the weak are left behind?

Friday, July 27, 2007

07/27/2007 Tyler, My Eyes Are Open

07/27/2007 Tyler, My Eyes Are Open



As someone who is isolated and tends to communicate little, I have a natural hypersensitivity to other's gestures. I tend to interact via these gestures rather than the traditional method of conversation. Thus I exist in somewhat of an Underground apart from Dostoyevsky's UM, I exist in the shadows of perception. In this way I know people better in some ways, but worse in others. That is, I can isolate their actions from their rationalizations better than most, but cannot predict what they will say as others can. Nor do I know mundane details, like their favorite ice cream, or their pasts.

I seldom go anywhere other than work and out to eat. Because there are few women where I work, any possibility of love comes from restaurants or shopping. Much of this is to my detriment, as I don't spend much time with the opposite sex and my spirit is somewhat weaker as a result. I feel less in general. The love that others have inspired in the past is a memory. And even when I think of it, I only remember the words I used to describe it, seldom do I remember how it felt. When I go out these days, any young woman who is above-average looking appears to me as a goddess, anyone else as an obstacle. That's cruel but I have a hard time changing it, and it becomes difficult to make friends as most people are the obstacles. And most women who I am attracted to intimidate me. I end up not looking at them rather than follow my natural inclination to fawn over them as a means of preserving my dignity. Of course, I must also confront the knowledge that I am an obstacle to many of the people I run into, including many of the women I am attracted to.

The one I have the biggest crush on now is a Waitress at a take out restaurant near where I work. I first noticed her because she had such a great memory. I also noticed her appearance, and of course she is lovely, but only upon seeing her many times could I fully comprehend her loveliness. She is small, with small, delicate shoulders and little tits, with a lovely shape to her face. She is completely misplaced as a waitress. But I am sort of trapped in my solitude with my need to interact with her. Sometimes she remembers my name and asks me how I am, and I feel alive. At other times she gruffly asks, “Can I help you?” and I feel like I don't matter. It seems like this often depends on her level of relaxation, where if the place is crowded she hurries me and if not she engages in more casual conversation. But of course, it always hurts to be treated like an obstacle. I would love to put my hands on those delicate shoulders and kiss that lovely face.

There's this one guy at work that I keep tabs on. He's funny. I think I mentioned before that I believe he's snooped around my computer when I wasn't looking. He reminds me of my father in that he has a bad temper, though his is not to the same degree. He is emotional, and this sometimes causes him to act selfishly. He is also very organized, extremely talented, the hardest worker in the place, and the only one who seems driven to establish his own individual identity. I have been wondering, though, if we would clash. This seems inevitable, as we are conflicting personalities; he with his temper and need for organization, me with my curtness and subversiveness. We rarely talk, only saying “good morning” and “good night”. But I'd be surprised if that lasts. He has yet to find a way to confront me that jives with his values, and a guy like that will likely never confront me unless he really believes he's right. So it's a stalemate for now. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

People tend to make simplistic judgments on others, we all seem to think we can read each other. People often see my quietness and interpret it as weakness. When they take me on, they are often surprised at my ability to defend myself, and either respond by taking offense or trying to ally themselves with me. Snap judgments is one of the greatest obstacles to any human interaction, be it in the workforce or in romance. We all fear people who may hurt us, and this causes us to analyze anyone we meet and intuit, or interpret, anything we see. Often this leads to judgments that are not based in any kind of reality. Nice guys do, sometimes, finish last. Abusers seldom lack people to abuse, lest they be robbed of their moniker. Are human beings cursed to misunderstand each other by always seeing through the lens of fear? But then, I have my own defenses as well.

Usually when i say hello to someone I try to make eye contact first. This is due to the fact that historically when I say hi to people I startle them. I am so quiet that people don't expect me to say anything. But for this guy I'm keeping tabs on, he often averts his eyes when I come in, and I can't get him to make eye contact. Sometimes when he says hi he sounds angry, like he'd like to tell me off. Other times he seems genuinely happy. It's hard to tell what's coming next. I'm not really afraid of what will happen. But I find all this interesting. Guys who get mad easily tend to be guys who have a lot of fear in them. Anger covers fear, and his organized approach and tendency to believe in rules solidifies that impression. If he is snooping in my computer, this could be an opportunity to have some fun.

Suppose, for example, that emails kept conspicuously on the desktop (he's an older guy and may not find them otherwise) reveal that I am the member of a secret organization that has stolen a device from the US Government that can control the weather. Then suppose that we are going to strike the US by sending Hurricanes into Florida (if you're thinking that that's going to happen anyway, that's the point). Then suppose Al Gore is working for us, trying to convince people that this is all due to Global Warming, not terrorism. He'll buy that, he's conservative. You get the point.

It may be because I am an outsider inside their walls, or it may be because I am so damn weird looking, but whenever I walk into a room people get a look on their face that is a combination of witnessing a circus spectacle like Siamese twins and being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Silence allows people to imagine the worst, and they often do. What am I to them? A serial killer? Someone who can see into their mind and know the truth about them?

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

07/23/2007 Dogs And Dawgs

07/23/2007 Dogs And Dawgs



Listening to the radio on the way to work on Friday, the announcers were running down the list of accusations leveled at popular athlete Michael Vick. They are reading from a 19 page document innocently released by the police detailing the charges against Vick.

The charges are gruesome and don't need to be recounted in full here. But I would point out that one of the announcers stupidly said that Vick would have been better off if he were accused of Human Fighting. When I remind all of you that a couple of the charges included having a “rape stand” for breeding the animals and killing the ones that don't measure up in the ring by slamming them to the pavement, I know you'll understand that if he were doing this to humans then it would be a historic disaster on the level of the Holocaust. Further, the announcers were incredulous when callers began to point out the similarities between this case and the recent case involving the Duke University Lacrosse players, who were accused of rape and promptly convicted in the media, only to be exonerated by DNA evidence. None of the grotesque stories they read off indicate any special evidence that Vick was guilty.

Then at work, as I'm running machines, I'm reading an article in Newsweek about the other side of the world. In the article, “Where Radicals Call The Shots” in the July 16th issue of US News And World Report, Philip Smucker writes:



In town, you will not find Hollywood or Bollywood thrillers for sale, but vendors hawk DVDs, mostly al Qaeda productions, showing the beheadings of traitors.”



Isn't that nice, to know the two sides of the world are so alike? In the west, we present spectacle in the form of words, justified by moral judgement. In the Middle East, it's to present the consequences of betraying an organization that fights the perceived oppression of the West. In both cases, people crave spectacle. And in both cases, the spectacle has to be presented in a way that is congruent with the values of the culture. Mr. Smucker does not tell us what is in the adults section of these vendor's operations (one must think that Paris Hilton is alive and well there), so one begins to wonder why al Qaeda decided to upgrade to DVD from VHS in the first place. But the whole thing is a good demonstration of my comparison between saying you're right and the other guy is wrong and saying you don't have an accent.

Here in the West, we do like to use words to present the worst of our images. In order to Jive with our values, we must either use words or present the spectacle as fiction. Also, we often bring up these words in the context of making a moral judgement. In the Middle East, it is enough to hamper the quest for freedom against the west. But in both cases, the need for spectacle persists. It just takes different forms. Perhaps that's how we can forgive our dim friends in front of the mics. We will never stop craving spectacle; if they don't give it to us, we'll find someone who will. They really couldn't be expected to learn from the past, they are prisoners of the present needs of the audience. What moral dilemmas exist in Pakistan I cannot say, but I hope that there are some who object to gaining pleasure from the brutal murders of others, as well as some idea that this is not what God, or Allah, ever wanted for us.

Monday, July 23, 2007

07/23/2007 the Krispy Kreme Diet And Leaving The Past Behind

07/20/2007 the Krispy Kreme Diet And Leaving The Past Behind



Can we envision a day when we go to a fast food restaurant and order two donuts for breakfast, and expect to lose weight as a result? It's not as far off as you think. Or, to put it more accurately, it's off as far as you don't think.

The question is one of the future. How do we predict it? The answer, usually, is by analyzing the past. What worked before will work now, right? Such thinking is certainly alive and well in the food industry. Historically, people didn't think all that much about food in terms of health. Getting enough calories was the thing. Now we have widespread obesity, diabetes and high cholesterol, we have become more educated on the matter. This increased level of education has not lead to no progress on the issue of obesity whatsoever. As the food industry brings out all it's guns trying to keep us from holding it responsible, do we continue to agree that it isn't? And if so, how do we solve America's eating problem?

The answer is first to identify it. That's not easy with the food industry deliberately clouding the waters, as all industries do when threatened. That's okay, we can see through dirty water, if we want to. For this is not a physical question, but one involving human nature, and thus we look into ourselves rather than at the data gathered by interests on either side.

First, I bring up the issue of Stevia. Stevia is likely the only healthy sweetener we know of. The FDA banned Stevia (but is available as a supplement, look in the vitamins or herbs section) in what seems to be a blatantly corrupt move to save the current sweetener industry. Stevia is sweeter than refined sugar (though it doesn't taste the same) and has been available in Japan for over thirty years. In Japan, Stevia is 40% of the sweetener market. Studies on the subject in Japan reveal that Stevia not only lacks the poor health implications caused by refined sugar, but in some cases it even mitigates slightly the effects of diabetes and high blood pressure.

So suppose you go to the local donut shop and get a donut sweetened with Stevia rather than refined sugar. Now imagine that this donut is transfat free and is made with a mixture of veggie oil and flaxseed oil that puts more healthy fats in it. Finally, imagine that it is made at least partially with whole Grains. Now we have a healthy donut that is a worthy breakfast and tastes good. Could it taste better than the current edition? Why not?

Now, if this is possible, why haven't we seen it? The answer is likely the inability of the food industry to see the future. Most of it's plans are based, after all, on the past. Historically, unhealthy food doesn't sell. Why should it? If the point is to get calories, then why should it dedicate any of it's resources to developing and selling low calorie foods? The food industry does certainly recognize a change in the landscape. That's why it keeps coming up with more diet foods, different kinds of diet sodas, lowered sugar cereals and no sugar added iced cream. But really, it is still not sure how to proceed in this new world where people demand healthier products. Change happens slowly in industry, as contracts have to run out and factories have to be renovated, restocked or even closed when change occurs. And a switch from one product to another effects more than one company, not just the one selling the product.

For those that anticipate the future, riches await. But to do so requires imagination, not careful analysis of the past. But the industry resists change, probably out of fear, and the mantra that unhealthy foods sell is regarded as acceptable. Otherwise they wouldn't use it, and that means that too many of us accept it, too. Capitalists say that free enterprise rewards innovation, but only in as far as we accept innovation. The minute anyone offers a healthy donut, consumers flag it as inferior in taste. While it may sell in time, selling it would take a lot of faith. And the ensuing revolution may cause more change than we are ready to handle in our eating habits and our industry.

That said, the fact that we can make a donut that tastes better and is healthy, and we are not doing it, is nothing less than an indictment of capitalism. The fact that no one in the food industry feels any moral obligation to develop and sell such a product, even at a loss, indicates that our society does not reward integrity as much as greed. And it also indicates that they have more respect for a certain dollar than they have for other human beings.

The fact that the food industry spends millions trying to fill our field of vision with unhealthy foods. That they can do this and then absolve themselves of responsibility indicates no moral fiber whatever. The excuse is that the obesity epidemic is not their responsibility, but the responsibility of obese people who choose to put the food in their mouths. But that demonstrates a primitive view of “choice”. The primitive view of choice is that we have one mind and we make a choice with it, either right or wrong. The truth is that our choices depend on a number of factors, including the availability of food. You can change someone's choice by changing the environment. And if they were not aware of this, they would not go to such lengths to fill our eyes with ads for unhealthy foods. For the two years, diet soda has outsold regular soda. But go to the store and tell me that 70% of your choices aren't regular soda. That the food industry is trying to sell us foods that make us fat is not hidden. They are afraid to enter a new market of healthy intentions, and see any intervention or moral judgment as a threat to their industry. What worked before will work again tomorrow, or nothing will. Change only happens too slowly, and it may be years before the industry is willing to sell us healthy foods that taste better than the unhealthy versions that we currently consume.

And the industry's efforts are buttressed by social proof. Fat people are regarded as selfish for trying to upend the ethical misconceptions that the industry leans on, and thin people are only too ready to judge them as lazy people making excuses. Furthermore, many obese people judge themselves the same way, and say nothing. But no one is going to hold the industry responsible but those that it has done wrong.

On a more personal level, the traditions and practices that were born in the age of the calorie continue. We have coffee breaks, not activity breaks. Employers give you smoke breaks, lunch breaks, conversation breaks. But taking an hour to go an work out is often forbidden. When we go out with friends, we go out to eat or to drink, not to run or to play basketball. We favor math and science in our classrooms to produce young biotech majors and engineers, at the cost of the happiness and well-being of the students. You would think that an obesity epidemic would lead to more physical education in our schools, but it's going the other way. We produce corporate assets, not people, and obesity doesn't necessarily keep you from increasing production. Social proof, not the food industry, is the major culprit in the obesity epidemic, though one may be a product of the other. What can be used to reign in this teamwork of destructive profits and thought? Judgment. Angry, bitter, pointed, shameless judgment.

But isn't judgment thus misused in our society? We judge our political opponents, our enemies. We judge our families, and our celebrities. We judge those that judge us, and those that don't conform to our sexual rules. The people that do the real damage often go unpunished, for they understand us better than we understand them. The pounds get packed on.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

07/18/2007 Is God An Addiction?

07/18/2007 Is God An Addiction?



Think of a person, any person. Your mother. Your best friend. Your dog. The true love of your life. When you thought of these people, what image flashed through your mind?

In the past, I have taken vows of non-masturbation. At other times, I'm glad I'm able to do it. When I do, I often search the internet for pictures of beautiful women that I can fantasize about.

One day I was looking at a picture of Martina Hingis, the tennis player. I have always thought that she had the such a pretty face. When I had enough pictures of her, I just signed off the internet and had my viewing program display a slideshow. I had pictures of her face, of her rear end, of her playing tennis and lots modeling. But at the end, I stopped on a picture of her face.

What made this day different than most others is that during the orgasm I kept my eyes open. As the pleasure built, my vision heightened. I stared at her face as ecstasy began to overtake me. As I was looking into her face, it became more than a face to me. All of me disappeared, and Martina was looking back at me from a divine plane; with a beauty that I was not otherwise able to perceive. Her beauty was a great presence that I could only begin to see, but I could feel it throughout my entire body. As the pleasure overtook me, I reached out my hand to touch the screen in reverence, more concerned with it than the pleasure I was giving myself. I have never been so gracefully lost.

My point here is, we think of each other as faces. When you think of someone, you think of them as their face. The face is the identity. If someone shows you a picture of your mother's hand, and asks you what is that, you'll say, “my mother's hand.” But if someone shows you her face, you'll say, “That's my mother.”

though masturbation, I guess, should be though of as one hand clapping (or perhaps one hand “slapping”), we have to understand it not as a lower urge but a higher one. It is a deeper form of prayer, and indeed a subset of meditation. At no time does one see the divinity of the real world so clearly as during orgasm. During that marriage of the male and female halves of the world, the reflection in the divine mirror shows us nothing superficial. This act does not deserve the derision of Christians, nor does the saying, “beauty's only skin deep” signify anything but a lack of soul. The beauty of those we mate with is central to our spiritual life, no less so for the pain those of us feel who do not possess it.

Saturday, July 21, 2007

07/13/2007 On Race

07/13/2007 On Race



The other day I am watching a democratic debate where the subjects are being asked about race relations. As the democrats fall all over themselves to pander to the growing minority voting block, I was alarmed to note that I had no opinion on the matter myself. So I thought about it.

First, let's not mince words. Racism still exists, and still plays a central role in the way we live our lives. Even many conservatives agree with this. It's true that racism in itself does not justify action anymore in the sense that Lincoln felt justified in trying to send all the slaves back to Africa. But there is a lot of racist action in our society that is not justified but rationalized. Radio stations, for example, play songs by artists who are the race and gender, if not the age, of their target audience; this robs artists of other races of opportunity. Police routinely profile by race, and we select mates often based on race, gender and age. Our political system features two parties: one designed for the sole purpose of channeling money and power towards one race, gender and age group (republican) and one that serves only the purpose of opposing the first (democrat). With the republicans operating for the benefit of one race above all others, our political system is therefore a racist battle. With America still trying to live down it's past, the party of the white male has expanded to include radio stations and cable channels that attempt, and often succeed, in setting the rhetoric for the public discourse. Meanwhile, racial minorities who are angered by their treatment of the past point out that no one has ever paid for being a slave owner or putting Japanese into camps during WWII.

And all of that, is, of course, illusion. Like the “Turn” in magic, we are not really looking to see past this act. While Gore was kept from the White House after being elected in 2000, Americans proved they would rather go back to their cell phones and video games than have to fight their government for their freedom. Excess leads to passivity and we are there, my friends. The current public circus is designed to make the citizens feel satisfied to listen to their political pundit tell them they're right and (maybe) vote, paying no attention to the consequences other than to insist that the country is better off for their having voted.

But tell me, what did 8 years of Clinton do to promote “racial equality” in America? Poet Maya Angelou called him an “honorary Black Man.” How were black people better off for Clinton? His main accomplishments were NAFTA, GATT, getting people off welfare, reducing the budget deficit. How does that help black people? The “V” chip? And for that matter, how has George W Bush helped white people? Granted, he didn't do much for black people during Katrina. But that's pretty thin. Are we saying that we have to elect a democrat because if one of the greatest disasters in history happens then a republican will let people die? Katrina was a blunder that most presidents wouldn't have allowed to happen on either side of the aisle. But after 8 years of “W”, aren't white conservatives more convinced than ever that the forces of political correctness are stacking the deck against them? Meanwhile, the Republican congress set a record for pork barrel spending and have brought a $128 Billion Dollar Surplus into Trillions worth of debt. After that crap blaming the Dems for raising taxes is like saying I-flicked-the-switch-but-I-am-not-responsible-for-the-light-going-on.

Bush's plan to help defray the cost of health insurance was sure to draw the ire of the insurance industry, had anyone taken it seriously. And after years of deregulation, the Bush administration had to come down hard on Enron, tying companies up in millions of dollars of Red Tape just to make an IPO in this country. When we really look behind the rhetoric to action, who really stands for anything at all? No one.

So what, then, of racial relations in America? An afterthought. A misdirection. As so many black people feel that Bush and the government is plotting to exterminate them, the white people are equally convinced that Hollywood and the politically correct Democrats are doing the same to them.

What is the answer, then? How to achieve equal opportunity in this atmosphere? The answer is not a simple one. When one group of people do wrong to another, the former never choose to hold themselves responsible. It is on black people to hold white people responsible for the past; that's not right, but it's reality. But that's unlikely to happen, because the anger they hold is based as much on fear as the past. The proof of this is that whenever that anger comes out, it usually is aimed at someone of the same race. With no one to hold white people responsible, there is no one to keep them from being exploited by opportunists who tell them that their lives are hard, not because their values or outlook need changing, but because they aren't being given a fair deal.

So with this quagmire firmly established, can America ever accommodate racial equality? And if we ever have it, will we know it? The answer to the latter question is certainly not. The masses will be exploited by someone stoking their anger by preying on their self-interest and justifying their fears and desires. Our pundits need only adhere to the minimal requirements of social proof and collect their checks. That's why so many of those in public life are dullards.

But then, how do we move towards racial equality? Do we really want to? While conservatives tout capitalism and free enterprise as rewarding innovation and hard work, social networking remains an essential skill in increasing income. Furthermore, most people are content to live the “normal” life, that of having a family and raising children. Most people play it safe, going for a good job and trying to keep it. Few of us take chances and use our full creativity in founding new sources of income. This tendency means that equal effort, or lack thereof, on the part of both races will not move us closer to equality but rather exaggerate whatever advantage already exists.

The humanist's ideal is that the person who can best do the job should be given the job. But isn't part of a job getting along with your employees? If you are perceived differently because of your race, and you are, then doesn't that basically mean that race plays a role in determining how well you do your job, regardless of how many widgets you produce?

So a government in America then faces the challenge of pursuing a goal that is ethical but defined differently according to race, class and political affiliation, and may not have anything in our “shared reality” that can be used to unite the warring ideas. Government has no choice but to pursue this goal because it is ethical, yet the only course of action is to “rob Peter to pay Paul”, always serving one and alienating others.

Since all of this is just a function of imagination, the only progress towards our goal as a nation can be to tear down much of the mental framework surrounding it. That doesn't mean trying to prevent people from believing and acting in their own best interest; that is natural and overall even healthy. No, what that means, first and foremost, is the myth of education.

It seems that in all quarters, people think that education will solve our troubles. That is despite the fact that we are more educated than ever and our troubles are as bad as they have been in decades, especially in matters of race. Education will not uplift us out of poverty, and may in fact make the situation worse. Higher education today is largely a function of racism in itself. While the concept of education being central to the humanist's belief in knowledge being available to the masses and necessary for a functional democracy, today's education only thinly justifies itself in those terms. No, today's education is primarily a way of shifting responsibility for job training off of corporations and employers in general and onto the individual. A degree generally entails plenty of time and effort aimed at classes and activities that have nothing to do with the job being offered. One who attends a trade school may have put in more time and gathered more knowledge and experience towards the job, yet he will see fewer options and command less pay. There is no question as to why that is: the performance is not what is important but the social status that the degree indicates. Most graduates come from higher income families. The higher the degree, the more likely you are to sift out people on the basis of income and race. Putting more emphasis on trade schools will bring job skills to more people, which is counter to the point. And the rising costs of tuition helps this process along nicely.

No, racism is not ignorance. Our blood may all be the same, but the color of our skin is not the only factor determined by race. Racial differences extend to other factors such as facial features, hormone levels, susceptibility to certain diseases. And try as they may, behaviorists consistently find a racial hierarchy in educational achievement no matter how they try to adjust for racism. Perhaps racism cannot be measured. But as the tenants of behaviorism begin to fall and as we become more and more aware that people tend to cling to that knowledge which supports preexisting ideas, and we realize that education is no cure-all for race troubles in America. It's precisely the opposite.

While the conservatives view of race involves the dominant race being so despite the obstacle of racism is so wrong as to be cartoonish, they are correct in thinking that hopelessness is largely responsible for poverty. Many who blame their social status on their race, even in part, are being exploited by liberals who base a large part of their agendas on racial rhetoric, only to do nothing once in office. And much of that rhetoric centers on education as I have previously addressed.

Only by realizing that the largest part of overcoming racial prejudice in America is the ability to network with successful can we begin the process. Not with government do we see justice in this country. With more government involvement, the stakes are raised in the public rhetoric regarding both public policy and morals. In other words, if government intervention remains the sole instrument of balancing the racial scales, then people will have incentive to cloud the waters in politics in order to achieve positions of power and fan the flames of racism. In other words, the country is too “united” to allow a change of ethics from that which we are being dictated by those with professional agendas, national exposure, and ability to exploit our fears.

I would add that Newt Gingrich's idea that we send the National Guard into the inner cities to carry people out and place them elsewhere is a good idea. It seems cruel to us, but the attachment that a lot of people feel to neighborhoods and cities in which one's friends are dying by the day has to be compared somewhat to Stockholm Syndrome. It seems cruel and many would say it places the blame where it doesn't belong. But it's likely the only way things will ever change.

But with our federal government being more concerned with money and power than justice, we can never really have order. And the truth is that we miss the brutal justice dispensed by the tyrants of old. For the real problem here is moral, not financial. Those that are wronged by people who are more powerful than themselves often simply have to live with it. That is the tension between reality and the expectation of universal justice that originates with the advent of monotheism. It seems like ever since the hebrews invented God, we have been dealing with his absence. To those of you who believe in a compassionate God, and feel that his presence pervades our world, I ask: look around. Does the feeling of his presence really compare to the overwhelming pervasion of his absence?

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

07/12/2007 Love and Meaning Is The Tyranny

07/12/2007 Love and Meaning Is The Tyranny



On the topic of romantic love, I'd like to post a question: if there is such a thing as soul-mates, what makes us think that we would know which one is our match?

Now, if any of you are out there thinking, “because I'd feel it”, I'm afraid I must disagree. Think about it; if we are all split into two in heaven and seek our complement on earth, then that means that every one of us out there has one. Not just Brad and Angelina, either. I mean the bum on the streets, your asshole boss, the elderly women with

the walker, the wild eyed carriage-pusher, the rapist, the serial killer. Everyone.

Now, if you're soul-mate was passed out drunk on the street corner smelling like shit and with one eye that won't open, would you “feel it”? I tend to doubt it. A quick personal inventory reveals that when i masturbated over a teenage girl I saw at the supermarket yesterday I was fantasizing about how we would meet and discover our love together. When I meet someone ten years older than me, my “heart” is a flat-line. No one is less qualified to judge who is our soul-mate than we are ourselves. The ass gets in the way, as does the smile, the income level, the sense of humor, what have you. Beautiful women probably have more men deem themselves her soul-mate than anyone could imagine without losing faith in the concept.

Imagine a future in which a machine can analyze you and discover your soul-mate. Would such a society pass a law requiring you to marry your soul-mate? Imagine who you would be paired with. Romance can become tyranny in time, as Christ will attest when he returns to us and judges his own disciples.

It seems logical from all of this that we should now hire matchmakers in order to find someone who has a clear vision of who is our soul-mate. Years ago we had arranged marriages. This is essential to the idea of soul-mates, though it seems counterintuitive. If we trust our destiny (that the two souls are “destined” to be together is the other part of romantic love), then we can only conclude that destiny will match us with our soul-mate. Such mental commitment is required for true love to manifest. A skeptical approach to soul-mates will not change things for the better. If we are going to find who we are meant to be, we can only trust destiny. Therefore our matchmaker must be trusted to arrange our marriage. The current crop of software utilized by internet dating sites will yield nothing, as we go into it as skeptical as we do a singles bar or a tarot card reading. We don't want it to work. And these days, submitting any amount of sovereignty goes against our values, though pluralism has reduced those values to little but shades of gray.

And this concept doesn't have to be limited to romantic relationships. More and more in today's society, we hire other people to find meaning in our lives for us. Yes, there is a “God shaped hole”, but God can no longer fill it.

Health insurance has taken many choices out of our hands, and now happily provides us with “amenities” like therapy and gym memberships. This is called, “preventative medicine” and the relaxing of the definition of medicine in this sense clears the way for all sorts of things. Add this to the fact that it seems inevitable that government take over healthcare in the US, if it hasn't already in your country, and that then the floodgates will open. If a populist (A term that truly describes everyone) gets elected on promises of increased healthcare coverage, then that's a bit of government spending that even the rich can feel. Therapists, already common, could be regarded as necessity. “Know thyself”, right? What's next? Personal coaching. When we are done probing our pasts, don't we need someone to point the way to achieving our goals? Someone to explain how to be happy in the future and to provide a kick in the ass when we fuck up and lay too long on the couch? A cure for obesity?

And beyond that, the matchmaker lays. Aren't we happier and less prone to disease when we are happily married? But I suggest it won't end there. The next step is to have our government assign us this thing we truly lack in this world, and the thing that we absolutely need to achieve happiness: a God. Not a nice, compassionate God, but a brutal, powerful God. One who is no fairer than the one who created us. One who provides both pain and pleasure, and who gives us direction in our lives. And one who punishes us brutally if we fuck up.

Is this not the path before us? We give up the illusion of choice, we can finally find happiness. A God will give us love, purpose, allow us to experience the full array of emotions, and a set of rules that protect us and will not allow us to break them as his predecessor did. This is the fulfillment of a patriarchal pattern from which humanity has been unable to break free for it's entire time on the planet. Capitalism doesn't work. Let's face it. We have never been more prosperous, and never so unhappy.

A nation on credit and antidepressants, our economists are ignorant in the field of human happiness and spirituality. It's time to realize that money doesn't make us happy. Yes, we need to eat and be free of disease. But we, in America, have passed the point of diminishing returns a long time ago. Now we have our own opulence to deal with: and the fact that our dissatisfaction conflicts with our values. The incentive to make more money does not motivate us anymore: most of us have enough. Greed is good, when it's there. But when survival is assured, we end up watching “American Idol” and downloading porn. There will never be direction in our lives until we choose it, and in a way that gives us no oither “choice”.

Sunday, July 15, 2007

07/15/2007 Ageism And Anything Called Romance

07/15/2007 Ageism And Anything Called Romance



Writing recently about sexual subversion, I have started thinking about the assertion of evolutionary psychologists that the most sexually attractive females, and the most likely to contribute offspring, are females of the age of 14 or so. This, they argue, would be the most logical age to couple with a mate (in an evolutionary context, of course. They know that it's not necessarily workable with the ethics at large). The last book I read even went so far as to suggest that females of that age feel a stronger romantic attachment to the males they couple with at that time then at other times in their lives. So I am thinking about this...

If a 14 year old girl were to have a child, this would be a child having a child. Is a fourteen year old too young to be a mother? No one in today's society would say yes, I would guess. It's true, however, that once upon a time we expected more of younger people. When 14 year olds were expected to work, to be wives, to act like adults, they did so. It is hard to know whether or not the current level of immaturity we assign such children manifested itself then in ways that I am not aware of or were not written about in history.

It reminds me of a friend I had as a child. One day we were walking to school. He was telling me that this other kid had moved to Alaska, and that they allow kids our age (13) to drive there. We both laughed at the thought of this kid driving around, endangering all kinds of creatures. I don't know if that was true or not, but it makes me think. You could have given me a license at 13, I would not have been in an accident. I was super-responsible back then. I never really felt like a child. You could have given me a Mack Truck to drive and I would have been less likely to get in an accident than a lot of 50 year olds driving around right now.

So tell me; isn't that wrong? Isn't that ageism, to deprive a capable driver of the same opportunity that you give an incapable one just because of his age?

So much of our society bases judgments on age. We advance kids a grade because of age. Some kids graduate high school still functionally illiterate. Others read at college levels before they hit 12 years. We do not allow work based on age. We draft our athletes after a certain age. We select mates largely on the bases of age. We allow people in the army at a certain age. We vote at a certain age.

But despite the fact that we believe ageism to be wrong, we think of the idea of a 14 year old girl as a mom is horrible. But is the idea of a responsible 14 year old girl being a mom more horrible than a 35 year old drug addict being a mom? Because there's nothing stopping a 35 year old drug addict from having a child, is there? And we would consider the idea of rendering her infertile to be cruel.

Is the idea of a 14 year old having sex as horrible as a 30 year old having sex if that 30 year old is incapable of supporting a child? No, it's true, I would never trust a 14 year old to raise a child, but I would point out that there is no actual lack of responsibility or wisdom at that age which would justify this policy. It's true because we believe it's true. And we believe it's true because it's what we want. For the child, she will believe that she still has years of “fun” left, she may feel deprived of a childhood. But she may feel it more meaningful and fulfilling to become a parent, if she were in the right environment. The parent wants to shape the child into the person that the parent wanted to be themselves. They will still have several more years to do that. Any talk of the child having a child of her own would be quickly shot down as the parent does not want the extra responsibility. But it might be better that way.

I mean, if the teenage girl were to have a child, she would learn responsibility early on. The sabbatical from school would only cost her a few months or years. She would benefit from having a family in place to fall back on, and whatever level of wisdom her own parents have from raising their own children. A planned pregnancy in the early stages of a girl's life would allow the girl and the parents to choose a father who would have the financial resources to support the child, and who would likely make a significant investment of time and emotional support. Men willing to give such support would not be so limited in the number of children they give it to. The choice of the father would be separate from the idea of romantic love and therefore a more logical choice could be made.

The girl, then, would have the child young, and not feel the pressure to start a family when she reaches adulthood. She doesn't have to push for commitment in her romantic relationships, and there would be fewer bad marriages as a result.

And remember, this relationship is already happening in high schools everywhere. There are teenage girls dating guys in their mid-twenties all over this country. Often, the resulting pregnancy causes family strife. And the girl sometimes has to go on welfare to support the child. Children, though it is not politically correct to say so, are a strain on the financial resources of any family. And one reason families split apart is often money. And it's true that poorer areas tend to reproduce more than richer ones. That means that a lot of the children that are born are continuing a cycle of poverty. Planning a pregnancy early allows for proper preparations, and shifts the burden of providing resources onto the people who have resources.

The downside of all this might be that there will be an emerging market of young girls being “peddled” by their parents to rich candidates for fatherhood. That seems strange, if not evil, though all this remains logically to the betterment of society and people's happiness in general. And it is all a logical next step to the transformation of marriage and coupling from a political based decision to unite two families and also to control the sexual desires into a quest to find the person you're “destined” to be with. The needs of a child, and the mom, are very practical and need to be separated from anything called, “romance.”

Saturday, July 14, 2007

07/14/2007 The Turing Apocolypse

07/14/2007 The Turing Apocolypse



I have come to the conclusion that you can't judge someone for their politics. That's not just some sort of liberal-pansyist plea for tolerance, but rather a hard won bit of knowledge that comes from realizing my own failings. To make a long story short, we all learn our politics when we are young, then spend the rest of our lives gathering evidence in our own favor. That's just a fact. We are all pleasure seekers. We all seek the pleasure of being told we are right. And we all seek the safety of our own expectations. So we all live within our own set of assumptions. True self-knowledge of this kind is strictly given on a need-to-know basis.

But it still makes me mad to read about Alan Turing. Turing lived not too long ago, 1912-1954. They at least allowed him to live to be 41. Alan Turing was a great mathematician who played an integral role in inventing the computer.

At 14 he was so determined to get to school that he once biked over 60 miles to get to his class. At 14, I wouldn't even have driven to the next town. The only reason I ever showed up for class was that I was afraid to get caught skipping.

But Turing was a Homosexual and that's a no-no, isn't it? Bad boy. He was injected with hormones to reduce his sex-drive and grew breasts. He lost his job with the navy and killed himself. Fun bit of unjust justice for all the homophobes out there.

Turing was one of the first advocates for the possibility that there could be an artificial intelligence that could think just like a human being. This doesn't seem as far-fetched today as in the past, when only God could build a tree.

Now, imagine it. Artificial intelligence; the ability to create a consciousness from the ground up. That's the same, I would say, as creating the world from the ground up. Imagine if you could see the world without the encumbrance of instinct, of personal needs or desires. To see the world as the Buddhists want to see it. But let me put it another way...

What if you could see God for who he really is? What if you could hear God tell you he doesn't exist? Would you open your eyes? When you look around you at the world God created, does it seem to indicate that God is as compassionate as you want him to be? Will God appear to you as a kindly old man like Ronald Reagan? What if God is not what you expect him to be; what you need him to be?

Suppose we could see the world as it really is. Suppose we build an intelligence that can see the world without our paradigms. What would this thing do without a goal? What would it see? If you could take every belief you have and pinpoint a memory that leads to it, and erase it, what would you be? Then, if you could see the world that way, what would you take from it? Would any idea of the world automatically lead to mathematics? Would artificial intelligence use logic to defeat itself and declare it irrelevant? Would it become a pleasure seeker? Would it believe in God? In love? What would it say about humans?

If justice was a natural part of the universe and not a human invention, then what would artificial intelligence, or God, say we owe for Alan Turing?

Friday, July 13, 2007

7/07/2007 The Devil Wants Us Celibate So Let's Evolve

7/07/2007 The Devil Wants Us Celibate So Let's Evolve



How many guys fantasize about being raped by a woman? Of course, one probably isn't going to fantasize about being raped by Rosie O'Donnell anytime soon. But a beauty like the girl in my fantasy? More than would let on, I bet.

The point is this: physical domination is not what fantasy is about, it is sexual dominance that is key. The idea that even if the flesh was unwilling, the spirit could not resist. That's why I cannot escape the girl in my fantasy. It is not a matter of choice just because I am not physically forced. The difference between rape and seduction fails in that sense; choice is a fiction in itself. Many of us see this in a christian context; that choice is something God gave us- we choose between good and evil. But this is wrong. Many of us choose to do things we don't want to choose. We smoke when we don't want to smoke. We eat when we are obese. We do drugs and lose hurt the people we love. We are not so in control of our actions as the term, “choice” indicates. My rape fantasy doesn't free me of responsibility; explain that all you amateur psychologists.

I have never had an orgasm that felt like conquest. 95% of the time when I have an orgasm, the thoughts that come with it are thoughts of commitment. Many times my orgasm is accompanied by whispered commitments, like “I would do anything for you” or “I am dedicating my life to you”. My orgasm is my own conquest by another, though they are not often actually present. And normally it feels like a natural consequence of their worthiness as a mate.

And that's what makes rape fantasies so hot for me. The idea that someone worthy could rape you to take pleasure from you or attain a higher status; and that they are so worthy or so sexy that you couldn't help give them your soul, even though you know it's wrong. That, I suspect, is also a part of incestuous fantasies and seduction, and also extra-marital affairs.

It also explains further why I believe that rape fantasies are somewhat of a sublimation of a gay desire on the part of men. If the women in the fantasy orgasms for the man for the reasons I mentioned, then that must mean that the person having the fantasy feels that the man is sexy, and expresses it by having the women orgasm. That also may be the reason that studies indicate that men find visual depictions of lesbians more erotic than heterosexual couples.

And after all, while a man's erection may be a tribute to the beauty of a woman, don't all men really seek the female's orgasm? And don't we want to feel what they are feeling, imagining that they feel the same sense of surrender to us that we feel to them?

I sometimes fantasize that God created evolution and that a man will or won't get into heaven based on how many orgasms he has caused. Given what you have seen in your life, would you doubt it?

Thursday, July 12, 2007

07/10/2007 Nanking? Guantanamo? Ah... The Behavior Of Grown-Ups

07/10/2007 Nanking? Guantanamo? Ah... The Behavior Of Grown-Ups ;)



I once had a younger person working under me. He had trouble showing up on time, and had wide mood swings. He used to run down hallways and jump about, often endangering other employees and their work (not that they resented him for it, they thought it was funny.) When I sat him down and had a meeting with him, he told me, “I think the company is stealing people's souls.”

My own managers scoffed at this. “Immaturity” they declared, and we moved on to the subject of how to “correct” this misconception and the behavior of this employee. Years later, the same employee would admit that he, in fact, was immature when he said that.

Utter nonsense. Now, let's say this: a lot of us feel that way when we are young. A lot of us give up this thinking later, declaring that we have “grown up.” But tell me, how many “grown ups” do you really see when you look around? Do we learn to do what's right, or do we simply reach a point where no one tells us we're wrong anymore?

Do we grow up? Or do we give up? Give up our happiness, give up our dreams? Many would say that it's immature just to ask. I would say that this is defense, and personal hurts shouldn't get in the way of rigorous thought about this society, growing up and what toll it takes on the human soul. Shall we ignore it to save the feelings of people because they cannot find meaning in their lives and don't want to have to think about it?

Do we grow up? Or do we give up? Do we ever answer the question of how to keep our souls, or do we learn not to ask? When we are young, like the man in my example, we can ask such questions. He still had his life ahead, literally. He could still be a doctor, an accountant, a baseball player, a rock star, a president. But if you're 40 and you still don't know what the meaning is in your life, what do you do? To answer that question, I'll ask another.

Why do therapists always blame the parents? Answer: because if someone doesn't blame the parents, the parents will blame the kids. Think about it; what did your parents blame you for? Did your parents ever tell you that they could have been poets, presidents, philosophers, singers, but they gave it all up to care for you? So now you're the reason they couldn't achieve their dreams? Never mind that they logged hours a day in front of the TV. And I'm sure there's more. We blame our children for so much. They are the reasons we divorce, the reasons we drink, the reasons we throw tantrums, the reasons we have to molest them and beat them. And what's worse, they are the meaning in our lives. Why go to a job you hate every day? To put your kid through school. When they are done with school? That's their problem. Then I'll retire to Florida where the weather's nice and watch TV some more, maybe play some golf.

All of this ethical framework defends you from doing one thing: what you want to do. What did you want to do when you were a child? Actually, most children are already so fearful that they won't even allow themselves to want to do something. So the question is, what did you dream of doing? And not just because your daddy did it. What did you dream about doing in your head where no one could see? It doesn't have to be just one thing. Was it to be a great leader? Was it to be a great singer? To write a great novel? To be a great actor? To hit the two out homer in the ninth to win it? To hit the big three at the buzzer?

I don't believe that any of us really dream of being janitors, actuaries, bankers. Not for a second. And when we “grow up”, we accept all this moral framework designed to keep us all in line. To keep us from valuing our dreams.

Consider the difference in our thought versus some other philosophies. In Buddhism, there is a saying, “If you see the Buddha, kill him.” What that means is, that Buddha taught the way of the world. Therefore, you should follow the way of the world. To follow a way because Buddha taught it is considered wrong. Contrast that with our Christian ideal that we should follow the bible. That God's word is not necessarily always apparent to us, and so we must have, “faith” and do what the church tells us. Consider how far behind the christians have left the sermon on the mount and how for centuries in the dark ages they would execute religious groups that went against their doctrine, and we see that Christianity is not about human happiness but order.

And that's what “growing up” is, submitting to order. Granted, many of us rationalize this by thinking that following the order must lead to happiness, no matter how we suffer for it. To step out of the order and pursue our dreams is a path fraught with fear. And if you never take that step, or become aware of the true reasons you accept this order, you are not alone. But the next time a young person tells you that the jobs is stealing their soul, think twice about what you really want to tell them.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

07/11/2007 Stockholm Syndrome

07/11/2007 Stockholm Syndrome



It's funny how we must always try to understand things from the base of our own assumptions. Why would one who is kidnapped become attached to the kidnapper? Why would one who is taken hostage, beaten and raped repeatedly over a period of days or weeks, then become attached to the perpetrator, make no effort to escape, and then defend them when they are rescued?

Some have attributed this to an adaptation mechanism that humans would have to develop due to the historical frequency of one “tribe” or country invading another and killing, raping or enslaving them. Would those that are taken then face a life of utter misery? Would they kill themselves en masse? Or would they form an emotional attachment to those who took them rather than face a life alone?

I think that's more an explanation that preserves prior misconceptions than anything. While safety may be the main goal of much of human behavior, we must also see the danger in it as well. Look around you, you Americans; tell me what you see. Godlessness? Existential angst? Isn't that half the problem in our lives; that when people behave selfishly, God stays aloof? Too much safety means too little justice. If we are all safe, than the people who hurt us are also safe. Safety is a slow burn.

And we fantasize about being heros. We also fantasize about being raped. Some of us fantasize about being beaten as well, though I am not among them. For many girls, their greatest dream is to meet Prince Charming and be swept off their feet. Perhaps they don't mean it so literally... but the connotation is there. Is it there for a reason?

The kidnapped person who is isolated from society is free of social proof. The victim has a new ethical framework to work with. The kidnapper creates a new world and a system of justice which often results in brutal beatings if not followed. The kidnapper often provides sexual pleasure as well. What could be better? Once the victim decides to abandon his/her thinking from the previous system, our system, which likely didn't provide much pleasure or guidance, the victim is living a fantasy. For the first time, there really is a God, one with the power to impose justice. There really is a prince charming, one that has all the powers of a God and has risked everything to be with you. One who may love you more passionately than anyone who has loved you within the boundaries of “sanity”.

What's good enough for our kids is not good enough for us? Okay, so society can never sanction such relationships, though it might be what it truly takes to make us happy. But in a “free” society, can we not understand ourselves to be voluntary slaves? Going to jobs we hate for reasons we only come to accept for lack of other options? Do we exaggerate what might happen to us if we leave our jobs, or goof off? Are we finding ways of hurting each other within the limits of the law? Finding ways of victimizing ourselves, if not physically then with our own thoughts? Do we find obstacles to narrow our own options and try to find a path given to us, rather than forging our own? Isn't our dissatisfaction with our relationships tied to disappointment in our lovers? That they don't know how to make us feel something? That they don't give our lives meaning? And isn't our dissatisfaction with our presidents that they don't impose justice? And when we go to church, don't we hope against hope that there really is a God who, somewhere, sometime, will be as brutal with the evil-doers as we wish he would have been with us before we got away with all we did?

Monday, July 9, 2007

07/07/2007 Katrina My Love...

07/07/2007 Katrina My Love...


Just wondering; has anyone thought that perhaps Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for Mardi Gras? I mean, I know all you conservatives think that you're going to get locked up for saying what you think (their most calculated of complaints; one must give them credit for brilliantly using what artists call “negative space” to essentially lie about their opponents), but really. Didn't Reagan get away with saying that A.I.D.S. was God's punishment for gay men? If “everything happens for a reason”, then what exactly is the reason for Katrina? Now, granted, the guy in the White House hasn't said anything to that effect. But if he did believe it, I should point out, then he likely would have acted no differently.

Other than Christmas, Mardi Gras must be considered one of the greatest remaining popular pagan rituals. Not as popular as Christmas, but certainly a famous one. It should be remembered that the early Americans outlawed Christmas as feeding avarice. Their Christ's birthday was at a different time of year, to be celebrated by fasting. Try selling that to this crowd. Could it be the old rituals that we observed have some effect on today's obesity rates? We learn to get pleasure from foods today, and the latest products, even from our politics. Once upon a time, we got pleasure from self-denial. That's missing from our lives today, no? In fact, it's considered downright exotic, if not insane.

As liberals put out protest albums and try to convince us that they have values, we see the role pleasure plays in our public discourse. As the news degenerates into a battle of who can tell us we're right, the religious groups and movie makers have each chosen their side. On the right, we have the Heritage Foundation, Big Oil, and/or A whole Group of large corporations that would see a vow of poverty as being on the same level of wisdom as thinking the earth is flat. So where once a great Jewish prophet told us to turn the other cheek, today's “christians” tell us that the richest country in the world is so because of their values, that they are the chosen ones and that we need to kill the dark-skinned heathens before they kill us. Meanwhile, the turn the other cheek idea is being peddled by celebrities who go on television shows and slobber over themselves before getting into their limos and going off to their mansions or private beaches.

With self-denial gone from the equation and business firmly in the positive ethical space as far as exploiting pleasure for their own gain, we see the political arena and religious institutions becoming businesses. With our religions supporting politicians that turn a blind eye to the poor, who reduce standards on emissions that cause deadly smog that kills the old and the weak, that advocates guns, and that wages war, they contradict the spirit of their own dogma. What is their focus? Gay sex. Abortions. Look in the media; how much of the commentary on incestuous relationships come from conservative commentators and religious advocates? From them we hear of the dangers of having sex with the same sex, how it's the same as marrying your sister. How gay people are bringing about the apocalypse, how they want to teach their kind of sex to children, how teenage girls are using abortion as birth control. And when I remind you that words put images into your mind as effectively as television, then you'll see why our churches are our new houses of pornography. Factor in the physical pleasure one feels when one is told that they are right, and you'll see what I mean when I say that hollywood and the religious right worship at the same “alter.”

Towns and cities that are trying to get restaurants to put the calories next to the menu items might want to consider requiring themselves to take the words, “Democrat” and “Republican” off their ballots. How else to make room for truth that goes unfunded? If someone wanted to tell us to “turn the other cheek”, to preach self-denial as a means of achieving happiness and to treat all beings with compassion, who would fund it?

Sunday, July 8, 2007

7/07/2007 My Little World View Of Your Mind

7/07/2007 My Little World View Of Your Mind



We often see it in old television shows and movies: the ability to read minds. It always ends up disastrous, doesn't it? I guess the writers don't think that, “we can handle the truth.” They're probably right. As far as reading minds, I have always felt that reading mine (generally a skill we all feel we already have, but we don't. Or not to the degree we think, anyway) was the same as reading yours, as monstrous as some of you who may read my blog may think that is. Many of us learn too much for our own good about the way our minds work, and furthermore can read body language to the degree that we can guess pretty well what others are thinking. But a truly open society remains the stuff of fiction, literally.

On Friday I am thinking of this as I came home late. I went to my supermarket and got some stuff. The other girl I had kind of a crush on wasn't there. I hadn't seen her in a while. She used to be there all the time. She was there late, on weekends. I noticed her in particular because while there are lots of cute teenage girls about, she in particular has a sense of the aesthetic in the way she dresses and does her hair that put her above most. But she was gone.

After that I went down the street a bit to buy some printer carts and there she was at the cash register. At first, when I saw her, it took me a second to recognize her. After staring for a moment and then realizing that she was looking right back at me, I looked away. She was looking back at me angrily. I didn't know why. I was all business. I went to the counter and as she scanned in the items there was an error buzz, followed by an exasperated exhale. I couldn't help but laugh a little. Okay, so I wasn't the reason she was mad.

I still left the store feeling empty. I wanted to say something to her. Not anything sexual, but I wanted to say hi. I recognized her and I know her name. But I felt like I couldn't say anything to her. I felt like a dirty old man. Why? Because I am a dirty old man. I want to make love to this girl, and a good many of my masturbation sessions have featured her in my thoughts; me making love to her, or another girl doing her with a strap-on. How do I look this girl in the eye?

Will we ever get to a point where we can be honest with each other? Will I ever be able to just say to a girl like this, “I'm going to miss seeing you because you're so pretty and I always hope you're there”? That reminds me of the movie, “Hitch”, when Hitch says, “Guys have to learn this stuff because it's not enough for you to just say, 'I like you.'” Of course, romantic performance is subject to the laws of supply and demand. Just letting our feelings be known is a matter of unburdening ourselves, often at the expense of another. But will we ever want honesty from one another? Is our ethical system always so favoring defense that I will never be able to tell her she's pretty without fear of being judged?

Of course, it's the same fear that keeps me from saying it in the first place that would move her to judge me. And her judgments would likely be correct. Again, what hurts more than the truth? So now let's take it a step further. What if we could read each other's mind?

That's a more complex idea than the Twilight Zone ever conceived. Hearing words is not the same as reading one's mind. The mind consists of a full imagination. To read someone's mind is to hear their words, see the images in their mind, hear the sounds and the words, know the emotions attached to these images and sounds, and the memories that put them into the context you have them. It also means understanding the paradigms, the conclusions, the influences in arts, religion and family, and genetic influences that might cause much of this. It is likely that the mind of a complex person would be unreadable to a rube. It also may mean different cultures might be unreadable to one another. And does it mean that we'd be offended? Oh boy! You bet!

If this girl could have read my mind, she would immediately have seen my pathetic life in total. She also would have seen no remorse on my part. She would have seen that day in December when she was my cashier and she finished by wishing me a happy new year, and I had to fight the urge to kiss her. She would see the image of her co-worker fucking her, and the profound arousal that caused me. She would see my preference for women with dark hair and dark skin. I think she'd be grossed out.

But the question I would ask is, wouldn't we adjust in time? After all the offense taken and fear, wouldn't we be somewhat desensitized to it? And then we would never have to worry about being lied to. There are positive things in what we think as well; positive thoughts we hide. If she could read my mind, she'd know that the reason I didn't say any of this in the first place is that I'd rather take a knife to the abdomen than to do something to hurt her. She'd see that despite all this ludicrous thought and desire, that there is absolutely nothing to fear from me. She'd see that I think she's beautiful and would do anything appropriate to help her in any pursuit she chose to make her happy. She'd also see that anyone who tried to hurt her better not try when I'm around. None of this would make her want to marry me, but it might comfort her somewhat. She may even welcome my presence.

And as time went on, we would adjust to knowing each other's thoughts, and know each other better as a result. But for now, it would have been nice to say hello, to get some recognition. I'm afraid that there will always be a lot of lonely people in the world as it is. The saying goes, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. Nope. We have to fear others who are also afraid; and that, is a legitimate fear.