1.The reactive emotive response might be capable of inspiring, or creating to some extent the explanation for it, by manipulating our conceptual capacity, which may then only affirm post hoc, and only then, possibly doubt it.
2.Enhanced linguistic/analytic capability, in addition to possibly being solely influenced by increased blood flow to brain, or manipulation of the thalamus, it may also be a sole response to the relaxation caused by THC working outside the CNS.
3.The dreamlike visual experience while high is similar to dream and must involve the same sort of accessing/limiting of the visual experience that is involved in reproducing visual stimuli while dreaming.
4.The moon tonight looks like an expressionist, or Munch painting. It could also be a comic book in the lighting and coloring. The blue of the moon was of a certain softness that seemed to be generally reserved for the appearance of paint or ink.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
NON-FICTION: Further notes on the Force of Faith
The dominant religions of our world cannot exist apart from continuously reinforced ingorance, fear of the outsiders, condemnation of the world available to us through free enquiry, and pressure to believe, starting at youth.
The majority of people in the world who adhere to Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been introduced to their faith primarily by the awesome power of their parents.
The parents bring the child it's first role model, hierarchical system, and instructions on how to think. The parents are the witnesses to the validity of faith. They immerse the child in presumptions that need not be independently verified by the child. The child's belief in any nonsense that the parent spouts, such as the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is easily taken for granted by the child. And when the child doubts these presumptions, he or she is inclined to obey the parents admonitions against doubting. And when this doubt is portrayed to the child as fundamentally dangerous, fundamentally bad, and straight up evil, the child will invest great amounts of energy into suppressing this doubt and reworking his or her thinking in order to conform with these doubtful presumptions.
More than just parents are needed, however, to reinforce the suspicious presumptions. The child of a lone nut or cult member must be kept away from other kids in the neighborhood as much as possible, lest the child be corrupted by other views, and led astray by the desire to fit in to his or her peer group. And the child of a Christian living in a Christian neighborhood, or living in a country where Christianity is prevalent, still must be guarded, against the non-Christian elements of society, which tempt the child all it's life. This defense of the child's inculcation into an indefensible world view is not something the parent can do alone. It takes the whole neighborhood. It takes a group effort.
In addition, then to the force of the parents in inculcating faith, we further need the constant reinforcement of the wider group. Uncles, aunts, neighbors, grandparents, teachers and principals need to scare the child away from doubting doubtful assertions of miracles and magic. When the child of strong faith enters into a world where that faith is not taken for granted, it hardly survives. In an environment where assertions of god, battles between gods, resurrection, original sin, the illusory character of the self, contracts between a god and certain ethnic groups, or the communication between god and certain historical figures are generally tolerated, but often looked down upon for their irrationality or dismissal of the need for evidence, there is little hope for the full retention of the faith of one's childhood.
In such situations, the hope of faith lies in fear and incoherence. The parent and other authorities attach a strict fear of punishment, rejection, and hopelessness to the questionable doctrines they force onto children.
When the time comes that the child's reasoning contradicts the myths of his parents and community, the threats against non-believers come into play. You're life will be meaningless, if you sustain thought processes that invalidate your faith. You will be lost, afloat in the universe in a sea of chaos. You will go to hell, where everything you fear will be inflicted upon you ceaselessly. You will be a savage, a non-human, at the mercy of your base desires.
And, for children who reject this intimidation, a personal use may be fashioned out of the anti-definition, anti-verification doctrines of god that have been forced on them.
For these children, the entry into adolescence and adulthood may bring the realization that a positive internal experience of the other can be a source of comfort and power.
When we are alone in ourselves, there is that sense of otherness, perhaps it really is some independent entity, or perhaps it is just the corresponding brain mechanism that allows us to latch onto our parents at birth, or maybe it is some creation inspired by our sociality, or tendency to reach out to others in times of distress, to beg for help from the people available to us. But it is there in me, and I assume that it is there in many people. I have other presences in me too, some I call myself and some I reject. Some are paranoid, petty and violent, and some allow me to conform to a standard of behavior that I believe in.
When we are alone in ourselves, we are never alone. Our selves are a jumble of tendencies and drives and noise and processes. The anomalous nature of the god that we are forbidden from categorizing, defining, analysing, editing, correcting, or facing with cold logic becomes something ever more capable of survival for it's vagueness. And it is in this form that it survives within a great deal of adults, especially those in communities where no particular relgious dogma is enforced by the state, peer-pressure, or the clergy.
If you arm a child with tools of reasoning, evidence, testing, verification, and indepedendence of thought, you need not fear too much that the child will be turned toward Catholicism, Mormonism, or the Moonie cult.
But to go the other way, to arm the child with fear of disbelief in your own particular dogma, to constantly reinforce this fear with the participation of the greater community, and to erase from the child's mind any possibility of other beliefs is the true calling and goal of the fellowship of belief, be it in Saudi Arabia, 14th century Europe, Hindu Nationalist areas in India, the former theocracy of Tibet, the former theocracy of China, the former theocracy of Japan, or the desired theocracy of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S.A.
In the secular forums they speak for equal time, such as in the attempt to combat evolution by theists in my own country. In societies generated by plurality and a belief in the goodness of equality among different peoples, they demand fairness and respect, such as in the case of moderate Muslims during the Danish cartoon incident.
But in their realms, at Jesus Camp, in the countries where Isalmic clergy holds power superior or comparable to the state, and in other contexts where religion dominates, they let go of the secular appeals to respect, fairness, and tolerance. In their own worlds, they are free to ban, to kill heretics, to burn books, smash cd's, intimidate their children, subjugate woman, subjugate the poor, punish the victim, and generally deny the tenets of toleration, reason, discussion, evidence, and doubt.
After hundreds of years in Western Civilization of certain factions and camps fighting for ever greater inclusiveness, fairness, and better living for an ever greater portion of society, these Faithful, once again, are reacting against freedom and tolerance.
They fight against the system by appealing to the rules they spit upon. Christians who deny evidence, deny even the possibility of testing their central beliefs, argue for open-minded science, and embracing a plurality of beliefs. Their open mindedness extends only to those of their theories that have been rejected by scientists, and their plurality extends to and ends with their singular view of the world and our place in it. They fight against free speech by utilizing their rights to protest and publish. Muslims in Britain protest against the system that refuses to condemn them for their beliefs, and they do so in the hopes that they can spread Islam throughout the world, silencing and eliminating secular government and the reviled embrace of pluralism.
All this they call faith. There is no major, peace loving, fellow-human loving, beuatiful paen to humanity type of Faith around today that was not spread by force, by the threat of death, or some other punishment.
And when idiots promote their religion by appealing to the prevalence of religion, they are also endorsing the continued coercing of children into belief that is the endeavor of many of their co-religionists and a vital issue in their theology.
It is only in the modern times of rejection of religion that they embrace toleration of other religions. It is only because we skeptics, we heretics, we godless killjoys have had so much influence that religious leaders tentatively accept a society where our rights are protected. But, for the most part, those leaders only accept this secular society insofar as it serves the end of spreading their own dogma. For the dominance of the dogma is the general aim of religious leaders. Not a simple recognition of rights and practices, regardless of personal belief, but obedience to their chosen dogmas. Just as they were coerced into belief, so must others be coerced into the true belief, either by attacking evolution, democracy, and rational thought, or by attacking the people that don't agree with them, such as non-Muslisms, non-Christians,communists, abortion doctors, apostates, and, of course, the gays.
There will always be plenty of people ready to accept their own beliefs as something that others need not accept. There will always be people who prefer good social ties and equitable relationships over adherence to unprovable dogma. But these people don't get to be religous leaders very often, and if they do happen to attain influence, like Marting Luther King, they are slandered and reviled as untrue to their faith.
The religous leaders that hold out, espeicially when simply keeping one's religion to oneself is so banal, are the ones who have a fight, who stand out against the general society in their nonsensical intepretations of their religion (usually they claim to need no interpretation, which is impossible.)
These are the people that threaten our freedom, the progress of our civilizations, and the enjoyment of our lives.
Faith, one of the most revered artifacts of humanity, is nothing more than repetition of dogma backed by the towering authority of the parent, the threat of exclusion from one's community, the threat of physical harm, the internal threat of betraying the only truth one feels validated in accepting, and the kings and armies of history.
The reverence for faith is a reverence misunderstood and obfuscated by those who profess it. It is a feeling of obedience and loyalty made into a faculty in it's own right, that no one can find and that no one ought even to look for.
The majority of people in the world who adhere to Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and Judaism have been introduced to their faith primarily by the awesome power of their parents.
The parents bring the child it's first role model, hierarchical system, and instructions on how to think. The parents are the witnesses to the validity of faith. They immerse the child in presumptions that need not be independently verified by the child. The child's belief in any nonsense that the parent spouts, such as the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is easily taken for granted by the child. And when the child doubts these presumptions, he or she is inclined to obey the parents admonitions against doubting. And when this doubt is portrayed to the child as fundamentally dangerous, fundamentally bad, and straight up evil, the child will invest great amounts of energy into suppressing this doubt and reworking his or her thinking in order to conform with these doubtful presumptions.
More than just parents are needed, however, to reinforce the suspicious presumptions. The child of a lone nut or cult member must be kept away from other kids in the neighborhood as much as possible, lest the child be corrupted by other views, and led astray by the desire to fit in to his or her peer group. And the child of a Christian living in a Christian neighborhood, or living in a country where Christianity is prevalent, still must be guarded, against the non-Christian elements of society, which tempt the child all it's life. This defense of the child's inculcation into an indefensible world view is not something the parent can do alone. It takes the whole neighborhood. It takes a group effort.
In addition, then to the force of the parents in inculcating faith, we further need the constant reinforcement of the wider group. Uncles, aunts, neighbors, grandparents, teachers and principals need to scare the child away from doubting doubtful assertions of miracles and magic. When the child of strong faith enters into a world where that faith is not taken for granted, it hardly survives. In an environment where assertions of god, battles between gods, resurrection, original sin, the illusory character of the self, contracts between a god and certain ethnic groups, or the communication between god and certain historical figures are generally tolerated, but often looked down upon for their irrationality or dismissal of the need for evidence, there is little hope for the full retention of the faith of one's childhood.
In such situations, the hope of faith lies in fear and incoherence. The parent and other authorities attach a strict fear of punishment, rejection, and hopelessness to the questionable doctrines they force onto children.
When the time comes that the child's reasoning contradicts the myths of his parents and community, the threats against non-believers come into play. You're life will be meaningless, if you sustain thought processes that invalidate your faith. You will be lost, afloat in the universe in a sea of chaos. You will go to hell, where everything you fear will be inflicted upon you ceaselessly. You will be a savage, a non-human, at the mercy of your base desires.
And, for children who reject this intimidation, a personal use may be fashioned out of the anti-definition, anti-verification doctrines of god that have been forced on them.
For these children, the entry into adolescence and adulthood may bring the realization that a positive internal experience of the other can be a source of comfort and power.
When we are alone in ourselves, there is that sense of otherness, perhaps it really is some independent entity, or perhaps it is just the corresponding brain mechanism that allows us to latch onto our parents at birth, or maybe it is some creation inspired by our sociality, or tendency to reach out to others in times of distress, to beg for help from the people available to us. But it is there in me, and I assume that it is there in many people. I have other presences in me too, some I call myself and some I reject. Some are paranoid, petty and violent, and some allow me to conform to a standard of behavior that I believe in.
When we are alone in ourselves, we are never alone. Our selves are a jumble of tendencies and drives and noise and processes. The anomalous nature of the god that we are forbidden from categorizing, defining, analysing, editing, correcting, or facing with cold logic becomes something ever more capable of survival for it's vagueness. And it is in this form that it survives within a great deal of adults, especially those in communities where no particular relgious dogma is enforced by the state, peer-pressure, or the clergy.
If you arm a child with tools of reasoning, evidence, testing, verification, and indepedendence of thought, you need not fear too much that the child will be turned toward Catholicism, Mormonism, or the Moonie cult.
But to go the other way, to arm the child with fear of disbelief in your own particular dogma, to constantly reinforce this fear with the participation of the greater community, and to erase from the child's mind any possibility of other beliefs is the true calling and goal of the fellowship of belief, be it in Saudi Arabia, 14th century Europe, Hindu Nationalist areas in India, the former theocracy of Tibet, the former theocracy of China, the former theocracy of Japan, or the desired theocracy of fundamentalist Christians in the U.S.A.
In the secular forums they speak for equal time, such as in the attempt to combat evolution by theists in my own country. In societies generated by plurality and a belief in the goodness of equality among different peoples, they demand fairness and respect, such as in the case of moderate Muslims during the Danish cartoon incident.
But in their realms, at Jesus Camp, in the countries where Isalmic clergy holds power superior or comparable to the state, and in other contexts where religion dominates, they let go of the secular appeals to respect, fairness, and tolerance. In their own worlds, they are free to ban, to kill heretics, to burn books, smash cd's, intimidate their children, subjugate woman, subjugate the poor, punish the victim, and generally deny the tenets of toleration, reason, discussion, evidence, and doubt.
After hundreds of years in Western Civilization of certain factions and camps fighting for ever greater inclusiveness, fairness, and better living for an ever greater portion of society, these Faithful, once again, are reacting against freedom and tolerance.
They fight against the system by appealing to the rules they spit upon. Christians who deny evidence, deny even the possibility of testing their central beliefs, argue for open-minded science, and embracing a plurality of beliefs. Their open mindedness extends only to those of their theories that have been rejected by scientists, and their plurality extends to and ends with their singular view of the world and our place in it. They fight against free speech by utilizing their rights to protest and publish. Muslims in Britain protest against the system that refuses to condemn them for their beliefs, and they do so in the hopes that they can spread Islam throughout the world, silencing and eliminating secular government and the reviled embrace of pluralism.
All this they call faith. There is no major, peace loving, fellow-human loving, beuatiful paen to humanity type of Faith around today that was not spread by force, by the threat of death, or some other punishment.
And when idiots promote their religion by appealing to the prevalence of religion, they are also endorsing the continued coercing of children into belief that is the endeavor of many of their co-religionists and a vital issue in their theology.
It is only in the modern times of rejection of religion that they embrace toleration of other religions. It is only because we skeptics, we heretics, we godless killjoys have had so much influence that religious leaders tentatively accept a society where our rights are protected. But, for the most part, those leaders only accept this secular society insofar as it serves the end of spreading their own dogma. For the dominance of the dogma is the general aim of religious leaders. Not a simple recognition of rights and practices, regardless of personal belief, but obedience to their chosen dogmas. Just as they were coerced into belief, so must others be coerced into the true belief, either by attacking evolution, democracy, and rational thought, or by attacking the people that don't agree with them, such as non-Muslisms, non-Christians,communists, abortion doctors, apostates, and, of course, the gays.
There will always be plenty of people ready to accept their own beliefs as something that others need not accept. There will always be people who prefer good social ties and equitable relationships over adherence to unprovable dogma. But these people don't get to be religous leaders very often, and if they do happen to attain influence, like Marting Luther King, they are slandered and reviled as untrue to their faith.
The religous leaders that hold out, espeicially when simply keeping one's religion to oneself is so banal, are the ones who have a fight, who stand out against the general society in their nonsensical intepretations of their religion (usually they claim to need no interpretation, which is impossible.)
These are the people that threaten our freedom, the progress of our civilizations, and the enjoyment of our lives.
Faith, one of the most revered artifacts of humanity, is nothing more than repetition of dogma backed by the towering authority of the parent, the threat of exclusion from one's community, the threat of physical harm, the internal threat of betraying the only truth one feels validated in accepting, and the kings and armies of history.
The reverence for faith is a reverence misunderstood and obfuscated by those who profess it. It is a feeling of obedience and loyalty made into a faculty in it's own right, that no one can find and that no one ought even to look for.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
NON-FICTION: View of my recent self
美术历史 Art History
I really excelled in this class, in just the way I really want to. In just the way that can validate my sense of myself and my aspirations in writing and learning.
Significant aspects of success were a responsive, enthusiastic teacher who believed in what she was teaching, the emphasis on attribution of theoretical category as the main subject of the class, and my pre-existing familiarity with the history of western painting, western aesthetics, aesthetic theory, and western history in general.
The fact that so much of the motivation was antagonistic and rebellious helped to give me a structure within which to fill out the descriptions.
If only ever class was like this. I didn’t have to worry about learning anything for the most part. I just listened, and read, and thought. Everything was easily absorbed.
人类体格学 Phys. Anthropology
Son of a bitch. Here my creativity and serious treatment of the subject was useless, and perhaps worked slightly against me, either by encouraging a reaction against my arrogance or expecting more based on my writing syle.
That bastard was perfectly reasonable within the confines of his narrow mechanistic approach.
I didn’t study much or really give the time necessary to fully understand every thing he wanted us to memorize.
It brings to mind again the issue of submission as the key to success. My struggle with my fierce independence and the demands of being a student. 恶性死我
My sincere contemplation of the material was insufficient in demonstrating a familiarity and comprehension of the subject matter.
Any son of a bitch that faults for not explaining nature nurture or any other petty distinctions deserves the contempt of the angel as well as the gate keepers of hell.
Any fool that would read my writing and presume ignorance of things I deem insufficient in terms of explanatory power, and ignore the superiority of the explanations offered, or ignore the debate which they imply, or ignore the attempt to replace the check list data which shows an implicit understanding of that same data, grants to that fool the prize of god’s contempt, and the contemptuous smirk of little baby jesus.
My rhetoric was insufficient in dissuading this evil dictatorial banal student!!! from leaving me with at least a C.
Once decided, the grade is worthy only of defense, with the smug indifference of authority, and a single minded devotion to righteousness, lest the typical, unavoidable ambiguity in student assessment be revealed.
This cruel, cruel man required me to jump into a straight jacket, into a check list.
This is check listing, reducing education to list of things to be checked off.
中文Chinese
This was the easiest and most tearing. I didn’t devote enough time, particularly early on. So I felt embarrassed and guilty about the teacher. I felt like I half assed it too much and didn’t give her the courtesy of trying enough.
The class was full of half assers. Bunch of high school kids who thought there limp tongued, broken Mandarin needed no adjustment. Their cultural identity, mostly separate now from China
Again, I feel indebted to the teacher, she was kind and engaging.
人类体格学。lab Phsy Anthropolgy -lab
I forgive you Padua
I learned everything, I got everything. But I still will wind up with a D. It hurts and hurts and hurts.
At least twice in that class I just wanted to put my head down and cry.
All the information would have been great if presented in a series of Sunday visits, free, ungraded lecture/activities, or lessons given for anything other than short term memory retention.
My time issues played a role. I came to class on the day the class project was due with no awareness that it was due, and no awareness that I should have gone to the zoo, at least, in the previous week. That’s when I really wanted to cry.
孩子发展 Child Development, Early Childhood Education
I think that in this class, I missed out on the largest amount of useful information. I’d like to purchase the book, which I might then never look at. The stuff on different types of preschools, elementary schools was the most useful. There was stuff on head start and first five, that I’m working in now.
With this class, I can’t tell how the teacher was grading. I got a’s on all the assignments. I didn’t do the last exam, because of time issues, the opinion that I couldn’t do it anyways without the book, the sense that I already had enough points to get an a or a b, and the sense that maybe since I had already contacted the teacher in a cordial manner about resetting the exam for me (since my browser had closed before I could finish/half ass it), that maybe she would think I made a mistake and take pity on me.
I did make a mistake. I accidentally closed the tab. That’s when I gave up, rather than emaling her again. That’s when I came up with the idea that maybe she would assume I didn’t know that I had done that and give me a second chance after the day it was due.
This class allowed to reflect a lot on my own teaching, and prepare for what it will be like when I go back to teaching.
It made me realize that I’ve been using a lot of modern, progressive methods in teaching, and that, perhaps, learning the terminology and categories of teaching that are used in modern pedagogy, I can categorize and organize my own teaching.
弟弟
I want to finish going over the script and rewrite a portion for him.
This is one of those things where my thinking is that this is a chance to make rogress in my career as a writer, but the perspective that has his thought is a spectator, watching from the future, condemning my hesitance to embrace this opportunity, it tells me that this is what I want, what will help me, which is a lifeline in the monsoon.
哥哥
该咋说? I just want to find a way to interact with him, show him I care, without risking the eruption of his resentment or my defense against that resentment. At this point, he won’t accept concessions, but there might be something short of a full admission that can satisfy him.
I want to bring him some gifts for Christmas and his birthday. Maybe something like a cd, dvd, external memory. gift card, clothing, cologne…
老婆
If I can just keep her from leaving, or keep from leaving her, until I get my writing career (reflexive shame) going, than things will be okay, or what? Things will be stable? No. Things will be sturdy. Or at least I feel she won’t leave me, or she won’t feel so much despair, or at least not so very much, or slightly less.
I just want to be good to her, but there’s some things I don’t want to do, some things I feel like I can’t do. I don’t think I could just go out and get a job at starbucks on the weekend. I don’t know why I can’t resists feeling bad about that, feeling wrong.
海哥
Just emailed me to make sure I could go, and offred to loan me money, said it he hoped was a money issue, and not an emma issue.
我们还有一些矛盾， 他的几句话让我不开心。 有机会我要跟他白白地谈.
读书俱乐部 Book Club
Need to make emma feel both okay that she’s not into it and encourage her in a way that acknowledges her minimal interest.
My next choice, would be nice if it could be my finished Drama of the Christian Science Teachers.
啊根体那 Argentina
Go to the bookstores, buy some Yum Yum booksYum Yum. See the city, have resentful fantasizes about ditching emma and not coming back.
出版书 publish books
Revise beast resigns, and finish Christian scienc teachers (good title) check price of ucla bookfair booth
多写 Write more
Take writing classes (I am) and see every opportunity to write as an opportunity to show your skill.
Try to gain more clarity and acceptance of your situation and feelings. See without thoughts, meditate, pray..
叔叔
Wait till the opportunity comes to email/call, or till he contacts. Think over his possible motivations/disposition, or just stop worrying about them and just pay attention to him when you see him.
下学期的伸河课程 Next semesters rio hondo classes
Buy the textbooks in advance, circle, highlight, study all the key words, categories, chapters, people.
什么书想读 What books do I want to read?
Simple and direct, the spiritual in art, zizek/Trotsky, wenyanduben, mala ondo, years of salt rice-chinese, sciabarras hayek/marx, Chinese history, linguistics, neuroscience text.
Psych-situation
心理情狂
Feel sad, and feel like emma won’t let me feel happy, like I can’t feel happy without her consent that things are okay, or acceptable, or tolerable. Don’t feel in control of my life, like a slightly removed spectator, because, probably, that’s the area of my brain summarizing the day to day to action to action part.
进大学 Getting into university
Guess it will be okay, not be able to go if accepted because of money, might not be able to go unless I get student loans.
大学课程Unversity classes
OBEY!!!!! SUBMIT!!!! Doesn’t sound like anything too hard. I think I can do it with minimal submission.
钱，多上班。。。Money, work more...
I can take more classes in the next few days, before I leave, I can work every day. I can also work continuously until/if I can start classes at whittier
思想／理论的话题 Thinking/Theoretical topics
Origins of the brain,
Revolution as a evolutionary-hominid structure, academia, the revolution-party as dominance hierarchy, the dominant trend in scientific interpretations/humanities: biological mechanism, reintrepting everything as impulse-control again, falling back to reactionary morals sometimes, and, of course, providing powerful new ways of knowing the world and our connectedness too it.
The contstructive political endeavor.
The fight against faith
Being a thinker like zizek (gets to say whatever interesting stuff he thinks about, doesn’t stick to topic.)
The way to see Trotsky.
The problem of inherent class resistance to transcending capitalism.
Monday, December 7, 2009
NON-FICTION: Get to the freaking point: Theism/Atheism, Factual Assertions=True/False
How many pathetic centuries of obfuscation have been wasted avoiding this simple truth. A claim has to be defended, proven, doubted, explained, to be judged either true or false or possible.
The millions of theists, particularly those of the intellectual class, who obfuscate the issue of trust and belief by using a Latinate term, faith, are both unwilling and disinterested in clarifying the issue.
Faith, they say is a higher faculty, or "That's why they call it faith." As if the assertion can avoid any process of logic by it's common acceptance, as if the atheist could be cowed by ad populum (an argument that is said to be true because a lot of people believe it).
And, in fact, that is where faith really comes from, not from the appeal to the authority of the people, but rather to the appeal of some people: Those in Charge.
It use to be the case that there was a group of True Christians who hunted out the many heresies. There was noone to stomp out heresy with a police force or armies, so there were many groups with different Christianities. They listed and condemned the men and woman who deviated from their views.
But, for them, this was a matter of arguments about the state of the world. There was no controversy between science, because they believed the gods were forces that intervened in their world. God was something real, and He kept the world going and punished the people who messed around with him.
But when did Christianity spread? When it became the main authority. The western Roman Empire became the Catholic Church and that's when it became mandatory to believe in god. That's when the repression, the torture, the exploitation, and the wiping out of various cultures took the name of salvation rather than mere conquering.
And it is that same authority that confronts us to today.
Christianity was spread by the impulse to empire, the impulse to conquer. Islam was spread in this way as well. King Ashoka spread buddhism througout the Indian subcontinent and the nearby regions. The Tang emperor adapted it for China, and enforced it on the masses, and the Tibetan rulers adopted it in Tibet.
That is where faith gets it's authority from.
When the Christians, theists, and atheists denounce the strident, arrogant new atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens, what they really mean is that anyone who could so assuredly and bluntly reject theism, must be arrogant.
But what does that presuppose? That there is something to be humble about. A topic to be humble before.
And just as the ancient Jewish god was akin to the despots of early Egypt or near eastern civilizations, so too is the faith that they refuse to question, and use as a refusal to question anything but why you don't agree with them, so too is this faith a loyalty to belief, a belief that they must believe.
This faith is the faith of the totalitarian state. It says "We shall do whatever it takes to get you to submit, for everyone must submit. And we shall never give up our loyalty to these ideas and lords, for to do so would be do to commit evil."
When you are confronted by the imperative to believe, which has to be reinforced constantly, remember that this is now embedded in our cultures because at one time it was picked up by an army, and made into the state ideology.
The only thing you ever need to do with a factual assertion, like "Jesus was killed and came back to life.", or "David didn't burn in the flames." is discuss whether or not it is true, why it might be true, and what would have to confirm or deny it.
If you say it must be assessed by faith, then you are saying it must be assessed by the second thing that faith refers: inner states of feeling. Assessing a claim by using faith means seeing what you feel about it.
But, between people, feelings must be explained and justified when they contradict.
But Christians don't do that. They say they you've got to have faith, which means they intentionally trust a set of ideas, and commit themselves to changing the mind of everyone, everywhere, while believing that to change their own minds would be a sin, or unholy, and, therefore, unthinkable.
If you say Jesus did something, that is an assertion on your part. If you wan't me to believe, than let's talk about it with the awareness that it might be true, and it might be nonsense, and both of us are completely to change our mights without negative consequences.
If, instead you fall back on faith, and recommend it to me, that what this means, is you are falling back on trust of certain ideas, and you seek to convince me to trust these ideas by telling me to trust.
Look at the following example:
A.Every piece of evidence I have and you have doesn't make the possibility of god very likely.
B. Evidence. Huh huh huh. That's why they call it faith.
And, since faith means a feeling of trust, despite what the apologists and deep thinkers want to maintain, this statement is equal to: I don't have enough evidence to believie in god? That's why they call it belief! Cause you have to blieive it.
And what we end up is with something the person can't understand because they believe it is something that cannot be understood.
And to you the idiot stupid enough to expect things we believe to understandable and subject to confirmation or denial, there is nothing that can be done except to tell you that there is no understanding to be had, only acceptance.
Relgion has been eaten away and replaced to such a great extent in our world, that the modern exponents of religion have no idea that they have inherited a past set of technologies, claims about reality, explanations of weather and illness, and explanations of government.
The millions of theists, particularly those of the intellectual class, who obfuscate the issue of trust and belief by using a Latinate term, faith, are both unwilling and disinterested in clarifying the issue.
Faith, they say is a higher faculty, or "That's why they call it faith." As if the assertion can avoid any process of logic by it's common acceptance, as if the atheist could be cowed by ad populum (an argument that is said to be true because a lot of people believe it).
And, in fact, that is where faith really comes from, not from the appeal to the authority of the people, but rather to the appeal of some people: Those in Charge.
It use to be the case that there was a group of True Christians who hunted out the many heresies. There was noone to stomp out heresy with a police force or armies, so there were many groups with different Christianities. They listed and condemned the men and woman who deviated from their views.
But, for them, this was a matter of arguments about the state of the world. There was no controversy between science, because they believed the gods were forces that intervened in their world. God was something real, and He kept the world going and punished the people who messed around with him.
But when did Christianity spread? When it became the main authority. The western Roman Empire became the Catholic Church and that's when it became mandatory to believe in god. That's when the repression, the torture, the exploitation, and the wiping out of various cultures took the name of salvation rather than mere conquering.
And it is that same authority that confronts us to today.
Christianity was spread by the impulse to empire, the impulse to conquer. Islam was spread in this way as well. King Ashoka spread buddhism througout the Indian subcontinent and the nearby regions. The Tang emperor adapted it for China, and enforced it on the masses, and the Tibetan rulers adopted it in Tibet.
That is where faith gets it's authority from.
When the Christians, theists, and atheists denounce the strident, arrogant new atheists, like Dawkins and Hitchens, what they really mean is that anyone who could so assuredly and bluntly reject theism, must be arrogant.
But what does that presuppose? That there is something to be humble about. A topic to be humble before.
And just as the ancient Jewish god was akin to the despots of early Egypt or near eastern civilizations, so too is the faith that they refuse to question, and use as a refusal to question anything but why you don't agree with them, so too is this faith a loyalty to belief, a belief that they must believe.
This faith is the faith of the totalitarian state. It says "We shall do whatever it takes to get you to submit, for everyone must submit. And we shall never give up our loyalty to these ideas and lords, for to do so would be do to commit evil."
When you are confronted by the imperative to believe, which has to be reinforced constantly, remember that this is now embedded in our cultures because at one time it was picked up by an army, and made into the state ideology.
The only thing you ever need to do with a factual assertion, like "Jesus was killed and came back to life.", or "David didn't burn in the flames." is discuss whether or not it is true, why it might be true, and what would have to confirm or deny it.
If you say it must be assessed by faith, then you are saying it must be assessed by the second thing that faith refers: inner states of feeling. Assessing a claim by using faith means seeing what you feel about it.
But, between people, feelings must be explained and justified when they contradict.
But Christians don't do that. They say they you've got to have faith, which means they intentionally trust a set of ideas, and commit themselves to changing the mind of everyone, everywhere, while believing that to change their own minds would be a sin, or unholy, and, therefore, unthinkable.
If you say Jesus did something, that is an assertion on your part. If you wan't me to believe, than let's talk about it with the awareness that it might be true, and it might be nonsense, and both of us are completely to change our mights without negative consequences.
If, instead you fall back on faith, and recommend it to me, that what this means, is you are falling back on trust of certain ideas, and you seek to convince me to trust these ideas by telling me to trust.
Look at the following example:
A.Every piece of evidence I have and you have doesn't make the possibility of god very likely.
B. Evidence. Huh huh huh. That's why they call it faith.
And, since faith means a feeling of trust, despite what the apologists and deep thinkers want to maintain, this statement is equal to: I don't have enough evidence to believie in god? That's why they call it belief! Cause you have to blieive it.
And what we end up is with something the person can't understand because they believe it is something that cannot be understood.
And to you the idiot stupid enough to expect things we believe to understandable and subject to confirmation or denial, there is nothing that can be done except to tell you that there is no understanding to be had, only acceptance.
Relgion has been eaten away and replaced to such a great extent in our world, that the modern exponents of religion have no idea that they have inherited a past set of technologies, claims about reality, explanations of weather and illness, and explanations of government.
Friday, December 4, 2009
中国会不会安排一个避免资本的未来。
伟大的领导都告诉我们他们还没有抛弃社会主义。 这种说法， 在海外没有任何人相信。 各种社会主义者， 共产主义者， 和无政府主义者都认为国际资本已经侵略了中国。 这样的人都认为邓小平已经把中国的共产时代推翻了。
世界上其他马克思主义者和反对资本人也都这样人围。 另外，世界上反对社会主义和支持资本主义者都认为中国政府还是个红色的中国， 还是反对自由。
这么多人觉得中国政府是个邪恶的政府， 那怎么同事也有这么多觉得中国是世界下一个超级大国家， 像以前苏联，八十年代的日本， 或现在的美国。
为什么中国政府不能受到支持分子的赞美呢。 就是因为世界打多数只是分子都没有适合的方式能够说明现实政治体系。
特别是在美国。 对一办政治家和主流只是分子都只有三种经济：社会主义，资本主义， 与混合主义， 与两种政府：民主的政府和专政的政府。
但是最大的问题都是每一国家的政府与大部分的人民都没有想他们的国家会有什么样的未来。
除了发财，挑战和长大， 国家都没有实际的未来计划。
世界各国都往哪儿开？
世界上其他马克思主义者和反对资本人也都这样人围。 另外，世界上反对社会主义和支持资本主义者都认为中国政府还是个红色的中国， 还是反对自由。
这么多人觉得中国政府是个邪恶的政府， 那怎么同事也有这么多觉得中国是世界下一个超级大国家， 像以前苏联，八十年代的日本， 或现在的美国。
为什么中国政府不能受到支持分子的赞美呢。 就是因为世界打多数只是分子都没有适合的方式能够说明现实政治体系。
特别是在美国。 对一办政治家和主流只是分子都只有三种经济：社会主义，资本主义， 与混合主义， 与两种政府：民主的政府和专政的政府。
但是最大的问题都是每一国家的政府与大部分的人民都没有想他们的国家会有什么样的未来。
除了发财，挑战和长大， 国家都没有实际的未来计划。
世界各国都往哪儿开？
Monday, November 23, 2009
NON-FICTION: My Culture Gap with Middle Class Americans
Last night a friend was recounting a few episodes of my offensive behavior in a typical manner.
What has always perplexed me is the certainty his voice when he regards these statements as obviously offenseive.
On the way home, I realized that the problem is that I didn't grow up in a middle class environment, and most of my socialization, outside of school and my peers, took place among Vietnamese people.
The socialization that took place among my peers involved interacting with lower class cutlture that I was able to identify with more, and middle class (to me they were all upper class/wealthy) friends, in whose homes I always felt a little bit guilty or ashamed.
The middle class culture that I am now deemed offensive in is one that regards it as a given that there's certain things you don't say. And I'm included in this 'you'!
The difference between this and my own cultural precedents is that among my Vietnamese relatives, I was the only white guy and they were used to living in a culture where things went differently than their own, so there was no presumption of unspoken, binding codes of social decorum placed on me.
My step-mom would tell me how to behave around her relatives and I would just go along with it.
So, there was an inbuilt tolerance for diversity, my aunts and uncles were immigrants and so accepted the American culture they had to function in from day to day, and I accepted what aspects of their culture I was exposed to by just doing what I was told (sometimes.)
One time I took a girlfriend, a middle class white girl from a very nice, waspish family to Vietnamese New Year at my uncle's house. There were about thirty people there, and we were the only white people.
She ended up crying that night, from being around all those strange people. Everying was laughing and speaking a strange language, and the attempts to bring her into the family involved teasing, joking, and letting her alone.
It must have seemed chaotic and threatening to her. For me, it was like "What are you stupid? These people are going out of their way to be friendly. This is my life, don't be so small-minded."
But when I think of her own family's social functions, I can see that they were all in English, all with 'regular' white people, and much quieter. Introductions were made formally, people were greeted as they arrived, and introductory conversations were boring and informational.
When I was around her family, I felt uncomfortable as well.
But I never thought of anything in terms, of 'people just don't do that', or 'that's just rude!'
Another thing I was told in regards to violations of cultural norms is that I don't put a filter on what I say!
Someone who is hyper-verbal and hyper-analytical, who has worked as a translator and English instructor.... How could I not filter what I say?
I have a million different filters and sculpting tools to polish or refine what I say.
Again, the actual indication is not that I don't think about what I say, but that what I say violates those middle cultural norms that are so foreign to me. Not thinking is equal to not knowing what shouldn't be said. The presumption is that what shouldn't be said is utterly obvious, so transgressions must be due to a carefree, tell it like it is mentality (now I'm the colorful black lady).
And that is another crucial aspect of this middle class culture that I can scarcely refer to with sufficiently comprehensive categorization, this culture presumes that there is an exclusive way to behave around others. There is little awareness of other cultural norms and thus a default presumption of exclusivity.
So, there are three cultural situations I see here. One is the lower class culture, that also has a presumption of exclusivity, but is one I'm both familiar with and one that I rejected easily. Generally speaking, this is the proper thing to do according most people, including those in the lower classes.
Since lower class culture is denigrated, among it's own members there is a sense that it might be better to escape. So for people like me, who educate themselves and form their own identities, their is more likely to be admiration among my lower class peers for abandoning this culture. It's good to violate the norms of lower class culture, smart people like me are expected to.
The two other cultural situations are the middle class culture and the multi-cultural culture.
The middle class culture is the most restricing, and the most foreign to me. It presumes that it is the only right way to be, that it is the norm. It is composed of people who grow up in a mono-culture, where there are likely to be other members of this culture, of various ethnicities or backgrounds, who likewise conform to the same norms.
This is kind of an international bourgois culture. And it's actually not just middle classes, but more upper middle class and just straight upper classes.
The multi-cultural situation is one whose members are used to differences in customs, communication styles, languages, accents, smells, foods, etc.
For people that are used to being foreigners among foreigners, and retaining there own culture among others that do the same, there is a familiarity with and acceptance of culturally abnormal behavior, and a presumption that effort might be necessary to figure out what the other person means by their behavior.
So, what I have concluded is that my cultural background hasn't prepared me well for being around the mono-culture middle class people.
This also means that, in my dealing with these sorts of people, I may have also missed the chance to understand them in their own context.
Sometimes my ethnic or national similarities with these people has made me presume that I should try to have something in common with them, instead of just recognizing the fact that I need to observe them as I would any other new group of foreigners I meet, and try to learn and respect their customs.
I get along okay with my Vietnamese relatives, though I don't see them more than once a year, and I felt comfortable with everyone in China.
Now, I guess, I have the option of learning to sit around with people who seem dull, disingenuous and narrow minded and try to imitate their culture.
I think I have to understand what a niece said to me at my dad's funeral. It was a Buddhist funeral, and pretty normal, for me. We spent a lot time praying to Buddha and praying for Buddha to help my father move on from this life. There was one table that served as an altar for my father, with food and tea for him. And another alter for the Buddha, and food and tea for it as well. This is pretty standard, 'everyone' knows that that's how you do it.
A Buddhist funeral is different from a Catholic funeral, which is also perfectly normal to me.
What my niece asked was "Why don't you have a regular funeral?"
I answered something like "Where do you think you live? You live in a place full of Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Filipino's, various Arabs, Persians, Cambodians, Indians, etc. How can you still think like that?"
I guess that's what's meant by normal.
Yuck!
What has always perplexed me is the certainty his voice when he regards these statements as obviously offenseive.
On the way home, I realized that the problem is that I didn't grow up in a middle class environment, and most of my socialization, outside of school and my peers, took place among Vietnamese people.
The socialization that took place among my peers involved interacting with lower class cutlture that I was able to identify with more, and middle class (to me they were all upper class/wealthy) friends, in whose homes I always felt a little bit guilty or ashamed.
The middle class culture that I am now deemed offensive in is one that regards it as a given that there's certain things you don't say. And I'm included in this 'you'!
The difference between this and my own cultural precedents is that among my Vietnamese relatives, I was the only white guy and they were used to living in a culture where things went differently than their own, so there was no presumption of unspoken, binding codes of social decorum placed on me.
My step-mom would tell me how to behave around her relatives and I would just go along with it.
So, there was an inbuilt tolerance for diversity, my aunts and uncles were immigrants and so accepted the American culture they had to function in from day to day, and I accepted what aspects of their culture I was exposed to by just doing what I was told (sometimes.)
One time I took a girlfriend, a middle class white girl from a very nice, waspish family to Vietnamese New Year at my uncle's house. There were about thirty people there, and we were the only white people.
She ended up crying that night, from being around all those strange people. Everying was laughing and speaking a strange language, and the attempts to bring her into the family involved teasing, joking, and letting her alone.
It must have seemed chaotic and threatening to her. For me, it was like "What are you stupid? These people are going out of their way to be friendly. This is my life, don't be so small-minded."
But when I think of her own family's social functions, I can see that they were all in English, all with 'regular' white people, and much quieter. Introductions were made formally, people were greeted as they arrived, and introductory conversations were boring and informational.
When I was around her family, I felt uncomfortable as well.
But I never thought of anything in terms, of 'people just don't do that', or 'that's just rude!'
Another thing I was told in regards to violations of cultural norms is that I don't put a filter on what I say!
Someone who is hyper-verbal and hyper-analytical, who has worked as a translator and English instructor.... How could I not filter what I say?
I have a million different filters and sculpting tools to polish or refine what I say.
Again, the actual indication is not that I don't think about what I say, but that what I say violates those middle cultural norms that are so foreign to me. Not thinking is equal to not knowing what shouldn't be said. The presumption is that what shouldn't be said is utterly obvious, so transgressions must be due to a carefree, tell it like it is mentality (now I'm the colorful black lady).
And that is another crucial aspect of this middle class culture that I can scarcely refer to with sufficiently comprehensive categorization, this culture presumes that there is an exclusive way to behave around others. There is little awareness of other cultural norms and thus a default presumption of exclusivity.
So, there are three cultural situations I see here. One is the lower class culture, that also has a presumption of exclusivity, but is one I'm both familiar with and one that I rejected easily. Generally speaking, this is the proper thing to do according most people, including those in the lower classes.
Since lower class culture is denigrated, among it's own members there is a sense that it might be better to escape. So for people like me, who educate themselves and form their own identities, their is more likely to be admiration among my lower class peers for abandoning this culture. It's good to violate the norms of lower class culture, smart people like me are expected to.
The two other cultural situations are the middle class culture and the multi-cultural culture.
The middle class culture is the most restricing, and the most foreign to me. It presumes that it is the only right way to be, that it is the norm. It is composed of people who grow up in a mono-culture, where there are likely to be other members of this culture, of various ethnicities or backgrounds, who likewise conform to the same norms.
This is kind of an international bourgois culture. And it's actually not just middle classes, but more upper middle class and just straight upper classes.
The multi-cultural situation is one whose members are used to differences in customs, communication styles, languages, accents, smells, foods, etc.
For people that are used to being foreigners among foreigners, and retaining there own culture among others that do the same, there is a familiarity with and acceptance of culturally abnormal behavior, and a presumption that effort might be necessary to figure out what the other person means by their behavior.
So, what I have concluded is that my cultural background hasn't prepared me well for being around the mono-culture middle class people.
This also means that, in my dealing with these sorts of people, I may have also missed the chance to understand them in their own context.
Sometimes my ethnic or national similarities with these people has made me presume that I should try to have something in common with them, instead of just recognizing the fact that I need to observe them as I would any other new group of foreigners I meet, and try to learn and respect their customs.
I get along okay with my Vietnamese relatives, though I don't see them more than once a year, and I felt comfortable with everyone in China.
Now, I guess, I have the option of learning to sit around with people who seem dull, disingenuous and narrow minded and try to imitate their culture.
I think I have to understand what a niece said to me at my dad's funeral. It was a Buddhist funeral, and pretty normal, for me. We spent a lot time praying to Buddha and praying for Buddha to help my father move on from this life. There was one table that served as an altar for my father, with food and tea for him. And another alter for the Buddha, and food and tea for it as well. This is pretty standard, 'everyone' knows that that's how you do it.
A Buddhist funeral is different from a Catholic funeral, which is also perfectly normal to me.
What my niece asked was "Why don't you have a regular funeral?"
I answered something like "Where do you think you live? You live in a place full of Vietnamese, Guatemalans, Filipino's, various Arabs, Persians, Cambodians, Indians, etc. How can you still think like that?"
I guess that's what's meant by normal.
Yuck!
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
NON-FICTION: AHISTORICAL THEISTS: WHY VS. HOW
As usual, the South Park guys put their reasonable assessment in Stan's mouth. In response to Richard Dawkins, he calmly utters the how/why dichotomy, that, in it's very utterance, displays both a disgusting ignorance of history and of epistemology.
Christianity and all other religions arose as HOW answers. How did the plagues befall Pharaohs people? God's will. How did humans lose their innocence? Adam and Eve? How did the fossils get deposited? God made the flood. How did various semitic populations die to the benefit of the ancient Jews? God killed them.
But, as empirical evidence has increasingly been favored over metahporic reasoning, and imperatives of the past, Religion's explanatory role has been further and further eroded to the point where it desperately clings to any gap that scientists have not yet explained.
Why questions are questions based in empirical reality, and debatable and answerable by reference to empirical reality.
The bible and all other myths were propositions of how things happened and what people ought to do in their lives. As such, it is subject to the same faculties of reasoning that the prospect of murder and fixing a car are subject to: empirical observation, falsification, and demonstrable evidence.
How VS Why? As if this atheism-theism just arose twenty years ago? Pathetic.
Christianity and all other religions arose as HOW answers. How did the plagues befall Pharaohs people? God's will. How did humans lose their innocence? Adam and Eve? How did the fossils get deposited? God made the flood. How did various semitic populations die to the benefit of the ancient Jews? God killed them.
But, as empirical evidence has increasingly been favored over metahporic reasoning, and imperatives of the past, Religion's explanatory role has been further and further eroded to the point where it desperately clings to any gap that scientists have not yet explained.
Why questions are questions based in empirical reality, and debatable and answerable by reference to empirical reality.
The bible and all other myths were propositions of how things happened and what people ought to do in their lives. As such, it is subject to the same faculties of reasoning that the prospect of murder and fixing a car are subject to: empirical observation, falsification, and demonstrable evidence.
How VS Why? As if this atheism-theism just arose twenty years ago? Pathetic.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
NON-FICTION: Vidal on Obama and Me on Vidal
He's right that Obama is twice the intellectual that Kennedy, and, I suspect right that Obama is too delicate.
On the idea that he won't be reelected. I don't think that's likely, yet.
He also said Obama didn't have Kennedy's naval experience and thus doesn't know what it's like to have the enemy's anger directed at you and generals lying to you.
But I guess Obama must know that the military commanders are not all in agreement and not all to be trusted.
The real issue for Obama's success is whether he can get out from under the barrage he's under and step out in front as the leader.
That brings to mind another point. When I see Obama shrugging off the lies that the right is spreading, it is sufficient for me. But Vidal may be right that Obama is overestimating his audience. Although the constant fear angle has made a lot of Americans a little cynical of the kind of drama that the right is promoting, it seems to have an effect on stalling the Democrats on anything close to a public option. So maybe Obama should have been treating the congress more like the easily intimidated benefactors of coroporate patrons that they are.
Hopefully, when the bases we have all over the world start closing down, and we start becoming a country only capable of high-tech and tourism, the Rush Limbaughs and Cheney's will be relegated to minority fascist groups, or all emigrate to the military superpower.
On the idea that he won't be reelected. I don't think that's likely, yet.
He also said Obama didn't have Kennedy's naval experience and thus doesn't know what it's like to have the enemy's anger directed at you and generals lying to you.
But I guess Obama must know that the military commanders are not all in agreement and not all to be trusted.
The real issue for Obama's success is whether he can get out from under the barrage he's under and step out in front as the leader.
That brings to mind another point. When I see Obama shrugging off the lies that the right is spreading, it is sufficient for me. But Vidal may be right that Obama is overestimating his audience. Although the constant fear angle has made a lot of Americans a little cynical of the kind of drama that the right is promoting, it seems to have an effect on stalling the Democrats on anything close to a public option. So maybe Obama should have been treating the congress more like the easily intimidated benefactors of coroporate patrons that they are.
Hopefully, when the bases we have all over the world start closing down, and we start becoming a country only capable of high-tech and tourism, the Rush Limbaughs and Cheney's will be relegated to minority fascist groups, or all emigrate to the military superpower.
Friday, October 9, 2009
NON-FICTION: Obama=Reasonable, Therefore, Bad
Some of the blame is rightly put upon my own freckled shoulders, and the surrounding fatty areas. If I spent more time riding my bike instead of being unemployed, in my boxers, in front of the computer, than I would have less occasion to watch the news channels.
But, since I am already in this situation, I cannot avoid frustration at the freakish treatment of Barack Obama.
When Bush did anything reasonable, we were surprised, even if we hated him, we felt a little bit of something like pride, like when a homeless guy you always see turns up one day with an mp3 player. You can't help but think "That's not bad. Guess he lucked out."
But with Barack Obama, every thing he does occasions the question "Is the honeymoon over?" or "Is Obama's star quality fading?"
Today, everyone is talking about how bad receiving a NOBEL fucking peace PRIZE will hurt him!
He came to power and the rest of the world had a better attitude towards our country, and this creates a less hostile world, and perhaps, less hostility might someday, if the advanced technology to asess this ever becomes available through alien distribution, be equivalent to peace.
That's what Obama did, whether or not he's really evil and full of shit and overrated. He came to power through preaching unity and the betterment of people of this country. He preached that America needed more diplomacy, a little bit of humbleness, and a lot of hope.
That makes people feel better. Not only did he get rid of the whole "What ya gonna' do about it, bitch?" approach to public relations that the Bush Administration loved, he gave us a better model.
But god those freaks just gotta fucking talk. So all day they've had guys on talking about should Obama ignore it, should he accept it in person. Maybe he should have the nobel comittee renditioned and bomb the ceremonies to show that he's not arrogant enough to accept a prize.
And, for other white people, I know there has to be something else going on in their heads when they see this black guy up there and everybody likes him and he sounds like a highly reasonable and confident leader.
But, to review, the question today is: How much of a dickhead is Obama for getting an award?
A better question would be, when the fuck are we get a public option.
If we do, all this fear mongering, pseudo-fiscal assessments will whither away in fifteen years or so, and the next time some other evildoer wants to provide more security of life for the poor and disadvantaged, reactionaries will put out commercials telling people on the public option that the new reforms will take away their healthcare.
反动派被打倒， 社会主义没来更糟糕
But, since I am already in this situation, I cannot avoid frustration at the freakish treatment of Barack Obama.
When Bush did anything reasonable, we were surprised, even if we hated him, we felt a little bit of something like pride, like when a homeless guy you always see turns up one day with an mp3 player. You can't help but think "That's not bad. Guess he lucked out."
But with Barack Obama, every thing he does occasions the question "Is the honeymoon over?" or "Is Obama's star quality fading?"
Today, everyone is talking about how bad receiving a NOBEL fucking peace PRIZE will hurt him!
He came to power and the rest of the world had a better attitude towards our country, and this creates a less hostile world, and perhaps, less hostility might someday, if the advanced technology to asess this ever becomes available through alien distribution, be equivalent to peace.
That's what Obama did, whether or not he's really evil and full of shit and overrated. He came to power through preaching unity and the betterment of people of this country. He preached that America needed more diplomacy, a little bit of humbleness, and a lot of hope.
That makes people feel better. Not only did he get rid of the whole "What ya gonna' do about it, bitch?" approach to public relations that the Bush Administration loved, he gave us a better model.
But god those freaks just gotta fucking talk. So all day they've had guys on talking about should Obama ignore it, should he accept it in person. Maybe he should have the nobel comittee renditioned and bomb the ceremonies to show that he's not arrogant enough to accept a prize.
And, for other white people, I know there has to be something else going on in their heads when they see this black guy up there and everybody likes him and he sounds like a highly reasonable and confident leader.
But, to review, the question today is: How much of a dickhead is Obama for getting an award?
A better question would be, when the fuck are we get a public option.
If we do, all this fear mongering, pseudo-fiscal assessments will whither away in fifteen years or so, and the next time some other evildoer wants to provide more security of life for the poor and disadvantaged, reactionaries will put out commercials telling people on the public option that the new reforms will take away their healthcare.
反动派被打倒， 社会主义没来更糟糕
Thursday, October 8, 2009
FICTION: Darren's Perilous Journey: P.329, I try to revive Merlin.
How could I blame America, when it had done so much for me, like educated me and shown me the dreams I would someday have of boats?
This Merlin fool couldn't be down for the count. After all, was he not this fabled and legended man of magic and mystery that had withstood the tests of time and sorcery?
So I dashed back to the lounging room and grabbed him by the shoulders.
"Come on, thy liege! You still got a spark or two left inside of you yet!"
Then, just like that, without warning, he suddenly lept up pushing me back off the cushioned seat and causing me to fall over.
"Oh dear!, he sclaimed. "What sort of predicament hath we been waylaid by now? The grand Arthur abducted, and for what? and for by whom? Methinks I already know of where to for he has been grabbed away!"
He paused and swirled his wizened finger high in the air, then brought it down quickly, pointing at the ground: "The Blue Foxes!"
I did a second take, and flinched in incomprehension? What the hell was he talking about?
And then, as if he was reading my mind, he iterated the long descent into hellishness that was being spurred on by the very dastardly band that had, moments ago, absconded with the would be subject of my hagriography.
"It's like this." he explained. "The Blue Foxes are a chillingly mysterious order, shrouded in ignorance and vehemence, whose codes and rules are few. Mainly, they seek the overthrow of Arthur, and the imprisonment of all Sodomites, and those who oppose the crusades.
"My all seeing Eye tells me that they are now, at this very moment, ensconced in a hideout, way out on the far edge of the galaxy, on a planet inhabited by freaky reptiles, who lust after nothing more than the very blood of true Aryans, the light of hair and blue of eye."
"If you need no other preparation, and if you lack the cowards hesitation, than off we be, my young sire."
Aww, doulbe schnaaap! Now, after all this mayhem and callous disregard for linear progression, I was fonna check out how they hang up in space, and come face to face with a bunch of bad guys.
But, then, when all was said and done, what was I to do? What choice had I ever had in all this. In my dreams of the boat incomparable, had I not already wagered my life against the snobbish hands of fate?
A life I had, to be lost, but a boat I had, to be gained.
I gave Merlyn a dominant male sort of wink, with a sharp downward nod of my head. and he needed no further permission. He waved his wand and a shower of sprinkling stardust befell us.
No sooner had the shower descended than were we ensconced in another world, a world of empty terrain, that we looked out upon from the confines of a blue dome.
But we were not alone. There was someone else in the room. he sat behind us, at a desk. He was smoking a cigar and bouncing a bottle of pills up and down in his hand.
Merlyn said "Commander Rushbo, I presume."
What the F yo!! Did he really mean all that? Could it really be true what he was saying and shit?
I couldn't believe it. Was this fat little dude the real El Rushbo? But he had supposedly been rounded up and exo-cutted for taking part in the attack on Obama.
I was freaked out. But, you know what? I didn't even have time to stay freaked out. Cause just then Commander Rushbo lept up with ferocious energy, like a vicious animal in attack mode, and pointed an AK gloccer at us.
Merlyn didn't even flinch. With a dainty flick of his wand, El Rushbo was suddenly entwined in a Wonder Woman rope.
Then, surprisingly, at least I was surprised, I mean, he used his wand to send the gun over to me.
He gave me a look of utter inhumanity, as if suddenly he were something different.
"Do it!" he commanded. "Put the little pig out of his misery. He's the guy that's planning to kill your hagriographical subject. And, he's a racist!"
What could I do. I was sure that if I didn't peel a cap in this fool, than Merlyn was totally gone open up all over me with a can of beat down.
But did I have it in me? And, was murder ever justified? The dilemmas were many. But, whatever I was to decide, I'd better do it quick!
page 645, kill the pig.
page 331, pull the gun on Merlyn
page 32, talk Merlyn down.
This Merlin fool couldn't be down for the count. After all, was he not this fabled and legended man of magic and mystery that had withstood the tests of time and sorcery?
So I dashed back to the lounging room and grabbed him by the shoulders.
"Come on, thy liege! You still got a spark or two left inside of you yet!"
Then, just like that, without warning, he suddenly lept up pushing me back off the cushioned seat and causing me to fall over.
"Oh dear!, he sclaimed. "What sort of predicament hath we been waylaid by now? The grand Arthur abducted, and for what? and for by whom? Methinks I already know of where to for he has been grabbed away!"
He paused and swirled his wizened finger high in the air, then brought it down quickly, pointing at the ground: "The Blue Foxes!"
I did a second take, and flinched in incomprehension? What the hell was he talking about?
And then, as if he was reading my mind, he iterated the long descent into hellishness that was being spurred on by the very dastardly band that had, moments ago, absconded with the would be subject of my hagriography.
"It's like this." he explained. "The Blue Foxes are a chillingly mysterious order, shrouded in ignorance and vehemence, whose codes and rules are few. Mainly, they seek the overthrow of Arthur, and the imprisonment of all Sodomites, and those who oppose the crusades.
"My all seeing Eye tells me that they are now, at this very moment, ensconced in a hideout, way out on the far edge of the galaxy, on a planet inhabited by freaky reptiles, who lust after nothing more than the very blood of true Aryans, the light of hair and blue of eye."
"If you need no other preparation, and if you lack the cowards hesitation, than off we be, my young sire."
Aww, doulbe schnaaap! Now, after all this mayhem and callous disregard for linear progression, I was fonna check out how they hang up in space, and come face to face with a bunch of bad guys.
But, then, when all was said and done, what was I to do? What choice had I ever had in all this. In my dreams of the boat incomparable, had I not already wagered my life against the snobbish hands of fate?
A life I had, to be lost, but a boat I had, to be gained.
I gave Merlyn a dominant male sort of wink, with a sharp downward nod of my head. and he needed no further permission. He waved his wand and a shower of sprinkling stardust befell us.
No sooner had the shower descended than were we ensconced in another world, a world of empty terrain, that we looked out upon from the confines of a blue dome.
But we were not alone. There was someone else in the room. he sat behind us, at a desk. He was smoking a cigar and bouncing a bottle of pills up and down in his hand.
Merlyn said "Commander Rushbo, I presume."
What the F yo!! Did he really mean all that? Could it really be true what he was saying and shit?
I couldn't believe it. Was this fat little dude the real El Rushbo? But he had supposedly been rounded up and exo-cutted for taking part in the attack on Obama.
I was freaked out. But, you know what? I didn't even have time to stay freaked out. Cause just then Commander Rushbo lept up with ferocious energy, like a vicious animal in attack mode, and pointed an AK gloccer at us.
Merlyn didn't even flinch. With a dainty flick of his wand, El Rushbo was suddenly entwined in a Wonder Woman rope.
Then, surprisingly, at least I was surprised, I mean, he used his wand to send the gun over to me.
He gave me a look of utter inhumanity, as if suddenly he were something different.
"Do it!" he commanded. "Put the little pig out of his misery. He's the guy that's planning to kill your hagriographical subject. And, he's a racist!"
What could I do. I was sure that if I didn't peel a cap in this fool, than Merlyn was totally gone open up all over me with a can of beat down.
But did I have it in me? And, was murder ever justified? The dilemmas were many. But, whatever I was to decide, I'd better do it quick!
page 645, kill the pig.
page 331, pull the gun on Merlyn
page 32, talk Merlyn down.
Fiction: Finally, they were divorced. pt 1 a choose My own Adventure Tragedy
After some delay due to jealousy on the part of rivals such as Wallis, Jimmy's Decipheration of Speech, Pre-School Edition was published.
Conversations, thoughts, and scheduling related to publication often coincided with him discovering and figuring out how to excise little bits of Rayleen from the apartment.
When his friend called to ask him to come a party where the agent who might be interested in representing would be available to receive a good impression, Jimmy had happened to glance down behind the toilet, where the rust and barely spatters of urine gathered, to see a black hair clip. With insect wings and long curved teeth that opened on close on one's hair.
She had left so many hair clips, or scrunchees or bands. And bras too. Under the sofa of the cushion, he found the padded black one that she had brought in a state of emergency discomfort. They had been in Yiwu, going from factory to factory, with all the other vendors, buying mass produced tourist junk that would become, at it's final point of sale, a hand made craft reflecting a towns heart and soul.
One of the products they had gotten there, were little, crappy wooden swords that they had sold to an hunched old lady in communist era blue shirt and pants, up on a mountain village near Hangzhou, where you could hike through wet green leaves and clear water running down all around your feet, scurrying to the lake at the bottom.
He had tossed the wooden sword into the pile of stuff that was mostly Rayleen's. He was either going to try to contact her, wait till she contacted him and then tell her she needed to pick this stuff up, just throw it away and lete he bitch. She wouldn't really care about this stuff. she didn't care enough to take it with her.
He could just throw it away, cleaning up. Now that it was accumulated in a convenient piel. H could just bring in a large plastic bag and it would ready for the big trash barrel outside in under two minutes.
The bras were hidden around in corners, under books, behind the t.v., like they were part of an Easter egg hunt.
At the though of this, of getting rid of the last bits of Rayleen, the dull sens of loss moved around in him, like a vase teetering over a tile floor. And it made him want to turn his pain into violence. It made him feel like this was the reasonable progression from this dull pain. To swing out and kick at the legs of the table, knocking them out of their joints. To bring his fist down on the table top, fracturing, transmitting his pain onto something real, given it life.
But he just couldn't rationalize any violence. It was too late. For so long he had retained this constant need to let loose his violence. But there just weren't any deserving targets. He couldn't pretend that people deserved to be hit, or that destroying his table, sofa and refrigerator would make him better off. But he still wanted it. Wanted the simplicity of breaking, of ruined piles that could only then be thrown out, not discussed and repaired.
What do I do?
continue to mull over nature of my sadness, page 21
call Rayleen , page 322
throw her stuff out, 422
Conversations, thoughts, and scheduling related to publication often coincided with him discovering and figuring out how to excise little bits of Rayleen from the apartment.
When his friend called to ask him to come a party where the agent who might be interested in representing would be available to receive a good impression, Jimmy had happened to glance down behind the toilet, where the rust and barely spatters of urine gathered, to see a black hair clip. With insect wings and long curved teeth that opened on close on one's hair.
She had left so many hair clips, or scrunchees or bands. And bras too. Under the sofa of the cushion, he found the padded black one that she had brought in a state of emergency discomfort. They had been in Yiwu, going from factory to factory, with all the other vendors, buying mass produced tourist junk that would become, at it's final point of sale, a hand made craft reflecting a towns heart and soul.
One of the products they had gotten there, were little, crappy wooden swords that they had sold to an hunched old lady in communist era blue shirt and pants, up on a mountain village near Hangzhou, where you could hike through wet green leaves and clear water running down all around your feet, scurrying to the lake at the bottom.
He had tossed the wooden sword into the pile of stuff that was mostly Rayleen's. He was either going to try to contact her, wait till she contacted him and then tell her she needed to pick this stuff up, just throw it away and lete he bitch. She wouldn't really care about this stuff. she didn't care enough to take it with her.
He could just throw it away, cleaning up. Now that it was accumulated in a convenient piel. H could just bring in a large plastic bag and it would ready for the big trash barrel outside in under two minutes.
The bras were hidden around in corners, under books, behind the t.v., like they were part of an Easter egg hunt.
At the though of this, of getting rid of the last bits of Rayleen, the dull sens of loss moved around in him, like a vase teetering over a tile floor. And it made him want to turn his pain into violence. It made him feel like this was the reasonable progression from this dull pain. To swing out and kick at the legs of the table, knocking them out of their joints. To bring his fist down on the table top, fracturing, transmitting his pain onto something real, given it life.
But he just couldn't rationalize any violence. It was too late. For so long he had retained this constant need to let loose his violence. But there just weren't any deserving targets. He couldn't pretend that people deserved to be hit, or that destroying his table, sofa and refrigerator would make him better off. But he still wanted it. Wanted the simplicity of breaking, of ruined piles that could only then be thrown out, not discussed and repaired.
What do I do?
continue to mull over nature of my sadness, page 21
call Rayleen , page 322
throw her stuff out, 422
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
NON-FICTION: STUPID CLAIMS ABOUT COMMUNISM-FAILURE, SINGULARITY
Cromwells death heralded monarchical Triumphalism. The lies of so called republicans, who were really nothing more than mob loving democrats were revealed.
When the French Revolution turned bad, the pretensions of radical equality, dissolving the time tested social gradations among the populace, government by citizens rather than the elite class, were all revealed to be disastrous rules for any nation.
The French revolutionaries and Cromwell's Parliamentarian fellow travelers all ended with tyranny, while starting out on the road to a better, more just world.
This was the failure of egalitarianism. The failure of the mobs right to disobey and question their social betters.
Many was the idiot who concluded that the many forms of Republican or representational government advocated in the 17th to 19th centuries were revealed to be nothing more than the lies of men who sought to use the passions of the mob to their own ends.
Now, the idiots proclaim the victory of capitalism over communism.
The Corn Laws were capitalist, but objected to by proponents of free trade. Jefferson set up state banks, which is inconsistent with the truly free market envisioned by Libertarian types.
The East Indian Tea Company, as well as many English colonies in North America, were both private companies and governmental agencies, insofar as they carried out many functions of a state, existed solely on the authority of the state, and existed primarily for their own financial profit through the control of trade.
This was Capitalism, but not what anyone calls free trade.
And just as only an idiot would seek to confuse the prescriptive and descriptive variants of Capitalism, so too would one have to be functioning with a beaten down analytic capacity to make repeated declarations regarding Communism, without acknowledging the fact that the term refers to an entirely obvious and diverse set of doctrines and systems.
The Russian Soviet System failed, as did the British Imperial System, back when it was an Empire. The early American government failed, and it become a modern, militaristic semi-welfare state.
But from the common leap from the collapse of the Soviet System to the ideological bankruptcy of the myriad strands of Socialism, Anarchism and Communism is a non-sequitur that you one obliged to believe solely in the absence of any thought of your own, without any consideration of who you are referring you to, and the context these ideas exist in.
Those in European countries who fought long and hard, losing their lives and their privileges for the cause of the freedom of men (lighter toned men) and then for the right of all people in general to participate in their own government were, at every step, ridiculed and met with indignation by many protectors of grand old tradition.
So too now are those who want the working class to take control of their own destiny, end economic exploitation of anybody-who-can against anybody-who-can't, and continue in the tradition of the political progress that ended entrenched royalty's domination of Europe, bring about a more just society-so too are these sorts now derided as dreamers of the impossible, as dangerous panderers to the easily beguiled masses, and as, above all, secret tyrants.
To fight the clarity of history's next reasonable step, the theological doctrine of Rights is thrown up as a barricade to protect the hierarchies of rich and poor. And rights, in reality, are intentions in our mind, and recognized codes of behavior, which we decide and debate.
So too is our system of economics and government subject to our intent, subject to our will, subject to the power of mind, which both perpetuates it and obstructs it.
Again, our system, founded on Rights, is a left over of Natural Theology, that God has an order that we're obligated to follow.
But as Marx, Bakunin, and all the others who Republicans and other geniuses consider to be close theoretical peers of Barack Obama realized, we make society, by our work, and we are at the same time, boxed in, pushed and pulled by the system we perpetuate without even intending to. We make it, and we can break it.
The history of recent European History (since the start of the common era) shows that progress to ever greater equality, and ever greater beneficial inclusion of more members of society is possible and desirable.
But stupid accusations of Socialism are still made by experts and the educated who themselves have no clear grasp on what they refer to, other than some simplistic categorization made up by those who oppose it (like a Satanist writing the dictionary entry for "Christian".)
Socialism, including Anarchism, Marxism, and Communism, are rich theoretical traditions that offer us new ways to think, and to live.
Socialism brings us to a clear view of our system, explanation for the persistence of poverty, of war, of exploitation, of betrayal of democracy.
Socialism is not some idealistic wishful thinking, it is a series of theoretical perspectives that give us a way to advance into the future, to advance over our present stage of history, and to get past such theological notions as our present understanding of "government," "rights", and "capitalism."
And in contrast, we have another future: The unplanned, the shrugged shoulders of American rulers.
When the French Revolution turned bad, the pretensions of radical equality, dissolving the time tested social gradations among the populace, government by citizens rather than the elite class, were all revealed to be disastrous rules for any nation.
The French revolutionaries and Cromwell's Parliamentarian fellow travelers all ended with tyranny, while starting out on the road to a better, more just world.
This was the failure of egalitarianism. The failure of the mobs right to disobey and question their social betters.
Many was the idiot who concluded that the many forms of Republican or representational government advocated in the 17th to 19th centuries were revealed to be nothing more than the lies of men who sought to use the passions of the mob to their own ends.
Now, the idiots proclaim the victory of capitalism over communism.
The Corn Laws were capitalist, but objected to by proponents of free trade. Jefferson set up state banks, which is inconsistent with the truly free market envisioned by Libertarian types.
The East Indian Tea Company, as well as many English colonies in North America, were both private companies and governmental agencies, insofar as they carried out many functions of a state, existed solely on the authority of the state, and existed primarily for their own financial profit through the control of trade.
This was Capitalism, but not what anyone calls free trade.
And just as only an idiot would seek to confuse the prescriptive and descriptive variants of Capitalism, so too would one have to be functioning with a beaten down analytic capacity to make repeated declarations regarding Communism, without acknowledging the fact that the term refers to an entirely obvious and diverse set of doctrines and systems.
The Russian Soviet System failed, as did the British Imperial System, back when it was an Empire. The early American government failed, and it become a modern, militaristic semi-welfare state.
But from the common leap from the collapse of the Soviet System to the ideological bankruptcy of the myriad strands of Socialism, Anarchism and Communism is a non-sequitur that you one obliged to believe solely in the absence of any thought of your own, without any consideration of who you are referring you to, and the context these ideas exist in.
Those in European countries who fought long and hard, losing their lives and their privileges for the cause of the freedom of men (lighter toned men) and then for the right of all people in general to participate in their own government were, at every step, ridiculed and met with indignation by many protectors of grand old tradition.
So too now are those who want the working class to take control of their own destiny, end economic exploitation of anybody-who-can against anybody-who-can't, and continue in the tradition of the political progress that ended entrenched royalty's domination of Europe, bring about a more just society-so too are these sorts now derided as dreamers of the impossible, as dangerous panderers to the easily beguiled masses, and as, above all, secret tyrants.
To fight the clarity of history's next reasonable step, the theological doctrine of Rights is thrown up as a barricade to protect the hierarchies of rich and poor. And rights, in reality, are intentions in our mind, and recognized codes of behavior, which we decide and debate.
So too is our system of economics and government subject to our intent, subject to our will, subject to the power of mind, which both perpetuates it and obstructs it.
Again, our system, founded on Rights, is a left over of Natural Theology, that God has an order that we're obligated to follow.
But as Marx, Bakunin, and all the others who Republicans and other geniuses consider to be close theoretical peers of Barack Obama realized, we make society, by our work, and we are at the same time, boxed in, pushed and pulled by the system we perpetuate without even intending to. We make it, and we can break it.
The history of recent European History (since the start of the common era) shows that progress to ever greater equality, and ever greater beneficial inclusion of more members of society is possible and desirable.
But stupid accusations of Socialism are still made by experts and the educated who themselves have no clear grasp on what they refer to, other than some simplistic categorization made up by those who oppose it (like a Satanist writing the dictionary entry for "Christian".)
Socialism, including Anarchism, Marxism, and Communism, are rich theoretical traditions that offer us new ways to think, and to live.
Socialism brings us to a clear view of our system, explanation for the persistence of poverty, of war, of exploitation, of betrayal of democracy.
Socialism is not some idealistic wishful thinking, it is a series of theoretical perspectives that give us a way to advance into the future, to advance over our present stage of history, and to get past such theological notions as our present understanding of "government," "rights", and "capitalism."
And in contrast, we have another future: The unplanned, the shrugged shoulders of American rulers.
NEXT-DIMENSION EDITORIAL: Obama's 'Emancipation' Actually Threatens Middle Class
Swept to power on a wave of self-conscious shame at the patriotism aroused in the face of Al Qaeda's vicious blow at the heart of our Christian nation, Barack Obama has gotten away with quite a lot in his first eight months.
Not only has he implemented his radical leftist agenda of Government domination of our free market, he has also appointed countless czars, to override the traditional powers held by various parts of our national government, as intended by our founding fathers.
It is not enough that he has single handedly quadrupled the power and size of government, now he has revealed the strictly radical Marxist character of his political philosophy.
"Free the slaves!", he snarls. "We can't just continue down the same road!"
And the liberals who control the media applaud and place their hands over the hearts in a million schoolyard crushes, all directed at this demagogue, who seeks in a few years to abolish our noble traditions.
As a negro, it is natural that Mr. Obama would follow his tribal instinct, particularly, since he was born and raised in the deepest Jungles of Africa, and not in America, as Real Americans are born.
But, to 'emancipate' the slaves, as everyone conveniently fails to mention, will bring utter devastation to the economy, cripple the middle class, give this tyrant a ready army of his fellow Africans, and utterly destroy the principle of Private Property.
What is to stop the government from seizing any man's house, horse, or machine, if thousands of legally owned assets are ripped out of the hands of law abiding citizens by Obama's decree?
Who will be there to stop him when he emancipates the property of any white man who opposes his experimental socialist policies?
And if Real Americans should, at a later date, be shaken out of their slumber, how will they be able to fight off the mobs of 'free' negroes, who, in their basic simple nature, are so easily swayed by Obama's hatred of the White Race?
Now to the crux of this so called 'emancipation.' What the Muslim-lovers in the media will not tell you is that the hardest hit by this imperious decree will, in fact, be the small businessman. The mom and pop enterprise, who barely get buy month to month with the work of his meager collection of slaves.
They tell you its the rich they are going after, the large plantations, the tobacoo and cotton giants. But, in fact, it has always been the goal of the Abolitionist movement to take away the power of the little man to earn his keep and provide for his family.
This so called emancipation is nothing more than plain theft, theft by the government, theft of property, theft of our heritage, and, most of all, theft our Country.
Let us pray that Obama fails, and fails miserably. Let us pray night and day for this African's failure, foregoing eat and sleep if it gives us more time to pray for his downfall.
Amen.
Not only has he implemented his radical leftist agenda of Government domination of our free market, he has also appointed countless czars, to override the traditional powers held by various parts of our national government, as intended by our founding fathers.
It is not enough that he has single handedly quadrupled the power and size of government, now he has revealed the strictly radical Marxist character of his political philosophy.
"Free the slaves!", he snarls. "We can't just continue down the same road!"
And the liberals who control the media applaud and place their hands over the hearts in a million schoolyard crushes, all directed at this demagogue, who seeks in a few years to abolish our noble traditions.
As a negro, it is natural that Mr. Obama would follow his tribal instinct, particularly, since he was born and raised in the deepest Jungles of Africa, and not in America, as Real Americans are born.
But, to 'emancipate' the slaves, as everyone conveniently fails to mention, will bring utter devastation to the economy, cripple the middle class, give this tyrant a ready army of his fellow Africans, and utterly destroy the principle of Private Property.
What is to stop the government from seizing any man's house, horse, or machine, if thousands of legally owned assets are ripped out of the hands of law abiding citizens by Obama's decree?
Who will be there to stop him when he emancipates the property of any white man who opposes his experimental socialist policies?
And if Real Americans should, at a later date, be shaken out of their slumber, how will they be able to fight off the mobs of 'free' negroes, who, in their basic simple nature, are so easily swayed by Obama's hatred of the White Race?
Now to the crux of this so called 'emancipation.' What the Muslim-lovers in the media will not tell you is that the hardest hit by this imperious decree will, in fact, be the small businessman. The mom and pop enterprise, who barely get buy month to month with the work of his meager collection of slaves.
They tell you its the rich they are going after, the large plantations, the tobacoo and cotton giants. But, in fact, it has always been the goal of the Abolitionist movement to take away the power of the little man to earn his keep and provide for his family.
This so called emancipation is nothing more than plain theft, theft by the government, theft of property, theft of our heritage, and, most of all, theft our Country.
Let us pray that Obama fails, and fails miserably. Let us pray night and day for this African's failure, foregoing eat and sleep if it gives us more time to pray for his downfall.
Amen.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Modernization: Zou Ji & Customer Service
Original Text:邹忌修八尺有馀，身体昳丽。朝服衣冠窥镜，谓其妻曰：“我孰与城北徐公美？”其妻曰：“君美甚，徐公何能及公也！”城北徐公，齐国之美丽者也。忌不自信， 而复问其妾曰：“吾孰与徐公美？”妾曰：“徐公何能及君也！”旦日客从外来，与坐谈，问之客曰：“吾与徐公孰美？”客曰：“徐公不若君之美也！”明日，徐 公来。孰视之，自以为不如；窥镜而自视，又弗如远甚。暮，寝而思之曰：“吾妻之美我者，私我也；妾之美我者，畏我也；客之美我者，欲有求于我也。”于是入 朝见威王曰：“臣诚知不如徐公美，臣之妻私臣，臣之妾畏臣，臣之客欲有求于臣，皆以美于徐公。今齐地方千里，百二十城，宫妇左右，莫不私王；朝廷之臣，莫 不畏王；四境之内，莫不有求于王。由此观之，王之蔽甚矣！”王曰：“善。”乃下令：“群臣吏民，能面刺寡人之过者，受上赏；上书谏寡人者，受中赏；能谤议 于市朝，闻寡人之耳者，受下赏。”令初下，群臣进谏，门庭若市。数月之后，时时而间进。期年之后，虽欲言，无可进者。燕、赵、韩、魏闻之，皆朝于齐。此所 谓战胜于朝廷。
Zou Ji was afraid of honesty and criticism, he intimidated everyone around him into flattering him and pretending to love everything he said.
One day, he began to fear that Xu Gong, a man in a neighboring country, was hotter than him.
Zou Ji himself was gorgeous, tall, slender, and elegant, with long hair and a fluttering mustache.
But, everyone was talking about Xu Gong now, he was on all the covers of the teen mags, next to Prince William, and all the hotties from the Disney Channel.
Zou Ji began to grow weak after a few weeks, not eating because just thinking of Xu Gong made him fell fat.
He asked his wife who was prettier, him or Xu Gong, his wife said that he, Zou Ji, was wayyyy hotter than Xu Gong.
Zou Ji didn't trust her, so he asked his mistress, who said the same thing, than he asked all of his staff, including the interns, who said the same thing.
But he just couldn't trust all these people who felt obligated to tell him what he wanted to hear. He grew weaker, living on one protein bar a day.
Than a visitor from another country came, and Zou Ji, tried again with the question. The visitor said the same thing as everyone else. Zou Ji decided that the visitor was just flattering him because the visitor wanted something from him.
Finally he went to the prime minister and said, "Everyone says I'm hotter than Xu Gong, but they're all just doing it to keep me on their good side."
The Prime Minister nodded wisely, "An important matter, a most urgent dilemma."
Than, Zou Ji decided that he would institute a year long policy of open criticism free from prosecution or negative consequences.
All the people of Zou Ji's country came forth and voiced their criticism, and Zou Ji found that they had no interest in his or Xu Gong's appearance, rather, they wanted improvement in their living conditions, public infrastructure, economic development, and educational opportunities.
Zou Ji just let them vent, and after five months, they were done. Now they felt like they had got something, and the Prime Minister didn't need to really deal much with their complaints, or worry about them revolting because of unaddressed grievances.
All the neighboring kingdoms realized this was a way of placating the populace without dealing with their problems, it allowed them to do things the way they always had, pacify the people, and look magnanimous. Eventually, all the neighboring set up special complaint hotlines, were their complaints and problems were listened to and disregarded.
Zou Ji was afraid of honesty and criticism, he intimidated everyone around him into flattering him and pretending to love everything he said.
One day, he began to fear that Xu Gong, a man in a neighboring country, was hotter than him.
Zou Ji himself was gorgeous, tall, slender, and elegant, with long hair and a fluttering mustache.
But, everyone was talking about Xu Gong now, he was on all the covers of the teen mags, next to Prince William, and all the hotties from the Disney Channel.
Zou Ji began to grow weak after a few weeks, not eating because just thinking of Xu Gong made him fell fat.
He asked his wife who was prettier, him or Xu Gong, his wife said that he, Zou Ji, was wayyyy hotter than Xu Gong.
Zou Ji didn't trust her, so he asked his mistress, who said the same thing, than he asked all of his staff, including the interns, who said the same thing.
But he just couldn't trust all these people who felt obligated to tell him what he wanted to hear. He grew weaker, living on one protein bar a day.
Than a visitor from another country came, and Zou Ji, tried again with the question. The visitor said the same thing as everyone else. Zou Ji decided that the visitor was just flattering him because the visitor wanted something from him.
Finally he went to the prime minister and said, "Everyone says I'm hotter than Xu Gong, but they're all just doing it to keep me on their good side."
The Prime Minister nodded wisely, "An important matter, a most urgent dilemma."
Than, Zou Ji decided that he would institute a year long policy of open criticism free from prosecution or negative consequences.
All the people of Zou Ji's country came forth and voiced their criticism, and Zou Ji found that they had no interest in his or Xu Gong's appearance, rather, they wanted improvement in their living conditions, public infrastructure, economic development, and educational opportunities.
Zou Ji just let them vent, and after five months, they were done. Now they felt like they had got something, and the Prime Minister didn't need to really deal much with their complaints, or worry about them revolting because of unaddressed grievances.
All the neighboring kingdoms realized this was a way of placating the populace without dealing with their problems, it allowed them to do things the way they always had, pacify the people, and look magnanimous. Eventually, all the neighboring set up special complaint hotlines, were their complaints and problems were listened to and disregarded.
Monday, August 31, 2009
NON-FICTION: TAIWAN'S PATHETIC INDEPENDENCE
I had always heard about how China wanted to control Taiwan.
It's the kind of thing that we know dictatorships do. At least four generations of Americans have spent their lives knowing China to be a gigantic mob of evil bent on storming our shores and extinguishing our leading light of liberty.
The American media generally focuses on China's claims towards Taiwan. But they don't portray this policy as what it actually is, a continuation and imitation of Taiwan's policy toward the Mainland back when it was The China.
Before Nixon and Carter shifted recognition towards the Peoples of Republic of China, and the ruling Communist Party, most western countries regarded The Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. This map shows the territory that the ROC (Taiwan) claimed control over.
The one China Policy is consistent with the Chinese system as recognized by the US and other western countries, there were not two separate countries until the US was forced to recognize the PRC, which had been ruling China, except Macao, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
The idea now that Taiwan is not part of China is hypocritical and indicative of the sort of mystical thinking reserved for the nobility of Nationhood.
Taiwan's main Languages, both the national language, guoyu, or Mandarin, and Taiwanese, Minnanhua, which has close relatives across the way on the Mainland province Fujian, are undeniably Chinese languages, part of the system that includes all the varieties of Cantonese, the different types of Shanghainese, and the hundreds of other dialect groups.
The ruling class in Taiwan came from all over the Mainland, the food is Chinese, the culture is Chinese, and I can't think of many aspects of Taiwan that are not closely tied to the rest of China.
I know there are differences, linguistically and culturally, but they are not likely to be that much more than those between people from Shanghai and Beijing, from Shandong and Guangxi, from Emigre Chinese communities and the mainland.
The perspective that dominates the most prevalent discussion of China-Taiwan relations is that of possible victim with possible victimizer, the question to be argued for or against being: Is the US government not being hard enough on China for it's aggressive, domineering posture towards Taiwan?
This is not to say that the similarity between Taiwan's and China's rulers are denied or covered up, but the dominant perspective is generally aggressor versus aggressee.
The democratic perspective would see that both Countries, for that is what they have been from the time the Guomindang/KMT fled the mainland, are governed by authoritarian regimes, where Taiwan's One Party Rule has recently given way to a less autocratic state, and both Countries achieved rapid economic growth and industrial modernization under One Party, dictatorial governments.
But the democratic perspective in American popular discourse is used more for criticizing bad guys, usually those who we are supposed to be condemning, or whom our government supports, rather than seeking an accurate objective description of the political affairs of other nations.
The simple, stupid fact is that two places that have different ruling bodies, and correspondingly different legal and economic systems, are, in fact, different countries.
Spain and Portugal are different countries, but Catalan, though linguistically and culturally different from the rest of the country, is part of Spain. Portugal is closer linguistically and culturally than the Basque region, but Portugal is a separate country. Kurdish Iraq is separate linguistically and culturally, but still part of the Country Iraq. What kind of idiots would debate whether or not the Kurdish region 'belongs' to Iraq? What sort of magical possession exceeds both physicality, observability, and delineation?
The idiots who would even debate the question of whether or not Taiwan is a separate country are so incredibly stupid that they would neglect the very definition of 'country.'
Instead they throw around conflations of politics and culture, replacing description; i.e. is Taiwan in fact a separate political entity, with prescriptions, i.e. should Taiwan be independent, or should it 'return' to China, and evaluations of similarity, i.e. are Mainlanders and Taiwanese culturally the same, ethnically the same.
Again, if the ubiquitous outrage at antidemocratic regimes and practices were to actually correspond with actual analysis from a presumption of the validity of democratic government, than we would merely say that Taiwan is a separate country insofar as the people in Taiwan choose so, and then we would face the discomforting prospect of applying that same logic to Texas.
The idea that we can decide if it is part of China, and if China should have it, or, god forbid, whether either country is good or bad, is just another manifestation of the dominant trend in our intellectual realms to conflate description and prescription, our opinions with the will of some other country's citizens, and the context of history.
The pathetic thing about the current Taiwanese independence is that it coincides with the failure of the ROC. When the theologians of The State decided that China was not Taiwan, and the rest of the world forgot that it ever had been, the Taiwanese government set off on a hobble towards independence, with policies like the "Four Wants, One Without," "Special State to State Relation," "Taiwanization," and the "Four Stages of Taiwan" All of these are rationalizations of the failure of Taiwan as a political entity.
Set up by Japan and the US to counter the will of the Chinese people, who wanted a communist revolution, and in order to counter that revolution with militaristic Nationalism, Taiwan now clings to the opposite zeitgeist, the primacy of democratic ideals.
It's the kind of thing that we know dictatorships do. At least four generations of Americans have spent their lives knowing China to be a gigantic mob of evil bent on storming our shores and extinguishing our leading light of liberty.
The American media generally focuses on China's claims towards Taiwan. But they don't portray this policy as what it actually is, a continuation and imitation of Taiwan's policy toward the Mainland back when it was The China.
Before Nixon and Carter shifted recognition towards the Peoples of Republic of China, and the ruling Communist Party, most western countries regarded The Republic of China as the legitimate government of China. This map shows the territory that the ROC (Taiwan) claimed control over.
The one China Policy is consistent with the Chinese system as recognized by the US and other western countries, there were not two separate countries until the US was forced to recognize the PRC, which had been ruling China, except Macao, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.
The idea now that Taiwan is not part of China is hypocritical and indicative of the sort of mystical thinking reserved for the nobility of Nationhood.
Taiwan's main Languages, both the national language, guoyu, or Mandarin, and Taiwanese, Minnanhua, which has close relatives across the way on the Mainland province Fujian, are undeniably Chinese languages, part of the system that includes all the varieties of Cantonese, the different types of Shanghainese, and the hundreds of other dialect groups.
The ruling class in Taiwan came from all over the Mainland, the food is Chinese, the culture is Chinese, and I can't think of many aspects of Taiwan that are not closely tied to the rest of China.
I know there are differences, linguistically and culturally, but they are not likely to be that much more than those between people from Shanghai and Beijing, from Shandong and Guangxi, from Emigre Chinese communities and the mainland.
The perspective that dominates the most prevalent discussion of China-Taiwan relations is that of possible victim with possible victimizer, the question to be argued for or against being: Is the US government not being hard enough on China for it's aggressive, domineering posture towards Taiwan?
This is not to say that the similarity between Taiwan's and China's rulers are denied or covered up, but the dominant perspective is generally aggressor versus aggressee.
The democratic perspective would see that both Countries, for that is what they have been from the time the Guomindang/KMT fled the mainland, are governed by authoritarian regimes, where Taiwan's One Party Rule has recently given way to a less autocratic state, and both Countries achieved rapid economic growth and industrial modernization under One Party, dictatorial governments.
But the democratic perspective in American popular discourse is used more for criticizing bad guys, usually those who we are supposed to be condemning, or whom our government supports, rather than seeking an accurate objective description of the political affairs of other nations.
The simple, stupid fact is that two places that have different ruling bodies, and correspondingly different legal and economic systems, are, in fact, different countries.
Spain and Portugal are different countries, but Catalan, though linguistically and culturally different from the rest of the country, is part of Spain. Portugal is closer linguistically and culturally than the Basque region, but Portugal is a separate country. Kurdish Iraq is separate linguistically and culturally, but still part of the Country Iraq. What kind of idiots would debate whether or not the Kurdish region 'belongs' to Iraq? What sort of magical possession exceeds both physicality, observability, and delineation?
The idiots who would even debate the question of whether or not Taiwan is a separate country are so incredibly stupid that they would neglect the very definition of 'country.'
Instead they throw around conflations of politics and culture, replacing description; i.e. is Taiwan in fact a separate political entity, with prescriptions, i.e. should Taiwan be independent, or should it 'return' to China, and evaluations of similarity, i.e. are Mainlanders and Taiwanese culturally the same, ethnically the same.
Again, if the ubiquitous outrage at antidemocratic regimes and practices were to actually correspond with actual analysis from a presumption of the validity of democratic government, than we would merely say that Taiwan is a separate country insofar as the people in Taiwan choose so, and then we would face the discomforting prospect of applying that same logic to Texas.
The idea that we can decide if it is part of China, and if China should have it, or, god forbid, whether either country is good or bad, is just another manifestation of the dominant trend in our intellectual realms to conflate description and prescription, our opinions with the will of some other country's citizens, and the context of history.
The pathetic thing about the current Taiwanese independence is that it coincides with the failure of the ROC. When the theologians of The State decided that China was not Taiwan, and the rest of the world forgot that it ever had been, the Taiwanese government set off on a hobble towards independence, with policies like the "Four Wants, One Without," "Special State to State Relation," "Taiwanization," and the "Four Stages of Taiwan" All of these are rationalizations of the failure of Taiwan as a political entity.
Set up by Japan and the US to counter the will of the Chinese people, who wanted a communist revolution, and in order to counter that revolution with militaristic Nationalism, Taiwan now clings to the opposite zeitgeist, the primacy of democratic ideals.
Friday, August 21, 2009
NON-FICTION: Higher Power Example 1: Foreign Language
Believing in a higher power to restore sanity involves admitting that you are not control, that you cannot do it on your own.
This can give us both relief and hope. Relief to find out there is someone or something out there that understands the problem that plagues us and/or has the answer.
It also gives us a feeling of empowerment that allows to be humble at the same time, since we are giving over power in our lives to something outside of ourselves, we are giving up power, and submitting to something else, foregoing safety and our need to maintain walls that we think keep our ego's safe.
As for learning another language, we must also give up control and the pretense of independence.
If our actions do not conform to the standard, we are wrong, we have failed, and we can only try harder to conform.
At the same time, we know that all we have to do is wipe away the reactions and reflexes of our native language, and allow our minds to receive the new sounds and patterns.
To learn the language of other people, we can do nothing but imitate them, and accept that they're sentences are right, if they make them, and ours are wrong, if we make them without first relying on imitation.
The sounds we make in a foreign language are dependent on imitation of others. If we insist against all the speakers of French, that our American pronunciation of their words is correct, than we only maintain error for the benefit of a false ego.
The more we hold onto to our native habits of grammar, pronunciation and connotation, the more we reveal the illusion of independence.
Learning a new language means giving yourself over to it, allowing your mind to edit out your own language, wipe away your linguistic reactions and classifications, and submit to a new system.
Each time we go through this denial of our established habits, and thoroughly submit to the new grammar, writing, sounds, and patterns, we then come out stronger, finding that our old habits, laid into our minds as children, are completely undamaged.
The unproven, unaccounted for neurological impediments to learning a new language are so annoying in that they never take into account the primacy of denial in learning a language, that is, the primacy of denying our linguistic reactions.
When we see a incomprehensible page of text, we must allow our mind to absorb and tune out the reaction that tells us: "This is foreign, this is not understandable."
That reaction, that anxious sense of alien-ness, is, in my experience, the greatest impediment to learning a new language.
So too with alcoholism is there a reliance on one's native habits, habits of coping through mood alteration, shutting people out to maintain your independence, your freedom from the control of others, your freedom to ruin your life.
To start dealing with alcoholism, you have to give it up. Give it up to Jesus if you want. Give up to the people who have been through this. Give up to your family, to the ghost of your dead relatives, to your children.
But you have to give up the pretense of control. As trivial as it may seem, the same goes for language.
In learning a new language, you are not in control, you are going to constantly make mistakes, feel helpless, stupid, and imagine or hear yourself laughed at.
But this is the way through to fluency. And giving up the illusion of control, of the ability to do it your own way all the time and still succeed, is also essential to finding the tools and means to replace alcohol with a healthy ego.
This can give us both relief and hope. Relief to find out there is someone or something out there that understands the problem that plagues us and/or has the answer.
It also gives us a feeling of empowerment that allows to be humble at the same time, since we are giving over power in our lives to something outside of ourselves, we are giving up power, and submitting to something else, foregoing safety and our need to maintain walls that we think keep our ego's safe.
As for learning another language, we must also give up control and the pretense of independence.
If our actions do not conform to the standard, we are wrong, we have failed, and we can only try harder to conform.
At the same time, we know that all we have to do is wipe away the reactions and reflexes of our native language, and allow our minds to receive the new sounds and patterns.
To learn the language of other people, we can do nothing but imitate them, and accept that they're sentences are right, if they make them, and ours are wrong, if we make them without first relying on imitation.
The sounds we make in a foreign language are dependent on imitation of others. If we insist against all the speakers of French, that our American pronunciation of their words is correct, than we only maintain error for the benefit of a false ego.
The more we hold onto to our native habits of grammar, pronunciation and connotation, the more we reveal the illusion of independence.
Learning a new language means giving yourself over to it, allowing your mind to edit out your own language, wipe away your linguistic reactions and classifications, and submit to a new system.
Each time we go through this denial of our established habits, and thoroughly submit to the new grammar, writing, sounds, and patterns, we then come out stronger, finding that our old habits, laid into our minds as children, are completely undamaged.
The unproven, unaccounted for neurological impediments to learning a new language are so annoying in that they never take into account the primacy of denial in learning a language, that is, the primacy of denying our linguistic reactions.
When we see a incomprehensible page of text, we must allow our mind to absorb and tune out the reaction that tells us: "This is foreign, this is not understandable."
That reaction, that anxious sense of alien-ness, is, in my experience, the greatest impediment to learning a new language.
So too with alcoholism is there a reliance on one's native habits, habits of coping through mood alteration, shutting people out to maintain your independence, your freedom from the control of others, your freedom to ruin your life.
To start dealing with alcoholism, you have to give it up. Give it up to Jesus if you want. Give up to the people who have been through this. Give up to your family, to the ghost of your dead relatives, to your children.
But you have to give up the pretense of control. As trivial as it may seem, the same goes for language.
In learning a new language, you are not in control, you are going to constantly make mistakes, feel helpless, stupid, and imagine or hear yourself laughed at.
But this is the way through to fluency. And giving up the illusion of control, of the ability to do it your own way all the time and still succeed, is also essential to finding the tools and means to replace alcohol with a healthy ego.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
FICTION: Darrens Perilous Journey Part 5 (a choose my own adventure)
P.324. I lie and betray my god.
Well after all, according to Evolution, there's not even any god at all anyways to be seen at all! Plus, that dream boat that I was gonna be hooked up with after I did my thing on Hagriographing King Arthur totally the shizzles, unlike an antiquated system of rites and theological perspectives, which had long been outmoded by Science!
So, I'm all looking at these knights of the round table. And there just mad dogging me like theres no tomorrow. And I'm all, like, I'm thinking, dawg, if you don't back off right just bout now, I'm gonna start to bouwta bouwta, yeah!
But I just spit my meaning, like "Naw man, it's a'ight. I'meth a Christian, as be you'ens. It's just, like, some fool castething a spell all up on me!"
Then, the assembled Knights of the Table, laughed uproariously, since they had befuddled by so simple a mistake of understanding.
I was relieved, though on the inside, my thoughts were different. I couldn't help just feeling a slight twinge of guilt, and the more I tried to shake it off, the deeper it twinged, and it was still twinging away when I was interrupted out of my thoughts by Merlyns disruptive voice.
"My young sire, pleaseth thee to have a seat and enjoy of the Kings bounty, such as the beer and fresh Chicken."
I sat and down and dug in.
After the meal, the King and Merlyn spirited me away to the the lounge area where we actually did, lie, totally lounge, all casually an' shit. And the king began to tell me of where he had desired to be hagriographed.
The lounge area was circular, and one circular sofa adorned the wall, all the way round the room, in an 'o' formation that left occupants with sense of something like an oval.
As we reclined, and servants tossed peeled grapes into our mouths, the King finally got down to brass tags, and spilled the dirt. "I want thou to knowest most certainly as to the reason wherefore I beith askingeth you to set down my glorious record of feats. You see, a Sodomite beith I."
Whoa Whoa, and double schnap! I knew that word from the bible! This guy was gay, what a faggot!
But I sure as hell wasn't gonna spit that in front of him. But damn, dawg, how you gonna say something like, it's all, just like bam, just putting it out there. I mean, that's like, I guess, like keeping it real, but I'm all like, that;s just so, so gay!
I could barely even hear the King as he was continuing to say his words. "So, all the fables told that beith of mine life, haveth not the true spark, for they harbor a Eurocentric lust that forbiddeth my hidden desire."
But as I tried to focus on the King who was kinding mumbling and dribbling grape juice while he talked, Merlyn loudly interjectd with exclaim "They're here, by the gods, they areth here!"
Booms and noises loudly came to me, as I heard the sound of something exploding and people fighting.
Here we go again, I thought, and smiled at the concentrated echo of all my movie heroes.
Just then a squadron of estrange warriors burst into the lounge area, causing all three of us to sit, boltly upright.
The warriors were rippled with muscles, and of hard exteriors forms. They looked dangerous, and had on armor, with scary pictures of pure intimidation on it.
One of them popped a cap at Merlyn, before the revered old grand wizard did so much as shake a stick of his wand, and a bullet pierced his wise, bewrinkled forehead.
I could not even shed my tear before they grabbed King Arthur and teleported out of there, pronto style.
I quickly shot up to my feet, and shot out of the room as fast as I could muster.
In the hall where I had just grubbed on, the Knights of the round table lay dead, and murdered, killed, I surmised, by the rascallious bandits who had abducted the one man that stood between me, my hagriographies, and the boat of my dreams.
My face grimaced, hard-core style, and I wore a look of grim determination.
I would get the King back, and I would totally own those dastardly mercenaries who got in the way of my plans.
But how could I do it?
P.329, I try to revive Merlin.
P.98, I call up my posse.
P 43, I give up and blame America.
Well after all, according to Evolution, there's not even any god at all anyways to be seen at all! Plus, that dream boat that I was gonna be hooked up with after I did my thing on Hagriographing King Arthur totally the shizzles, unlike an antiquated system of rites and theological perspectives, which had long been outmoded by Science!
So, I'm all looking at these knights of the round table. And there just mad dogging me like theres no tomorrow. And I'm all, like, I'm thinking, dawg, if you don't back off right just bout now, I'm gonna start to bouwta bouwta, yeah!
But I just spit my meaning, like "Naw man, it's a'ight. I'meth a Christian, as be you'ens. It's just, like, some fool castething a spell all up on me!"
Then, the assembled Knights of the Table, laughed uproariously, since they had befuddled by so simple a mistake of understanding.
I was relieved, though on the inside, my thoughts were different. I couldn't help just feeling a slight twinge of guilt, and the more I tried to shake it off, the deeper it twinged, and it was still twinging away when I was interrupted out of my thoughts by Merlyns disruptive voice.
"My young sire, pleaseth thee to have a seat and enjoy of the Kings bounty, such as the beer and fresh Chicken."
I sat and down and dug in.
After the meal, the King and Merlyn spirited me away to the the lounge area where we actually did, lie, totally lounge, all casually an' shit. And the king began to tell me of where he had desired to be hagriographed.
The lounge area was circular, and one circular sofa adorned the wall, all the way round the room, in an 'o' formation that left occupants with sense of something like an oval.
As we reclined, and servants tossed peeled grapes into our mouths, the King finally got down to brass tags, and spilled the dirt. "I want thou to knowest most certainly as to the reason wherefore I beith askingeth you to set down my glorious record of feats. You see, a Sodomite beith I."
Whoa Whoa, and double schnap! I knew that word from the bible! This guy was gay, what a faggot!
But I sure as hell wasn't gonna spit that in front of him. But damn, dawg, how you gonna say something like, it's all, just like bam, just putting it out there. I mean, that's like, I guess, like keeping it real, but I'm all like, that;s just so, so gay!
I could barely even hear the King as he was continuing to say his words. "So, all the fables told that beith of mine life, haveth not the true spark, for they harbor a Eurocentric lust that forbiddeth my hidden desire."
But as I tried to focus on the King who was kinding mumbling and dribbling grape juice while he talked, Merlyn loudly interjectd with exclaim "They're here, by the gods, they areth here!"
Booms and noises loudly came to me, as I heard the sound of something exploding and people fighting.
Here we go again, I thought, and smiled at the concentrated echo of all my movie heroes.
Just then a squadron of estrange warriors burst into the lounge area, causing all three of us to sit, boltly upright.
The warriors were rippled with muscles, and of hard exteriors forms. They looked dangerous, and had on armor, with scary pictures of pure intimidation on it.
One of them popped a cap at Merlyn, before the revered old grand wizard did so much as shake a stick of his wand, and a bullet pierced his wise, bewrinkled forehead.
I could not even shed my tear before they grabbed King Arthur and teleported out of there, pronto style.
I quickly shot up to my feet, and shot out of the room as fast as I could muster.
In the hall where I had just grubbed on, the Knights of the round table lay dead, and murdered, killed, I surmised, by the rascallious bandits who had abducted the one man that stood between me, my hagriographies, and the boat of my dreams.
My face grimaced, hard-core style, and I wore a look of grim determination.
I would get the King back, and I would totally own those dastardly mercenaries who got in the way of my plans.
But how could I do it?
P.329, I try to revive Merlin.
P.98, I call up my posse.
P 43, I give up and blame America.
Monday, August 10, 2009
NON-FICTION:Isolated, Weak Conservatives
Obama's statement of American arrogance in foreign relations, and Bill Clinton's conciliatory statements regarding the journalists imprisoned by North Korea have inspired outrage and indignation among scared little conservatives.
When you know a person who consistently says: "I don't see why I have to apologize, I didn't even do anything!!!", you can then verify certain facts of their personality:
1. Low capacity for Objectivity:
Not knowing that your own certitude and emotionally intense internal experiences occur independently of the truth or falsity of any particular thoughts you have.
2. Low EQ:
Not understanding that these emotions are equivalent to other peoples' emotions, and they don't come from the truth or righteousness of any particular thought.
3. Low SQ:
Not understanding that everyone goes through this experience, this is why we have arguments and why techniques for resolving disputes are necessary, and that these techniques often require us to suspend our emotions, choosing the psychological and material benefits of interpersonal relationships over internal feelings.
As I noted in the post on Health Care, the dominant theme of conservatives now is fear of the Other.
This same fear is stimulated now by the idea that the top Democrats are weakening this country by apologizing. Pat Buchanan said, on MSNBC, that Clinton's conciliation with Kim Jong Il gave this dictator a lot of power in Asia.
If you the reader find that a credible statement, it might benefit you to get to know the rest of the world, if just a little bit.
The excitement of Buchanan and other conservatives about the grave weakening of America's image is contrasted nicely with the popular ideas about Clinton and Obama in China. Some of the reasons that these two appeasers are well liked in China is that they are considered very intelligent, reasonable, and friendly. Bush, on the other hand, was mostly regarded as dangerous and stupid.
In most countries, a country that believes in avoiding apologies and claiming to be the strongest, or most righteous nation in the world, is not fondly thought of, and may often be thought of as threatening.
North Korea is a nothing country, that everyone looks down on, pities, or regards as dangerous.
What do we think of dictators that constantly talk up the threat of everyone else? What do we think of people in our personal lives who regard apology as losing, giving someone power over them, or shaming themselves?
Conservatives have spent plenty of time talking up threats and freaking out over apologies, which may or may not have occurred.
On a Chinese news report I saw, it was reported that Kim Jong Il actually apologized to Clinton.
I know many times when I have lacked the strength to be humble, the strength to suspend my moral certitude, the strength to regard others as equals rather than hostile threats or fellow partisans in a struggle against the oppressive others.
But having the strength to apologize, to give in to another persons view of yourself, is part of growing, healing, and achieving and maintaining personal, romantic, professional and diplomatic relationships.
Conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are afraid to give in to the perception that they are flawed, or that the country they love might not exist, but might only be a collection of semi-intelligent, mostly inherited, prejudices and simplifications of history.
Oberman and Maddow over at MSNBC might not be that different in respect to their commitment to their ideology. However, right now I am much more sympathetic with their side, than with the opponents of universal health care, or whatever malnourished version of that which congress finally manages to pass.
A sad mockery of universal healthcare is, at least, a start.
While the scared little conservatives go through the other-hate, labeling Obama as a non-Christian, non-American, hater of White Culture, etc., I hope the Democrats finally have the balls to make some real change.
In the long run, Americans will support them. FDR and Truman were widely condemned as Communists, sliding us down a slippery slope to Moscow, for advocating services such as Medicare, Disability, Unemployment, and Social Security.
Now, no one really opposes this. (of course, I know the pseudo free market types and Libertarian-Austri-Objectivists do) And no one really will oppose government provided Health Insurance for people who can't get it themselves once its been in place for a decade or two.
The conservatives, now conserving nothing more than the empty rhetoric of fifties and sixties era libertarians and red-crazy patriots, will try as much as they can to scare everyone, just as Regan did at the prospect of Socialized Medicine back during that same time period.
I can only hope they will lose. But hope often has little direct efficacy.
When you know a person who consistently says: "I don't see why I have to apologize, I didn't even do anything!!!", you can then verify certain facts of their personality:
1. Low capacity for Objectivity:
Not knowing that your own certitude and emotionally intense internal experiences occur independently of the truth or falsity of any particular thoughts you have.
2. Low EQ:
Not understanding that these emotions are equivalent to other peoples' emotions, and they don't come from the truth or righteousness of any particular thought.
3. Low SQ:
Not understanding that everyone goes through this experience, this is why we have arguments and why techniques for resolving disputes are necessary, and that these techniques often require us to suspend our emotions, choosing the psychological and material benefits of interpersonal relationships over internal feelings.
As I noted in the post on Health Care, the dominant theme of conservatives now is fear of the Other.
This same fear is stimulated now by the idea that the top Democrats are weakening this country by apologizing. Pat Buchanan said, on MSNBC, that Clinton's conciliation with Kim Jong Il gave this dictator a lot of power in Asia.
If you the reader find that a credible statement, it might benefit you to get to know the rest of the world, if just a little bit.
The excitement of Buchanan and other conservatives about the grave weakening of America's image is contrasted nicely with the popular ideas about Clinton and Obama in China. Some of the reasons that these two appeasers are well liked in China is that they are considered very intelligent, reasonable, and friendly. Bush, on the other hand, was mostly regarded as dangerous and stupid.
In most countries, a country that believes in avoiding apologies and claiming to be the strongest, or most righteous nation in the world, is not fondly thought of, and may often be thought of as threatening.
North Korea is a nothing country, that everyone looks down on, pities, or regards as dangerous.
What do we think of dictators that constantly talk up the threat of everyone else? What do we think of people in our personal lives who regard apology as losing, giving someone power over them, or shaming themselves?
Conservatives have spent plenty of time talking up threats and freaking out over apologies, which may or may not have occurred.
On a Chinese news report I saw, it was reported that Kim Jong Il actually apologized to Clinton.
I know many times when I have lacked the strength to be humble, the strength to suspend my moral certitude, the strength to regard others as equals rather than hostile threats or fellow partisans in a struggle against the oppressive others.
But having the strength to apologize, to give in to another persons view of yourself, is part of growing, healing, and achieving and maintaining personal, romantic, professional and diplomatic relationships.
Conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly are afraid to give in to the perception that they are flawed, or that the country they love might not exist, but might only be a collection of semi-intelligent, mostly inherited, prejudices and simplifications of history.
Oberman and Maddow over at MSNBC might not be that different in respect to their commitment to their ideology. However, right now I am much more sympathetic with their side, than with the opponents of universal health care, or whatever malnourished version of that which congress finally manages to pass.
A sad mockery of universal healthcare is, at least, a start.
While the scared little conservatives go through the other-hate, labeling Obama as a non-Christian, non-American, hater of White Culture, etc., I hope the Democrats finally have the balls to make some real change.
In the long run, Americans will support them. FDR and Truman were widely condemned as Communists, sliding us down a slippery slope to Moscow, for advocating services such as Medicare, Disability, Unemployment, and Social Security.
Now, no one really opposes this. (of course, I know the pseudo free market types and Libertarian-Austri-Objectivists do) And no one really will oppose government provided Health Insurance for people who can't get it themselves once its been in place for a decade or two.
The conservatives, now conserving nothing more than the empty rhetoric of fifties and sixties era libertarians and red-crazy patriots, will try as much as they can to scare everyone, just as Regan did at the prospect of Socialized Medicine back during that same time period.
I can only hope they will lose. But hope often has little direct efficacy.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
FICTION:宴子新版
宴子要到上海代表广西省商会。 准备跟上海市长约会， 但是到了市长办公室，保安不让他进去，说宴子可以发个信息给市长。 宴子也听保安讲：山下人。 宴子说，那你们狗屁小人可以发个信息！别瞧不起外地人， 他妈的！ 这里人都是崇洋媚外。
突然，市长出门了看到三个人吵架。 市长问了保安怎么回事，保安说：没事，没事。伊捣浆糊。 宴子打断了：市长， 我叫宴子， 我的秘书已经跟你的秘书约好时间。
市长明白了：对勿起, 对勿起。就请宴子进来会议厅。 两人做好，工作人员上了咖啡茶。 市长问宴子：搿么，广西不是很穷吗
宴子回答：咋说穷呀？ 我省将要变成大海港唯一！ 什么穷啊？ 今天在广西刚开了一百家沃尔玛特。 我们老百姓早上都开着奔驰去吃早饭， 周末休息就开着f-1法拉利车去玩儿。
市长笑了笑，讲：侬真是捣浆糊。
下次，宴子要来拜访市长，市长问了他的住手：怎么对付宴子，我要侮辱他， 他一直要说他省这么好！
助手讲：那这样吧。 他来了就让保安抓过来一个外地人， 在宴子跟前，保安要说抓的人是贼，让后你问他，做啥?, 保安就说， 这个来自广西的坏人刚刚在外面福州路陪着一帮新疆人偷钱包。
到时候，市长请宴子和几杯屋里厢。 保安来了，带了一个人，根据计划就讲了。 讲完后，市长问：广西那么好怎么有这么多小偷！
宴子说：烧饼往北方就变成馍馍，河粉到别的城市就变成米线， 蛋糕会变成洋饼。 我的老乡来到你这个城市，就变成贼，那是什么引起的。
市长笑了大笑说：侬老会讲！
突然，市长出门了看到三个人吵架。 市长问了保安怎么回事，保安说：没事，没事。伊捣浆糊。 宴子打断了：市长， 我叫宴子， 我的秘书已经跟你的秘书约好时间。
市长明白了：对勿起, 对勿起。就请宴子进来会议厅。 两人做好，工作人员上了咖啡茶。 市长问宴子：搿么，广西不是很穷吗
宴子回答：咋说穷呀？ 我省将要变成大海港唯一！ 什么穷啊？ 今天在广西刚开了一百家沃尔玛特。 我们老百姓早上都开着奔驰去吃早饭， 周末休息就开着f-1法拉利车去玩儿。
市长笑了笑，讲：侬真是捣浆糊。
下次，宴子要来拜访市长，市长问了他的住手：怎么对付宴子，我要侮辱他， 他一直要说他省这么好！
助手讲：那这样吧。 他来了就让保安抓过来一个外地人， 在宴子跟前，保安要说抓的人是贼，让后你问他，做啥?, 保安就说， 这个来自广西的坏人刚刚在外面福州路陪着一帮新疆人偷钱包。
到时候，市长请宴子和几杯屋里厢。 保安来了，带了一个人，根据计划就讲了。 讲完后，市长问：广西那么好怎么有这么多小偷！
宴子说：烧饼往北方就变成馍馍，河粉到别的城市就变成米线， 蛋糕会变成洋饼。 我的老乡来到你这个城市，就变成贼，那是什么引起的。
市长笑了大笑说：侬老会讲！
Friday, July 31, 2009
日记：郁闷与学习还学不成，吾欲弃矣！
又忘了一个考试日期。 今早刚发现。 昨晚到半夜写一个文章，到期日是昨天，文章是要描述一个博物馆。 昨天刚发现是要在昨天完成， 所以我昨天去了博物馆。 前天我发现我的生活发展课section five测试和作业的到日期是昨天。
所以现在我在写美国历史课的博物馆文章， 然后要做生活发展的作业。我忘了考试是地理学。
我对自己的记忆好不可思议。 咋会每周忘了重要的日期？ 咋会天天想不起是几日，几年？
子欲学。人学难以乎？
老婆打我电话，我和她说“你应该安慰我。” 她不愿意，觉得我很烦。
现在真没劲。。。
所以现在我在写美国历史课的博物馆文章， 然后要做生活发展的作业。我忘了考试是地理学。
我对自己的记忆好不可思议。 咋会每周忘了重要的日期？ 咋会天天想不起是几日，几年？
子欲学。人学难以乎？
老婆打我电话，我和她说“你应该安慰我。” 她不愿意，觉得我很烦。
现在真没劲。。。
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
REVIEW: Transformers 2: George Bush is an Autobot
The political message of Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen became clear to me with the introduction of Galloway, the officious bureaucrat who barges into the headquarters of NEST, the joint military-Autobot combat force that is the only thing standing between soft, hapless humans and the metallic, destruction filled Decepticons.
Galloway has no interest in hearing the truth of imminent robo-terrorist attack that the robot/military heroes at NEST are risking their lives to prevent. He says to Optimus Prime "They are hunting you!" Just like Michael Moore and Chalmers Johnson, they think that the robo-terrorist Decepticons are an example of blowback resulting from the policies of the goodguys.
While Sam is setting off for college, the Decepticons are planning the ressurection of Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons. And we find out the Megatron, the dead villain of the first Transformers movie, is not the worst of the decpepticons, he has a master, The Fallen for the whom the sequel is named.
During the big Decepticon attack on Earth, Megatron releases a Bin Laden style video where he tells the humans "You're governments have lied to you!" What does that make someone who agrees with him, like Jon Stewart?
Then comes the only mention of Obama. As the world falls to the Decepticon attacks that his arrogant meddling paved the way for, a news program announces that he is being flown by helicopter to a hidden location. That is, he is flying away to hide while the robo-terrorists attack.
The heroes are stopped at a checkpoint in Egypt, where a diminutive Arab is dealt with by the mention of the awe-inspiring New York.
That's how you get O'reilly going from Entertainment news to Honest Americanism, and the Fox Network in harmony with Fox News.
Galloway walks right into this gang of secret military/transformers and starts insulting everybody and blaming the Decepticon (terrorist) attacks on the very Heroes who are fighting these evil robots!
And who would you imagine would be to blame for the granting of authority to this physically weak, possibly Jewish, clearly liberal blame-the Autobots-firster?
The New President! Although they don't have the balls to name Obama until halfway through the movie.
Optimus prime tries to ignore Galloway's intrusion. He is in the middle of briefing the pentagon on new intelligence that suggests that the Decepticons are planning an even greater attack on Earth.
Galloway has no interest in hearing the truth of imminent robo-terrorist attack that the robot/military heroes at NEST are risking their lives to prevent. He says to Optimus Prime "They are hunting you!" Just like Michael Moore and Chalmers Johnson, they think that the robo-terrorist Decepticons are an example of blowback resulting from the policies of the goodguys.
The unsung and hidden defenders of freedom are now maligned as enemies of freedom. And they are told that the president might decide that the best thing to do is for the Autobots to leave Earth (as the Republicans were ousted from power after preventing ten thousand more 9-11's.)
Of course, we the audience (the public) know that this is bullshit! The Autobots (Bush-Neocons) are the ones that have been saving our asses from those who have no higher goal than our destruction.
But Optimus Prime (Bush-Militarists) is no tyrant. Unlike the hasty, blame-Autobot-First clique currently in public, Optimus is honorable and must accept the will of Obama (still unnamed at this point in the movie)
The soldiers of NEST hate this overcritical, pompous bureaucrat. The harshest criticism is expressed, safely, by a black soldier, who after being told by this oppressive Obama lacky that his job is to shoot not talk, the black soldier expresses a desire to shoot this obnoxious Obama appointee. Having a black guy criticize Obama's blame America first foreign policy does two things: makes white people feel sympathetic, and lets white people get past the fear of being, or being thought of as a racist.
As the new, ignorant administration is shutting down the fight for humanity, the pure American family, the Witwickys, are getting ready for the hero's (Sam Witwicky's) passage into adulthood: going away to College.
His mother is unable to control her emotions, while his way too hot girlfriend is girlishly fretting over his refusal to say “I love you.”, and whether or not they will able to sustain a long term relationship.
Unfortunately, the normal lives of real Americans are about to be interrupted by the Decpticons lust for the power they need to continue their destruciton. Destruction being, of course, their primary goal, rather than, say, ideological, religous, political, or socio-economic changes.
Sam finds a sliver of The Cube, a source of Tranformer power that is explained throught the film as something scientifically equivalent to a mushroom in Super Mario Bros. The cube sliver that slips out of his hand, burns through a couple layers of his house and energizes his moms kitchen appliacnes into Decepticons who launch an attack on Sam and his family. The lovable, loyal bumblebee comes to Sam's rescue, in the proecess destroying a good deal of Sams house.
Bumblebee is the Jar Jar Binks/Lassie/stupid-but-loyal Native character. Unlike the rest of the Autobots, cannot talk. He demonstrates a rather foolish devotion to his chosen master, Sam Witwicke. His vast computer intelligence apparently doesn't include any complexity of desire, like robot sex, reading, traveling, or Autobot autoerticism.
The Witwicky parents need not lament the destruction of their home, since the existence of all the Transfomers is kept hidden from the public oas a matter of National Security, their damages will be fully compensated, and then some! State secrets really do benefit the little guy!
While Sam is setting off for college, the Decepticons are planning the ressurection of Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons. And we find out the Megatron, the dead villain of the first Transformers movie, is not the worst of the decpepticons, he has a master, The Fallen for the whom the sequel is named.
The Obama administrations clsing down of the NEST program leaves the other magic Cube fragment unguarded and the Decepticons jack it.
Then a super hot decepticon, in the form of a wetdream college co-ed is dispatched to Sam's college campus.
Sam's roommate at college is a conspiracy theorist who ends up seeing how stupid he was to malign the government for keeping secrets from the public, after all, we gotta fight the Decepticons.
During the big Decepticon attack on Earth, Megatron releases a Bin Laden style video where he tells the humans "You're governments have lied to you!" What does that make someone who agrees with him, like Jon Stewart?
Then comes the only mention of Obama. As the world falls to the Decepticon attacks that his arrogant meddling paved the way for, a news program announces that he is being flown by helicopter to a hidden location. That is, he is flying away to hide while the robo-terrorists attack.
The harassed and mistreated soldiers, the men giving their lives for our freedom, confront the Obama-ite about the clear cut need to fight! Fight! Fight! Amazingly, this scoundrel barks at the soldiers that the president wants a comprehensive military plan, not some stupid fight. He is even considering all options, including diplomatic channels!
The soldier explains to us exactly what 'diplomacy' means. He asks the man if this means that the president is ready to give in to the Decepticons demands and hand over the hero, Sam, to these thugs!
The man reiterates that all options are being considered! So we discover the lie behind Obama's high-fallutin' ramblings. He is an appeaser. Ready to appease the Decepticons, who are bent on destruction, not just of America, not just of the Earth, but of the very universe!
Obama is revealed as a man who knows nothing of the fight he quits, or the enemies he appeases!
The soldiers Nest must take their fight against evil underground. After the cowardly Decepticons gang up on Optimus, he dies. But Sam has a plan to revive him.
To carry out this plan, he needs the cooperation of the NEST soldiers. They agree, but must first get rid of the Obama jerk. They try to trick him into jumping out of a plane over Egypt. But the idiot can't even follow the simple instructions in opening a parachute. So the Obama-appointed dummy pulls his cord in the plane and is sucked out into the wide open sky.
Thakfully, the forces of good win in the end. The mealy mouthed appeasers in the White House are unsuccesful in sabotaging the good guys. After a showdown in Egypt, our soldiers achieve a vitory in the desert.
But we couldn't do it alone. The Jordanians, our long time ally in the Muslim, dictatorship dominated middle-east, come to our aid in the fight agaisnt the Decepticons.
Aside from them, there are three other depictions of non-Americans in the film. Sam's parents vacation in Paris, only to find annoying mimes, and 'nast' escargot.
The heroes are stopped at a checkpoint in Egypt, where a diminutive Arab is dealt with by the mention of the awe-inspiring New York.
When the heroes get to Egypt, they get to visit, a typical Egyptian town, apparently influenced by the parodied Arabic town in Team America.
I got used to so much anti-Bush sentiment, from American, other expats and Chinese people, while living in Shanghai, that I was rather shocked to see this bit of apologetics being snuck into the popular culture. But it sure fits in line with the general trend of contemporary Republicans: Use Base Fear and Hero Mythology to sell your bullshit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)