Treatise on Fundamental Rights

To this time in a canonical year of the Western World is attributed the “designated time” to recognize two days that serve us the foundational works of Fundamental Rights. The very concept of social order requires a basis of activities and social processes that must occur in order to distinguish in Humanity a sense of Self that is affirming, renewing, and upending of every order that has ever proceeded it. Fundamental Rights progress towards a world that actively ends coercive collectivism and insufferable individualism, noisome nationalism and destructive dogmatists. The system of existence then is, by the very demand of the guide to Fundamental Rights, borne to be germinated into the system that fair in all it dispenses, equal in all it disseminates, governed by an educated and dedicated populace of the highest End, disciplined to justice through the demanded finale of selfish, stupid, scrupulous fear, self-obsession and “reciprocation”.  

I posit this thought as my first and essential though in every comment made: that any formal process of reciprocation and/or compensation is inherently flawed and failing, as the very concept that creatures without good sense to judge the propriety of decency towards one another is insulting to the notion that any effort we make to ‘define’ the ‘quality work’ could ever be anything above a ludicrous concept. I go so far as to assert that a universe as this is, lacking the power to dole and detract annihilation and judgment, there is nothing fit to stand in the place of judging anything else, and the slaughter system we have created is formed of our sloth, sycophant nature to make certain that cortical brain function is fifty-ninth on a list of ‘Important Things to do Today’. When one chain link is forged to restrain any piece of creation into a system that it will not receive its fair right to existence, then the very concept of ‘fair system’ has itself ended. It starts with a mindset, with the assertion ‘Then we must never do harm.’ and from the mindset breeds a sense of existence to harness a sense of Self.¹ This formation occurs in the main of Humanity only in illusion.

What is this concept of ours before us, of fair systems of existence? Do we have a proper understanding of this place yet, or are we still very much lacking in good faith toward the concept of ‘fair’? In a world that is focused upon the worth of a being on its essential functions and compounding value, most of which is delegated by ‘imaginary friends’ and some lucid concept of superiority I find the very notion that we have ascended the original cave dwellers to have its lacking attributes. Two days of exploding ‘boom-boom sticks’ does not make up for a year of not caring for trampling of the Rights of Man, to the point where the majority of the world lives well below poverty, rape victims are blamed for the crime, money is the equivalent of power, figments of imagination stir our action and justify our words, property is possessed only as a comparative scale of ‘person’, and the very concept of education and universality are derided for sport. How could such creatures ever coalesce into a society with True Fundamental Rights? I argue that the only way is by understanding what these things mean, that intelligence is equivalent to awareness, and that the very awareness of these notions will spur the idea to make the Ideal. For if there is one great Truth to reality, it is that whatever an idea ‘is’, ideas are bulletproof. 

So let’s attend first to the definition of ‘right’, as ‘any legal, social, or ethical principle of freedom by entitlement’, a descriptive set of normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.² The very use of the phrase entitlement sets the train tracks for a monstrous machine of complaints from many a conservative mouth as per some foolish definition that ‘entitlements’ are not ‘earned’. 

I have already stated the reality of how little the word ‘earned’ could ever truly mean, and a further analysis is not for this essay. For those of weak minds who wish to masturbate of this ‘horrifying’ concept that all your ‘worth’ is the mere machination of a system that basically designated you as a winner from ‘day one’ I apologize to inform you I do not care for your opinion either way, and I am not concerned with your contempt. I only wish to form the definition of Fundamental Rights, so I continue. 

The very notion of an ‘entitlement’ is that without a system, the guarantee of the provision would be notably lessened (continue to apologize for being correct and informing those of lost concept of their fallacy). In this sense then, almost every institution is an ‘entitlement’, for the fact that humans are a naturally social creature in and of itself creates a system that provides for these very concepts of property, culture and exchange to even be given credence, much less formal effect. In this sense then, every right, economic, social, cultural, civil, litigious, association, academic and thought, is by its nature entitled to us only as a function of our more socially systematized preference for existence. 

This assertion brings a new focus to the concept of Fundamental Rights. If all rights are the sprouts from seeds of social confluence, then Fundamental Rights, being distinguished from all other rights, must have some distinction about either their function or end as we have already shown that foundation of all rights is the same. 

I propose that the very concept of an ‘end’ could only be assessed as the cessation of existence functions for something, and so in this I fail to see how rights in the main could ever be different. Perhaps a case could be made that ‘end’ should be a qualifying measure as per how well the system of one people is kept viable (i.e. ‘Declaration of Independence and Declaration of the Rights of Man are Fundamental in that they continue to be utilized and still have legalistic viability with laconic yet luminous language’) and I do not assert it is indefensible, but I hold a sincere scruple in two fashions. The first is that this would assert, as we are not a group of beings very entitled to eternal recognition, that the most important of things in the world require first language to be expressed. Secondly, after having the language, we would require the mode for which the concepts were to be contained, expressed and preserved. Our lacking capacity cannot be a deciding factor in defining the essential piece of our social order. I therefore propose that any argument as per stating that rights could be ‘distinct’ in their end is a function only of their preservation or of the Sentient Being’s demise, neither scenario one by which I seek to define Fundamental Rights.

The function then is where I seek to define a Fundamental Right. In this, we must include in the notion of ‘function’ the effect caused by a structure in the system and how it affects and is affected in every area of society. We cannot call the structure whereby its proposed conditions may end for a time or even for one person permanently, as that is not the purpose of structures. I would find it hard to meet the engineer who would in theory state to me that a true structure is ever designed to malfunction and be replaced. So it must be for our formation of Fundamental Rights, and so the definition to be made of them in recognizing Fundamental Rights shall exude a presence by their function that is enriching, ennobling and essential to the Human Self. 

This then will be the working definition: a Fundamental Right is an entitlement of the social system that is in and of itself derived from the most self evident assertions of Truth, and by this has the capacity, in function, to create the Human Self in a way that, by comparison, shows those to not have the ability to exercise such rights to be deleteriously defrauded from proper self assessment to attain Self, and essentially unable to achieve the full extent of that most True of existences and find a sense of what is most Human. 

To this I must immediately state, this definition is founded only as per the actual needs of a person in the social system, considering all that could be and all that is not. Only in this regard then do I include social rights, cultural rights and economic rights. I state this because the current systems that are made of these systems are solely virulent and essential internecine to Humanity. There has never existed any social, cultural or economic system that has existed without violent, visceral and toxic discrimination of existence, dividing everything it touches into segregated groups and forming unsustainable classifications of difference. The only reason these systems have endured is primarily a three-fold confluence of consequences, arising first and foremost from a human need to explain and systematize the universe, followed by a general fear of self-appraisal that was germinated from a desire to cast a unified structure, politically. The fact that the departure for these creations usually was ‘homocentric’ at no point meant that humanity would resist the worship of them, ignore the enticing means by which our ‘essence’ could be extraordinary to the human condition. We still do this today in our psychology; how could we possibly expect that our predecessors would not do similar? 

I cannot also ignore that the utility with which these systems exist is extraordinary, as by simply changing a name (i.e. ‘Agnus’ to ‘Imperator’; ‘Mercantilism’ to ‘Capitalism’ to ‘Consumerism’) you not only can adapt the words to a new system of thought and human activity, but you then begin to change the very essence of the system so it seems as though your way was always right and possesses some portent of infinity. Granted this formlessness is enhanced by the most ignominious and ignoble efforts of the rhetorical arts, but the systems require the ability to do such as is, and with or without the rhetorician, the alterations have and have had the capacity for alteration (note I said alteration, not change). 

In this and only in this sense, I exclude every social, economic and cultural right as to be considered for Fundamental consideration as they designed for one purpose only: assert personal affection and considerations. A system that bends itself to the whims of human comfort and sensibilities could not focus our efforts towards a Primacy of social union that would ennoble a sense of Self to create the Human experience and a Fundamental act. This does not discriminate that people have no capacity to decide to possess a social, cultural and economic system, but only from the Fundamental Right of Self determination which cannot be altered or abolished. I continue to state that all of these structures are rights, and of this classification I had no argument and made no argument in any sense. I simply mean to distinguish what things are Fundamental Rights, and by this I must state that some ‘rights’ cannot be similarly considered a Fundamental Right, by the very definition and nature of the elevated and essential nature of Fundamental Rights.

I also separated civil and what I call ‘litigious’ rights due to a matter of linguistic discomfort to which I may not be joined by some friends of greater legal knowledge depth than I, and so I note a compelling interest for myself to extol the logic of my distinction. Civil Rights, as they are, should describe the relationship by which the guaranteed protections of a civil institution, legislative and judicial, are given to all citizens equally. Now the ability to litigate obviously comes from a legislative and judicial system, but since the litigation process is a carrying on of a legal issue in the judicial process, this system is thereby a system where the citizens affect the legislative and judicial process, the materialist creation that is the opposing to Civil Rights. I separate these two only as one is affected by Humanity, the other affects.

These distinctions being made, I propose the following as a list of Fundamental Rights, by no means exhaustive and comprehensive merely enumerating what is to be recognized, additions to be made as a right can be shown by exhaustive and comprehensive work to demonstrate the distinguishing mark of Fundamental Right:

1)       Right to equal protection and equal representation under the law

2)       Right to freedom of thought

3)       Right to freedom of information

4)       Right to freedom of expression

5)       Right to freedom of Association

6)       Right to undocumented Association

7)       Right to freedom of movement

8)       Right to Self determination

9)       Right to privacy, therein private activity and association

10)   Right of inheritance of cultural heritage

11)   Right to Education

12)   Right to fitting provision

If the ending is where I make the statement to be remembered of these thoughts then I wish to end on three concluding notions. 

The first is that I am in the shadow of those who have inspired me, and I am not anyone who claims to be their candle bearer, merely a student. I propose this attitude is one that would be essentially cleansing for the entire world if we were to adopt it. It is not to adopt a sense of propriety about the past as much as a demanding of self to meet a standard that will push forth the source of our desire to unite under a similar rebirth in existence and defining of Self. Truth has no time; that is its very core. Socrates stating something of Truth is not any different from me stating it, and this lack of distinction is what I am most completely attempting to draw. 

Secondly, I wish only to say that for any exclusion to Fundamental Rights that some find to be short sighted, I would never deem a social construct unfit to be permitted in context, simply that I worry basing our broadening sense of community in a structure that is inherently exclusionary is itself very short sighted. Whatever people do of their own is their own, and may they attend and be attended in that jurisdiction alone. However, those pieces are not essential to how we as a people coalesce to advance a method of social union, rather to assert personal affection and considerations. For whatever they mean, they are not essential to the presence of the Sentient Being, and could not focus our efforts towards a Primacy. My discomfort with their placing on the list is a linguistic issue, both connotative and denotative, and possesses no personal direction in any form.

To conclude, may I reiterate this idea I have so long known to be True: If we are to be a great people, we must rise up and fulfil that notion we set as our founding. Perhaps others claim to possess the same birth, and indeed in the fullest sense they do, but the very hypocrisy they bred from those assertions make their points moot. Our birth comes from the Ideals, which we already hold to be True. Yes, these concepts are self-evident, and yes they do note the ways to end the servility and senility of the human sense to create the Human Self, and we have known such for a time the fair equal to an eternity before me (as whether we like it or not a time past what could be our life span might as well be an eternity away). We in our time are lucky that we have fought through the hypocrisy, but we must be ever more certain that ours will be a role of sacrifice. However, in willingness, we affirm our lives can incorporate the Ideals. We do not prove them, nor do we give these concepts meaning. Both existence and the Essential Components have meaning in and of themselves that nothing in the universe has power to add or detract. By incorporating the concepts into us, we simply unite ourselves to the grandest available to us. 

To us we must exist within and about those most Absolute Truths: that all Men are created Equal³; that ignorance, neglect, and contempt of the Rights of Man are the sole cause of public calamities⁴; that to be a great people we must meet the promise of our birth, and we must be united in one sense together to let freedom ring as one⁵; that we are not going to let others slip away because to do so is selfish, not natural⁶; that no one has any place to tell us we are ‘unpretty’ or ‘unloved’ and we should never believe we are ‘alone’; that whether ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ we were ourselves, and so we are called⁷; that we are loved and we are not alone; that the only call is to preserve charity towards all, malice towards none⁸; that whatever this Era will be remembered as, it will be of our choosing. 

I believe the time has come to make the choice that what came before us is no longer acceptable. It is a change that beings within each of us. It is a change of self recognition, one without selfish notions and fearful meanderings. It is not from fear we descend, not from condemnation, not from apology. To tough the poison of hatred and weather the illusions is our creed; from it shall grow our marvel at miracle grandest, Life. It is precious, this thing we call Life. Now to us is left the decision of how to turn this theory into definition. No one dared before – let us cease to repeat such a mistake. 

You are existence; demand the right act and dedication due to you by this. No force or creature, natural or supernatural, provides your worth, and certainly could never lessen it. Do nothing for proof, act only to consider. Perform for the reality that without you the universe loses a spark it will never replace. You miss a violin in a Chorus – do not let us miss you. We do not wish to. 

And if there are any who see this as nothing but a condemnation of who they are and what they believe, I can assure you that it most likely is, and I leave this piece with two promises. For you, oh weak and febrile mind, know that this Declaration is the formation of an enemy you will not outlive; begin your nights of endless anxiety, for even they are numbered.

For those who take this message as the light in the void, who see it as the centrepiece of how society can work, it is not. These are simply words, and while words offer the means to meaning, the annunciation of Truth is an act. To you I promise only this: there will never be one moment from this existence when I do not act, and in even in that I will always provide you a friend to listen.

Act for Truth

for Humanity

for Existence.

References

1)      Plato. Crito. Penguin Books: 49b.

2)      "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". Stanford University. July 9, 2007. Retrieved 2009-12-21. Viewed 2012-07-04.

3)      Declaration of Independence: Preamble.

4)      Declaration of the Rights of Man: Preamble.

5)      King, Jr., M.L. (1963, August). I Have a Dream. Speech Presented at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., United States of America.

6)      Romero, O. A. (1980, March). The Last Sermon of Óscar Arnulfo Romero. Speech Presented at the Cathedral of San Salvador, San Salvador, El Salvador.

7)      Nietzsche, F. W. Beyond Good and Evil.

8)      Lincoln, A. (1865, March). Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. Speech Presented at the White House of the President of the United States, Washington, D.C., United States of America.

Things I Do Not Understand, Part VII

Name speaks for itself: These are topics I hear people talk about all the time or have actually consumed people's lives or, sadly, are television channels and I do not understand why anyone talks about these topics at all. Please comment. :-)

Part VII - Portrait of the Murderer as a Young Woman: Casey Anthony Media Coverage, Dawn of the Opinion Age

Between Marshall McLuhan and Neil Postman, we have been given the phrase ‘The medium is the metaphor.’ Wherever one sits in proposition as to the benefits or the failures of modern media, we must assess with a sense of personal analysis and realistic criticism that for the average person the first means of communication is formed with peers who similarly have no constructed means, in the main, to portals of information exchange outside of the main media centers. The way we speak, disseminate and construct dialogue is guided from the minute we turn on the television for the first time. One would expect that this role would be taken seriously, not mangled into a trash heap and given over with joy to Sesame Street and The View. If I may borrow a phrase, barf…

One way or another, our culture, cough, cough, cough…pardon, I should have said economy (I am deathly allergic to blatant lies), is guided by sensationalistic rhetoric that does not consider the prospects of consequence or understanding as meaningful in disseminating information in the media. I do not think there has been a better example of how ridiculous this three ring circus has become in the past decade than the Casey Anthony trial. The three presidential elections were not amiss of every type of mass delirium and insanity that could be incorporated into the media on the main, and Glenn Beck (as by the German Romantic model, lunacy is just as unpredictable as genius, and thereby he cannot be considered “main”…not to say a certain network needs introduction to the ideals of separation from the main through acts of lunacy), but even at the worst political campaigns are exactly what they advertise themselves to be: glorified popularity contests between a douche and a turd sandwich (please reference: South Park, Season 8, Episode 8, Douche and Turd). 

The Casey Anthony trial was nothing that it advertised itself to be, partly because the media firestorm over the incident created the modern-day Salem Witch Trials, partly because it was a public trial and therefore needed no advertising and had no right to be the center of a media firestorm where anything about just rule of decorum was overlooked as a principle for the rule of mob and public opinion. Certainly the trial needed to be public and available, but not by the millisecond and not in the sensational format upon which it was presented. People still have a right to fairly assessed trial by a jury of their peers, not by all their peers, and if that were respected than maybe we could actually engage in judicial activity again in the United States.

Now for everyone who just cried and called me an evil villain because I refuse to condemn the woman or really even care about this whole incident because frankly I had better things to do, I have three minor comments to make: 1) Try caring for children with AIDs, then tell me how bad a child’s life can be and heartbreaking it is to see them suffer, knowing there is nothing you can do; 2) I am an intensely logical person and for my own concern, any appeal to emotion is an appeal to a level of stupidity, much like religion and culture, unbreakable by any education, and so I can freely say that being a high legalist and a personal believer and exerciser of aspects of law that I have no regrets about the process because I look at it logically as to how it performs its function, not based on how I ‘feel’; and 3) The fact that Casey Anthony was exonerated is by no standard a model of the flaws of our court system;  rather it is the one stark example, in this mess you baboons call ‘coverage’ that demonstrates that our dedication to the common law court and the general Oxfordian Model still works, in spite of the Sea of Stupidity violently crashing against the foundation of our justice system attempting to drag the whole continent back from whence it came four billion years ago. 

The first two assessments made are designed to serve as my own personal standpoint from which I derive a sense of perspective on the issue, and thereby do not have a notable rational rubric to them. There is reason and logic in the arguments, but they most likely are overshadowed by perceptions and nuances that I do not feel like addressing in the current issue, as I feel they do not serve to answer my confusion as to why the court of public opinion has become a meaningful matter so as to discredit a proper and fit court decision, even when the fundamentals of law would be not merely ruptured but consumed to their fabric and core should the court of public opinion win. 

Also, I have to assume, as I have heard enough counter arguments to these point I have made previously, that the arguments to be made contrary to me would distract from the larger issues at hand, again being my concern with the media’s forceful takeover of the perception of the legal system and that activity as stolid, undemocratic and backwards.

To be blunt I have another reason for not addressing all points possible that is rather elementary: primarily, I assume the first and second points I made would be contested in a manner similar to how a small child would argue their points, sticking their tongues out and making “fart” noises included. I assume this because in similar arguments the same counter points were made at least two out of three times (and I think I am being generous saying it is only two-thirds) with the dialogue I presented, and I doubt the critiques have changed. I will give the usual critiques fair redress, but I will not dignify them with acknowledgment that any such criticism is anything less than a kindergarten pouting match. 

The fist point most likely was assailed since I, a man, dared to appropriate that I could understand what it means to truly have a connection with a child, and that I compared being a caretaker to being a mother, which is just, you know, like, so super wrong, and like, yeah…and I could never understand a mother’s burden or their connection to their child, etc., etc., etc. Aside from the blatant attacks that have always focused solely on the fact of my chromosomal composition, of this “argument” I have two things to say:

First and foremost, the ability to procreate says nothing to one’s capacity to understand the human person, to empathize with others and care for them, or to any person’s use of effective common sense, knowledge or general sensibilities. Even if there was some “special” meaning to enduring painful and attentive care for another creature, what would separate it from ‘bedside romance’? Becoming a mother does not mean anything more than a person’s certainty that they are a virgin no more, and that they are most likely 19 to 24 years old. ‘Mother’s Burden’ certainly is not a component in Shakespearean world, or the Molière compositions. Perhaps not the best sources, but as reality is a component of today’s dialogue and art, so it was in human history. If there was a high ideal for rich mothers to act like “mothers” we would have seen something of the kind in the portrayals of at least a few sources from history, or even our own time. So, is the message that if you are rich enough you can afford to not be burdened by the worries of motherhood? Glad to see this strong and unbreakable bond apparently has a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card that you can borrow against if you Have Pennsylvania Railroad and a level 4 development on the Boardwalk. Oh bugger, someone just bought Park Place…

Where this magical “mother’s intuition” comes from is certainly a great mystery to me. Just because someone is a mother does not stipulate that they have an uncompromisable connection to their child.

Studies show that children will always turn to a provider of comfort over a provider of sustenance, and it would be insulting to the English Language to call most mothers, and any parent in American Society in general, as “comforting” before describing them as “providers”. Perhaps some women want there to be a nexus of self and child in connection so strong that they could “never” hurt their child and not seem like poor mothers when all they really do is over-enroll their children in after school programs and let television raise their children, but millions of examples every day outside of the sensationalism, from traditional sex role education to fairytale stories to overinflated self-aggrandizement of herself and her children to the pathetic excuse for parenting I just extrapolated. All of this cultural reality does little but to demonstrate that the role of “mother” is not merely altered and shaped by a society, rather it is formed because of the society. It is not, now nor ever, the other way around.

 Since multiple studies have shown there to be no natural maternal instinct in many primates, it is very likely that the “instinct” is engineered into humans as psychological parameters from parental and cultural influences. 

Perhaps you are correct to say I do not understand how you specifically feel as a “mother”, but to assert I could never feel for a child or care for a child the way a mother could, and I just could never understand that Casey Anthony would have to be a monster to hurt her child is a very slippery slope and rather filled with straw. At least it will keep the crows away, but in terms of an argument that exists outside of a cultural perception, (a cultural perception that similarly just got done bankrupting the global economy) or to put it mildly, an argument that has any logical component whatsoever, the phrase ‘You just do not understand what it means to be a mother.’ or ‘A mother could never do that, if she was human.’ is the same if not worse than affluent white teenager saying ‘You just do not understand what it is like to be me, and how hard it is.’ Barf…

I bet finding that “research site” on your computer in your room as punishment for being pretentious to your parents is really encouraging you to not be yourself more often…I love it when I get rewarded for being a pompous prick too, it happens so very often…

Secondly, placing perceptions and emotional garbage aside, legally, there is no demand any more of her, the mother, than of the father to efficiently care for offspring, unless a custody suit is filed or the father cannot be identified. Courts have jurisdiction to bring the case against both parents as freely as they have the right to charge next of kin, Social Services, or not call anyone at all to defense against the state. No one in the legal sphere expects anyone to do or provide any more than the other parent, again unless proper suit is filed, and unless neglect ends in death, in which the ones held responsible are those who have been assigned direct responsibility of guardian by the state, either by birth registration or other proper certifications as required. This case, it just so happened, focused on Casey Anthony because she was the only one around in the child’s life at the time of her death. 

Now, obviously I have to address the ‘Well, still, do you think she is a bad mother?’ buffoons who just want to turn this into a feces flinging festival. 

Admittedly, from all testimony, she does not particularly appeal to me as a human being, much less as a mother. However, I would like to pose my question: When was being a bad mother established as a crime? What does it even mean to be a “good” mother? If it is to provide for the emotional, psychological and social health of a human being as much as if not more than the physical health, then I would be willing to state that an impartial observing committee would recognize very, very few mothers as “good”. All too many mothers are losing their ability to even provide for the physical aspects, and still a good proportion, as much as they will never admit it, are more absorbed in themselves and being a friend than in being a parent to their offspring. 

This entire qualification is a standard set by a white middle-class assessment of family, from a white middle-class system and a white middle-class perspective, one where there is establishment of a career, then a courtship, then a corralling…sorry, I meant “marriage”, and then planning, and then children in a two parent house. Strange, also, how it is a standard followed to letter by so few white families and upheld even less frequently than marriage and the family structure itself (41.6% divorce rate – good job Family Foundation, good job), and yet everyone is still socially demanded to follow it – if you are confused, do not be ashamed, the screen play writers of this cosmic joke that is our country cannot even understand it... 

Increasingly, this model represents fewer and fewer mothers, and with the divorce rate still clinging near fifty percent (over sixty percent for second marriages…) and the price for living expenses ever on the rise, I can only assume that it is going to show even more decrease over the next two decades. 

When setting a standard, those of us with working frontal cortex connections arbitrate a standard that is sensible and allows for simplest measurements in regard to the whole of the natural phenomenon. We do not base our own life schedules on the life cycles of stars – that would be ridiculous. Similarly, you cannot compare the work a single mother has to endure in this country, especially a lower-middle or poverty class parent, to the work of an upper-middle class mother. One group of children have astronomical odds placed against them, the other could saunter through life doing nothing and still come out on top (am I right or am I right ‘Communication’ majors). 

I would be remiss to state that difficult circumstances excuse poor action, but my negligence would be just as improper if I said that with our Medieval-style social congruence and our edging pathetic (not sure if there is a more apt word) ethic as a people and a culture, allows anyone who just so happens to be “higher up” on the socio-economic “ladder” to jeer and sneer at those who are “lower on the totem pole” is a model for social rights and cultural consistency. Whether we want to admit it or not, most people in the inner city slums with very little hope of ever having any experience outside of poverty exist in this position because they were stepped over in schemes to make other people rich; I would be negligent to not state that as a culture we have very minimal room with which to raise the finger of blame for single mothers not being able to effectively care for their children, even though the media and the sensationalistic rhetoric would have you believe the exact opposite, just to paint Casey Anthony in a portrait as nothing much more morally sound than Dorian Grey. 

If you really want children to be protected and born only into families that can provide for them, then let the Casey Anthony’s of the world party as they please with contraception, force better social programs to exist to aid and strengthen all child-rearing communities, and find the people who really want to raise children and start protecting them and their children with good schools, fair pay and public congratulations; do not lambast them because they do not have a husband or are young while you console the self absorbed thirty seven year old who spent her whole life on her career and now her biology is not “on the frequency” to allow her to get pregnant. That is what makes the Casey Anthony mothers, as much as you might not want to admit it. 

Is it a poor set of circumstances that a woman who might like to be a mother cannot be one? 

Yes. 

Is it difficult to accept that the body cannot do everything the mind pursues? 

Yes, but you should get over it by twenty five. 

Is there any form of consistency other than sitting pithy on your moral high horse to consoling these “suffering” women and condemning the one in three women in America who give birth out of ‘wedlock’? 

No, and there never will be. 

Are women treated fairly in this country and are they protected from incrimination from one of a billion sources when all they wanted was to be a mother? 

No, not at all. 

Are these the same buffoons who praise states like Mississippi and Alabama for their “pro-life” leaning while neglecting the very present fact that they are in the lowest of the lows of post-natal care in the developed world? 

Yes, it is them alright. 

Surveying the field then, we must conclude that the true problem is that once the child is born there is very little desire in this country to aid in the rearing of the child, and we assume that a mother has such a “special” connection that she will always do best for her children.  The media “has” to play to its target audience after all, and their target audience is a group of people who have no idea what they are talking about, so I guess lying to them and painting a false picture to demonize someone so the ABC primetime special movie presentation makes another $20,000 than it should ever have hoped to make is a more than acceptable moral action. So, in the next fairytale is there going to be a magic bean stalk or unicorns, because I will not lie, I really like unicorns…

I cannot state whether or not the ‘village to raise a child’ ideal is the correct one, but unless you gave birth in your home, introduce your child to no other family or friends, home school your child, treat your child’s medical needs at home on your own, and keep them confined at all times, someone has aided you in raising your child. The idea that some empathy changes people for the better completely is ridiculous and blatantly wrong. In fact, all it usually does is put pressure on someone to be something a distant and removed group of sycophants, with no concept of reality or actual family life, think they ought to be from their own misinformed and misconstrued perspective. Perhaps if there was a general desire to set models for fair rearing of children there would not be a Casey Anthony, but it is much easier just to yell at everyone and turn the few people who can be portrayed as “primary antagonists” in society into scapegoats to make yourself feel better.

I am not saying that a contractual social aspect solves the problems of all the universe, but a miniscule, if not negligible, model of a social ethic never hurt anyone either, as the greatest models of my life where the people I saw acting on principles of human worth and demanding that others accept that in their activity, their demeanor and their words, and treat everyone equally from that ideal. Eating my broccoli and thinking about intercourse during “mass” never taught me very much, and considering that describes the entire involvement of my parents in my life, I do not think I took much from them.

If parents really are the fullest reach of hope for the future, I have never been shown evidence that convinces me this is a reality worth celebrating (I will not mention Blink by Malcolm Gladwell and the many fine articles of research he utilized in his argument to demonstrate that the effect of parents begins to depress previous to age five, but I do feel it is necessary to list potential reading for those who wish to engage in a dialogue about the last comment). All I will say is that if you posit blame for all the things that occur in a child’s life on the fact that someone does not fir the “model” of what a parent should be and you bombard media shows criticizing them for this flaw, you are crippling the children as well as the parent, and you encourage the self-obsessed, bloated, ego driven mania that is our pathetic consumerist economy that has not only destroyed our mindset about education, relationships and health, but it has drained us as a society of anything worth producing. So thank you Donald Trump, whenever we need a heap of feces dropped on our heads, rest assured: you’re hired.

What a lovely mouthful that was…imagine if I had actually broken down every aspect of the argument…trust me, it was a long, long debate.

The second point I made about me being logical thankfully is very simple to defend from what I am certain was the only criticism: ‘Then you are just removed and could never understand how someone involved feels. Emotions are not stupid, they are the essence of being human, and you should not be so critical.’

First of all, good proponents and practitioners of the law are emotionally distanced. It is our duty to be objective and follow a constructed compendium of both knowledge and decorum and proceed to fair exchange between ourselves, precedent and our peers on either the bench or the bar. It is not anyone’s duty to go above all of those things and just decide that law is not important, and things ought happen as makes any one person feel. This is not to say that precedent must always be followed, but even altering the wave of general judicial decisions has precedent and cites the compendium of all previous cases as well as current developments and peer review. It is not a whimsical game; change comes at the price of being able to defend the activity, and “Because I wanna.” is not a defense, it is a Dennis the Menace line and that is where it belongs. 

For the few remaining who argue “Well, no matter what, lawyers and judges are human and they let their emotions and motivations alter their activity and perspective.” I acknowledge that you are correct. However, lawyers and judges both take oaths that they will not allow themselves to represent a client or sit on a case that emotionally compromises them, and, even in death, pledge an oath of confidentiality, a pledge that should be commended and aided. Yes, human nature is what it is. This is not an argument by which we must say that all things administered by sentient life will always be flawed, rather it should be a point to which we commit our own selves to stand as example. After all, I thought that is what the Declaration of Independence said we ought to do…

As I said, the arguments boil down basically to ‘child throwing feces at me’ and I have already been down both those roads. There is no need to go through all the sources and intricacies of the language with concepts as simple and unfounded. Frankly, everyone should be grateful I did not just vault vulgar verbiage at arguments that deserve little in the way of dignified responses. 

So, my actual point to be addressed: Casey Anthony’s trial demonstrates the strength of our justice system, the weakness of our media, and the essential task of keeping the judicial and legislative review powers as far away from the hands of public opinion as possible.

Now first and foremost I would like to ‘debunk’ a few myths: 1) We as a society ‘win’ when someone on trial is convicted – No; 2) The judicial system functions as a forum for correcting criminal activity – No; 3) The concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ only is an issue in ‘ambiguous’ trials, but in “slam dunk” cases you can immediately assume someone is guilty – No.

How exactly do we as a society ever ‘win’ after the crime is committed? Is it not already a measure of our inability to provide for stable human interaction when someone commits a crime? It is difficult to explain in full rhetorical sentiment just how stupid this thought process is. I thought the goal of social order was to promote the best effects of the human person, not “call it even” because we managed to murder someone else in the ordeal. I guess I just do not understand the legal system at all.

Tenth Post - Tribute to Socrates I

At the tenth and one hundredth post, I would like to extol the two great philosophical concepts advocated by the greatest doctore of them all.

Before I start talking about Socrates's most controversial and second most important assertion, it is required to comment on where and from whom these ideas originated. Socrates never personally took to script the lectures and lessons he gave to the Athenian people. This has led multiple to people, no one I believe has a functioning cortical lobe, to think that Socrates did not exist. Now there is enough in the question of who or what is "Socrates" in the Platonic works, what thoughts belong to the historical man we remember as Socrates, if there absolutely was one, what is Plato's censorship and what is distinctly Plato for another blog, fifty publications and ten annoying books for me to read, review and send emails around that start with the endearment "Dear Jerk-in-a-Box". Frankly if you truly feel Socrates is not historically real there is an insurmountable amount of intellectual opinion that thinks you are wrong, historical records, not to mention plays written about him in his time period, not by Plato, and multiple people besides Plato describe how he influenced them and how important he was to them. Yeah, I just love how much everyone's imaginary friend affects me too, I talk about it all the time...

I am not saying that means you are wrong, I just do not think your opinion is the more plausible option, or remotely translatable to common sense. I personally think and feel that Plato's writings originally show a very different attitude toward compensation, violence, general human relations and basic sense of humor than the middle works do, and not in the 'Oh, now I feel I was incorrect/think differently.' way. It seems far more like what a student would do: start out writing as a mouthpiece of their professor, and then grow, mature and theorize for themselves. As far as I am concerned, the differences between the philosophy of the man in Crito and the man in Republic convinces me that one of these characters was the historical Socrates that Plato was writing for, the other was Plato.

Obviously I have read enough to say this with some meaning, but I do not claim definitive, absolute proof and understanding. That being acknowledged, to anyone who thinks I am not qualified to make an assertion about the authenticity of a historical Socrates, I simply want to say that it takes very little time and training to notice that whoever is writing Crito has a much different personality, perspective, temperament, a very different agenda than who is writing Ion, has a much different agenda from who is writing Symposium, has a much different agenda from who is writing the Republic. Over these three "types" of works (assuming you can split the works into Plato's Early, Transitional and Middle Dialogues, not including Late Dialogues because they include him refuting a lot of his philosophy) there does seem to exist a main philosophical point that might always trend back towards Socratic thought in the fullest sense, but how much each type of work replicates the didactic system of Socrates without alteration or censorship clearly demonstrates that as time advanced so did Plato's own personal contribution, since the two main principles of Socratic thought were either diluted or abandoned.

That having been said, and all naysayers and annoying critics put to rest, let us go to the second most important concept of Socratic thought: the abandonment of the theory of compensation.

Compensation is the foundational piece to the social, economic, cultural and religious constructions of the human race. Why you ask? How much more simplistic can your thinking be when you say 'For every two dollars I give to you, you give me something back of worth equal to two dollars.' and be done with the discussion? Every single basic construct of everything we have in our social lives is based on compensation. And if you do not believe me, count how many times you and your friends, in daily conversation, say things like: 'She really deserves that job. She studied so hard.'; 'He's earned some time with me. I mean, he's been so patient and understanding.'; 'They were so good, I just know they are in a better place. They are owed it.'; 'I am glad they are making policy. They have really earned that position.', and the like. It is the core of the average philosophy of the human race: somehow there is an invisible "Earn-O-Meter" in the universe that when you rack up so many "points" in this imaginary video game you are allowed to have accessories and attend to various other "levels" of the video game. Yes, I genuinely assess that the average human being cannot conceive of the universe outside of a 'video game style' concept because a universe where all the presence of creation is simply being and doing its best to interact effectively with the least resistance of energy and other creation, I have to believe that concept is a strain and the dispensation of the philosophical precepts is far too difficult. It took a matter of fifteen seconds of thinking, which is WAY too much for the average person...

Frankly, I have not been convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the average human being can even get to the associative realization that this is their life. I have not seen demonstration in the positive character of the human race to acknowledge that the least challenged and meaningful parts of human society are even noticed. I have a feeling that if an alien landed on Earth and met with the most average, middle-run person, that alien would walk away from the human race assuming we have always been materialistic, selfish, racist, uneducated, unenlightened, disconcerted, and bound by petulant, pathetic and ultimately pitiless things such as money, country and religion. Frankly, I would be willing to believe the average half-wit truly believes there has "always" been "money", "country" and "religion" just as they know it.

Does it matter, eh...I am not convinced one way or another. I am not sure Socrates and I am embarking on the path to improving the human person in the best sense. Could we be - possibly. I have to be disheartened though when every major critic since Hegel has asked humanity to examine itself, this is still in the 'Never gonna happen' column. How many works of Nietzsche, Emmerich, Foucault, Schopenhauer, Camus, Hemingway, Joyce, Fitzgerald, Sartre, Beckett and Brecht is it going to take? Evidence can demonstrate to a logical human being that humanity is less than perfect from looking out the front door into a suburban neighborhood. You do not have to look far for our faults - they are rather illuminated.

However, I will say this much: mixed with those faults is a sense of pride, caution, decency, honor, self, inquisitiveness and adventurous spirit that melds into the many contradictions that is 'human', however you do or do not define that (no biological-based comments please, I took Genetics, Evolution and Molecular Biology...I get it). To be this is so very meaningful. Maybe I am the only one who still breaks down during Little Wonders, but there is so much more meaning to be human, to existing itself, than having money, which statue you like best and how many bread lines you have tended to. It is the essential question of whether "Other" is what you learn to exist freely in, or whether you become addicted to it as the morphine of your self-egotistical orgy deteriorates into an average human life. Human is the moment one realizes that the most honest statement is "I am." and that there is more to that realization than we can ever understand; we should indulge and love every ounce of it, we should be all we can be as creation. If that is a belief, then sorry everyone who bet I am just a perturbed little prick with no beliefs. I do not see it as a belief, I see it as a natural motion of existence. Call my assessment whatever you will; even Crito thought it was a ridiculous fantasy twenty five hundred years ago. Yet I promise you this: this concept has been the sacrifice of the greatest of creatures from the human race, and to be counted among them for me is an honor. Belief, voodoo magic, honest assessment or blissful fantasy, at least this was a thought process worthy of a human.

When I hear the words 'Then we must never do harm' I cannot help but feel that which is truest about me acknowledge and acquiesce. A shiver runs through me with every reading; the good kind, the kind that is strangely calming, a feeling of home the moment you walk into a place. Then again I also start thinking about the Vulcan salute, so maybe I am a little too steeped in it all to the point where I have a grandiose image that cannot live up to reality. I am not raving that the universe is going to end if people do not listen to me (since that has never happened EVER), I just want to acknowledge it is a very romantic, grandiose, idealized view. A view worthy of the best of the human race...

Perhaps compensation is a very integral part of human thought, but many strides have been made in the destruction of the thought processes that labeled some people with the name tag "Property". Two hundred pyramids and three major civilizations (if not more) later you have to admit that this thought was integral, once. Maybe one day we can administrate that everyone has everything they need, where acts are done for the sake of righteous and just cause, where the greatest compliment to existence is knowing you are, and in being we naturally become loving, helpful and giving. I know it can happen because I do everything I can to make it so in my own life and interactions. I am repaid by being a piece of this universe, of interacting with the many things I am proud to call family.

Idealized view: very much so. Possibly too fantastical: maybe. May get me killed: it's happened before. Yet again, I posit that a protective, collective republic of democratically minded people centered around a constitutional social contract was a fantastical impossibility to the people of 1630s Bavaria. Now we exist as though this is as how we have always existed. One day we could live in a world just as "fantasical", without money, without exchange, where justice is blind, government is fair, just, universal and administered by a concerned and aware populace, where education is free and extensive, where health is a priority, not a commodity, where kindness is the media, honesty the metaphor and justice the currency.

Now was Socrates imaging a StarFleet universe...yeah, I doubt it. However, he did imagine a world where honesty could live. He imagined a world where we were not so cowardly that we need to extinguish a man because he carries the blood of a current "enemy". He imagined a world were people were honest about why they felt the way they did, that people admitted that sometimes they just wanted to be cruel, and carnivorous, and callous and contemptible. Why? Socrates wanted us to admit these things so we could understand they are honestly a part of us, just as all creation is. There is no magic switch that makes you start acting ethically. The act of honest requires understanding and respect. That is all Socrates asks: be completely honest.

When we really break compensation down, how many lies precipitate it? When have you done enough to earn someone's affection? What is the true worth of a dollar? Who gets to set that standard and why is it so? Why are eighty hours of one person's life worth practically nothing, an hour of another person's time worth $80,000 USD? What makes one faith tradition better? How many times are people going to present evidence they are the better without any true measure of truth or spiritual response of individual people? Can evidence ever be shown in this? What makes someone worthy? Why do some have more money then they comprehend to utilize, and others have none? Social theory is constructed about a world of lies that beguiles and bewilders the truth: there is no measure that distinguishes one human or one thought, that "victory" is most often the product of violence and trickery.

To be honest is to expose and realize a very selfish and self-obsessed component to what we are as humans. If we are ever to learn to make the universe better, we, as a society, need to universally demand the end of dishonest, disheartening activity. Socrates asked that we at least try. The rest has always been up to us...

How to Not Think Like an American

“You do not mean that. What you mean is, not like you.”

“You think I’m an ignorant savage, and you’ve been so many places; I guess it must be so. But still I cannot see, if the savage one is me.”

“How can there be so much you don’t know? You don’t know…”

You think you own whatever land you land on. The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim.

But I know every rock, and tree, and creature, has a life, has a spirit, has a name.

You think the only people who are people, are the people who look and think like you.

But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger, you’ll learn things you never knew!

You never knew…

Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon?

Or ask the grinning bobcat why he grins?

Can you sing with all the voices of the mountain?

Can you paint with all the colors of the wind? Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?

Come run the hidden pine trails of the forest; come taste the sun sweet berries of the Earth.

Come roll in all the riches all around you, and for once, never wonder what they’re worth.

The rainstorm and the river are my brothers, the herring and the otter are my friends.

And we are all connected to each other, in a circle, in a hoop, that never ends.

How high does a sycamore grow? If you cut it down,

Then you’ll never know…

And you’ll never…

Hear the wolf cry to the blue corn moon.

Or whether we are white or copper skin.

We need to sing with all the voices of the mountain;

We need to paint with all the colors of the wind.

You can own all the Earth and still,

All you’ll own is Earth until,

You can paint with all the colors

Of the wind…