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…

Things I Do Not Understand, Part V

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 V - Anderson, Dick, Bradbury and...Rowling...what the %&*#^*@^R!$%@!?!

I do not fully understand much of the universe and the phenomenal existence that is creation about me. However, very few of those things blatantly confuse and irritate me. Obviously I am disappointed but a LOT of things human society does, but I truly am not too irritated by many of the absolutely ridiculous things in the world, specifically American society, to the point where I think everything I disagree with is destroying the world. However, there are three things above all things that bother me to no extent, to which I truly cannot even convey anything of even acceptance towards. At least the worst moments of Avatar and Star Wars II are still interesting in video game form. On this planet there truly are but three things I am appalled by and I truly feel every one of these things is hurting the human race for the worse. Now I do not mean to say I have proof of that assertion beyond all reasonable doubt, since that does not really exist, and I realize I might be sounding overly dramatic just for show purposes. I just cannot foresee any of the components of the three things I truly despise being even benign in the development of the human race. Simply put, what I dislike are parasites to human civilization...hint, hint, hint politicians, CEOs and Communication Majors...and I am about to discuss the first one (and yes, I will get to the other two eventually).

What could be so deplorable? Glad you asked, and I have no intention to extend the plot on these subjects. Expect for these posts to get straight to the point, as there are another two to come. Object of my spite number one: the commercialization and simplification of education.

First and foremost, I have never been shown evidence that American education was anything to ever be particularly proud of and I do not think there is a statistic of gains or losses over time that could convince me the system was much better off thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, etc., etc. years ago, but it has certainly not been improving. A flat line is still a flat line. I just would love to know when it was more useful to put out a liberal arts major than it was a scientist? I do not mean to completely debase any subject of study, but the world and human civilization was not much better off at the height of the philosophical periods of grandeur. Teaching people how to think is important, but you should have covered that by ten, not hope to cover it by twenty.

What eats at the very core of my essence as a living being is how students are introduced to education. Hey, every moron out there who is scratching your head wondering why your kids do not like school, did you ever think it was because the education system is one step away from useless and does not teach anyone anything. I honestly do not believe I remember anything any teacher ever said to me before fourteen; oh, and I was the "smart" kid. How can anyone learn in our school system anymore? You could probably count on your fingers how many kids get out of high school and had to read Ulysses, The Communist Manifesto, The Great Gatsby, Waiting for Godot, The Wealth of Nations, Fahrenheit 451, or any other book of merit at all. To anyone who thinks that education is anything more than a commodity any longer in this country, I am sorry to inform you, but you are an idiot, you have zero talent at assessing the particular attitudes of your students, you lack any connect with that little thing called reality, you probably think American kindergarten is useful and you have convinced yourself of that line of reasoning more or less, from what I can see, to spout off to students who come for Candidates' Day.

I realize this might be "cruel" and "unfeeling", but who in their right mind would think that a book like The Picture of Dorian Gray or The Doll's House is not capable of adequate representation of the idea of "repressed self"? Not to mention, that is real literature from great authors who wrote for the purpose of expressing true ideas. A diary entry from a closeted homosexual fourteen year old...yeah, a lot of education can be found from that...hint, hint I just rolled my eyes. I do not care why a white kid whose parents believe in imaginary spaghetti monster vengeance is angry. There are tons of sociological studies on this issue. Why not read something by Wilson, or Massey or Hyde to introduce this idea to the class and have a discussion that matters to the topic? Believe it or not, there are some fifteen year old people who want to be educated, you just do not know how to help them.

How do I know that the education system has not a clue what it is doing? I just need to look at the books it uses to try and get kids "hooked" onto reading. No, do not use anything that could stimulate intellectual thought or exploration or anything. No, no we cannot do that. No, what do we use...Harry !@#$^&*() Potter...UUUUUUGGGGGGHHHHHH! I just groaned so loud I think I killed someone. A chance to educate people and instead our education system shoves at them bland and completely droll stories that as far as I am concerned do not promote any notion of education envelopment, moral maturity, personal proliferation or enlightenment on any level, and is as backwards, corrupting, chauvinistic, pig-headed, mind-numbing, conservative, impersonal and downright deplorable as any show on Fox News and MSNBC combined.

I must be incredibly naive, because I thought reading and education and all of this was adequately described by Francis Bacon when he said "Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider." The education and general system of dissemination of literature is so far removed from that statement it is not comical, it is not sad, it is just disappointing.

Just an aside, for anyone who did not get the title, the names before Rowling are authors who won the Hugo Award for best science fiction themed novel, all of whom are amazing writers and authors who thankfully passed away or left writing before Rowling ruined it.

I am not complaining because I think the English language is failing, or commenting on how the excessive literary tradition has degraded into a bland nothingness and any social conversation has turned into 'debatologue' that is just useless, or even that now writing really is about nothing but the money. None of these things help, but they do not have to affect the stories that flow from the literary tradition, and there is a far more central issue. I am not even attacking Rowling alone. No, she is but the queen of the morons. This is an issue of a culture of useless, uninteresting, lacking garbage that is described as educational. The issue is that these stories are made for one reason: because they can be sold to a group of average worth, intellectual hating, tobacco spiting, crass, gaudy, selfish and immature morons in order to make a bizillion dollars, and nothing more. Wendell Berry and Alan Moore write some pretty interesting stories still, and neither of them are gabillionaries. They are no James Joyce and Walter Lippmann, but they are not horrible, and at least I was pleasantly surprised to find stories that would never sell out for stock value. I think my second biggest problem in this issue is that literature is dying and a James Joyce would never survive in today's publishing world. My biggest problem: publishers know their market, and they know how to exploit it well, and think they are actually helping literary tradition and education. Here, I will help with the answer to that question...no, you are not helping.

I would make a metaphor but there truly is no comparison for such parasitism in the universe - I am left speechless.

Look, reading does not equal education. Why does anyone think that these two things are equivalent? Our problem is not an illiterate populace any longer. Our problem is that our literate populace is more likely to read Sports Illustrated and a pop-up book than anything written by Hemingway, Melville or Twain. I can only vomit in my mouth at the fact that no one cares, but in the end that is not a huge problem. The fault lies in whatever moron equated reading and education. Hey Mr. Lacking electrical connection in neural cells, go ahead and just read through a book on Organic Chemistry and then tell me how much you learned. Here, let me answer for you: "I did not learn anything, derp de derp de derp."

Fine, so people can read. If they read nothing of merit and do not study anything of the developmental fields, what does it matter? Even if all you do is equate reading to education, how about we expand upon that premise and see how well you are actually fulfilling even this ridiculous and pathetically low standard.

I am pretty sure no one thought 'See Spot Run' was a masterpiece and good for education because it was "so intriguing" and easily read. It is not better because it can keep someone's attention. No one thought it was a masterpiece, and people thought it was good for education only because it is so simple an American collegiate sophomore could read it, so it is a great place to start kindergartners off. Now, apparently, if you appeal to twelve year old girls and/or fourteen year old guys and you can get them to read for more than two hours at a time you are "amazing", and that is the more highlighted quality, not the fact that some good lessons could be taught from such an effect or that the literature in general develops an interesting form of literary structure. Why? Why are these things important at all? Okay, your book might be effective, if spreading gossip and worthless commercial diarrhea can be described as effective, but amazing? On what level or basis are you making this claim?

The stories, pretty much across the board, are not unique in structure or premise, the characters are moderately interesting but they are not engaging, the plots are more cliched than a George Washington namedrop in a political speech, and you add nothing to language or literary tradition. In fact, speaking specifically to Ms. Rowling, your stories tend to completely masticate certain languages, notably Latin. Come on, 'to have a dead body' is the 'Killing Curse'. Wow, that is just so original and interesting. Let me guess, the one to get girls to sleep with you is "Pierna Abierta" (or 'open leg' to save you the translation). And do not tell me it did not come from Latin or some other early Phonetician dialect because we both know it did and you are not that smart that you actually came up with something original.

In all seriousness and with a tad of humility, I am at least glad there is a lot of free education in Western Society, and I suppose if a book does have some power to interest children to read it is not terrible, in the sense that it is not the manifestation of the spaghetti monster's neighbor who left fecal matter on his doorstep. People should just teach themselves that reading is necessary, again referencing Bacon, but I am not that stupid and naive to believe that is going to happen anytime soon, especially with the pig slop that is human culture and society. If I have to be one hundred percent fully honest I would rather read the tales of 'Hairyyyyy Powtter' than have food poisoning. I am not saying it is "I would rather chose death." terrible. Please do not confuse my irritation with what I like to call 'Christian Irritation'; you know, as in when someone does not agree with you, they then proceed to club you over the head until you are dead. This is not a holy war against commercialized society, since I do not fight for unobtainable victories, and it is not a diatribe to burn all "Harry Potter" and "A Walk to Remember" merchandise (sorry, but those pieces of trash do not deserve bold face script). All I am saying is that the success of these stories baffles and irritates me and I am convinced the general social conditions they embrace in order to be successful are slowly killing humanity and all education along with it.

About these kinds of stories and writings themselves, I do my best to look objectively. My only comment on that is even the most objective person cannot help but find a cache of criticism. The writing is not horrendous and the characters are mildly interesting, I will acknowledge that. It is not the worst piece of commercial diarrhea ever written, but the whole plot and structure is just so uninteresting and not engaging at all. At least in Epic Movie I knew when to laugh and what to feel. I am not sure what the tone is in half of the books because either the tone is unintelligible or, from the Harry Potter model, the lengthy detail at times takes me to the point where emotional investment is no longer viable. I am not saying something like Dan Brown style chapters is the best idea, but in a novel where, oh I do not know, let us say maybe a scene where someone was just murdered in cold blood by one of the arch-nemesis characters, I expect the next showdown to be like a page, maybe two away, especially when they were all in the same room that did not sound like it was particularly large.

I think, if memory serves, the difference between Sirius Black's murder and when Harry finally catches up with Voldemort was nearly an entire chapter. What are we pausing this for? I do not even remember most of the interlude. All that happened was a long drawn out emotional outburst that seemed so forced and unreal it was comical, a conflict with Beatrix, who I still do not care about at all and was so confused by her character it was unnerving and frankly I am unsure when we were introduced to her, something about how your emotions affect the "Torture Curse", a lengthy and boring chase sequence to the atrium and something about how the transportation method through fire works as 'disapparition' or something. Do you really think I care? I cannot imagine most people took away from that scene more than I just did...and I did not learn anything. All I did was read a page of writing that would serve better as toilet paper so more trees do not have to be murdered. Why am I reading this novel at all?

For all the interest of the characters and the overall premise, nothing feels real or above the level of connection I could garner from staring at a dead pigeon. It is not enough that these characters do not feel like real people, and believe it or not fantastical characters can feel real and cause emotional attachment, cue Lord of the Rings. Then to add to the hysteria the books have to extend into unparalleled detail about not just everything that is happening in the scene, down to how many caterpillars are molting in the background, but then the story goes on and on about places and people we either do not care about, or that serve only as a setting to the momentary story or very ancillary roles. I do not need to know who built every building in Meade Village, because frankly I do not care. Notice how I only know of three kings of Minas Tirinth in The Lord of the Rings, not ten and the person who first started building the well and the butcher shop, but then lost the stock and had to settle with working for his brother in the bakery, and they have a constant feud going on with the candlestick maker. If you would like to know why I do not know those things Ms. Rowling, it is very simple: Tolkein knew I would never care! He saved me the trouble of writing another four lines of pointless detail that I would have to read through and forget four seconds later. He focused on developing the characters that would teach me lessons and make me feel like I was there. I learned about friendship, about sacrifice, about meaning, about honor, and I felt like I was there at the Black Gate. All I learned from Harry Potter was how to cast an imaginary killing curse and that apparently everyone in a story needs to end up married to someone of the opposite sex and have kids...I think Victoria Cobb just wet herself.

If you are going to do the long drawn out sequences, do what The Iliad and The Lord of the Rings do. Have chapters all about the details and issues and actually develop them so when we get to the battles and the action scenes we are not confused and it can all just go forward. At one point I remember Dumbledore arrived and helped the Phoenix Order or whatever, and honestly a line later I caught myself asking, 'Wait, when did he get here?' and being lost as to what was happening. I am not confused in The Lord of the Rings when Helms Deep is going on because there was a chapter of explanation for just where everyone was lined up. This gave me a perfect picture of the battle, so as the action proceeded I knew exactly what was going on.

Worst of all the story is just so cliched and simplistic, and then it has to extend for seven novels. If the story was two novels deep I would understand, but seven novels...you realize Lord of the Rings was three novels in total, and James Joyce in his entire career wrote three novels (pattern developing...), all of which could beat your seven novels with seven random pages? From everyone ounce of these stories I took away something meaningful and important, something that made me feel a part of the story. The only part of me that yearned for Harry Potter was when my bowels moved and I need something to wipe myself with.

What exactly is the ultimate point of these novels? What am I supposed to take from them? Honestly, is the whole "good versus evil" tag line your entire plot? Really, that is it? Come on, they had that one in Gilgamesh. Where is the lesson about friendship, or overcoming assumptions, or how cruelty will eventually consume those who use it? All that happens to all the bad guys is the good guys shoot them with the "Killing Curse"...oh boy, such an interesting finale. I would say that is a worn plot device but I think I would insult the word worn. If that is what you are going for I think all you were really doing is playing out a wet dream George Bush had once about him conquering, I mean "liberating", the Middle East. Seriously, is this how the entire plot line could go: Harry fights to rid himself of a personal demon, and conquer the incarnation of destruction, hatred and suffering that opposes him through his own self sacrifice and determination for protecting others. Got it...did we need to set that up over seven novels, three of which make War and Peace look small and inadequate? I would say plot convenience equals story suck, but I am pretty sure the four million pages of this story qualifies that statement far more than I ever could.

I honestly could go on for days on end about why education is not teaching anything when this is what it holds up as the golden standard. It is not enough that we have the ridiculous chastity-based sex education, no national curriculum, private corporations in our lunchrooms, halls, classrooms and now textbooks, on top of all the exposure already seen, unfriendly, segregated and unsafe environments, lackluster teachers, uneducated populace and a lack of funding, but on top of it all you shove this garbage, this commercial diarrhea, in the face of every student and say this is good.

I leave my final comment to the words of the brilliant biochemist, Dr. Edmond H. Fischer. "Education should be exercise; it has become massage."

And I just do not get it...

Strict On Smog...Really?

Smog is formed by a reaction of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide and methane in the presence of sunlight. The main sources of these pollutants are power plants and factories, fumes from volatile solvents, vehicles emissions and gasoline vapors. Smog is worse in the summer because of heat and sunlight, and can travel hundreds of miles from its source to pollute wilderness areas. Now the amount permitted each year to be in the air will be constrained, or at least that is what the EPA wants.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed stricter health standards for smog, replacing a Bush-era limit that ran counter to scientific recommendations. The new standard will likely put hundreds more counties nationwide in violation, costing tens of billions of dollars to implement, but will ultimately save billions in avoided emergency room visits, premature deaths, and missed work days, the EPA said. If the strictest standard is adopted, agency analysts project that as many as 12,000 premature deaths from heart or lung diseases could be avoided, along with thousands of cases of bronchitis, asthma and non-fatal heart attacks.

While smog has been a long-term problem in parts of Texas, California, and along the northeast Coast, the new standards could affect counties in Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, the Dakotas, Kansas, Minnesota and Iowa for the first time based on EPA data.

The EPA proposal presents a range for the allowable concentration of ground-level ozone, the main ingredient in smog, from 60 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion. EPA will select a specific figure within that range. The costs will increase from $19 billion up to $90 billion a year by 2020, according to EPA. Counties and states will have up to 20 years to meet the new limits, depending on how severely they are out of compliance. They will have to submit plans for meeting the new limits by end of 2013 or early 2014.

The proposed range was what scientists had recommended during the Bush administration. However, President Bush personally intervened and set the standard well below what was advised after protests from electric utilities and other industries. Despite the cutback, the Bush standard was still stricter than the previous smog standard set in 1997, but not anything comparable to what the recommendations advised.

The American Petroleum Institute, the oil companies’ chief lobby, criticized the proposal as costly and likely to be ineffective. The group said that there was no new scientific basis for changing the standard set at the end of the Bush administration and will likely fight the proposal.