Nothing 2 Special

Sneak Peak Excerpt of Soon To Be Published...

2011-06-02T23:01:00.006-06:00

.......Rambler Ramblings,
Rambling out voodoo practices called Loving-Kindness,
Loving-Kindness brought up the Mississippi River,
Enlightened Jazz Swampees carrying Louis Armstrong,
Awareness in climbing the Shadow of Mark Twain,
Jumping on a Hybrid train of bullshit traveling through the Midwest,
Riding cattle carcass through Kansas City,
Enlightened ride to see Charlie Parker,
Consciousness continues riding on tracks through lands cleared for farming,
Riding through Kansas Prairies killed to graze the animals to feed the animals which kills the animals,
Fatty Drunk Fattys chasing the Yankee Dollar past the train that may be Consciousness,
Wichita religious zealots racing on a fag hating path disregarding Awareness,
Consciousness riding on to the pickers in Winfield,
Enlightened Riders Ramble on through teaching Loving-Kindness,
Be on the train be off the train become Aware of the train,
Breaking boundaries to Awareness listening like Enlightened Riders Ramble,
On to Boulder listening for the Yonder Ramblings, Ramblings, Ramble...

published under Poetry, might just be Free Structure Prose

By Joshua Laughing Brown Bear - Warrior in the Tribe of Mic-O-Say

Review

2011-05-21T11:25:00.002-06:00

Finished watching http://howlthemovie.com/ I would suggest watching a few interviews of Ginsberg, this certainly helps us understand what an amazing portrayal Franco creates of the poet. Produced creatively, the rythm of the film reflects the rythm of the poem, I think that is the most you could hope for in a project about HOWL. Well done.

2011-05-04T23:29:00.000-06:00

< Reading that book. That is all Willis.

"Special Friends" (Volunteer Work)

2011-01-22T16:31:00.002-06:00

Sharing a beer and conversation with Fishman (Drummer for Phish)

2011-01-22T16:26:00.003-06:00

David Foster Wallace

2011-01-06T11:41:00.002-06:00

David Foster Wallace discussing literature and reading using analogies with classical music and comments on education and contemporary culture.

Recent Email Exchange

2010-12-04T11:12:00.010-06:00

Subject: Unified Theory

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J.C.B

To: B.H.S.I

If you have the time or interest, see if you can answer the last question I pose
in the passage below.

Scientists are approaching a Unified Theory, though we have no way of gauging just exactly how close we are, regardless of what you are

told. The large machine working at CERN right now could bring us close to the
moments directly after the big bang and if astrophysicists and particle
physicists can work together we may have an absolute theory of everything not
far in the future. By “not far in the future” I mean somewhere between one and
400 years. A complete Unified Theory will not provide all the answers to a
meaningful existence but will certainly eliminate the need for God to honest people, which in my
view will bring people closer to creating their own meaningful existence.

From the evidence I have
read, the “need” has never been greater to realize (A) our belief in God most
often leads to regressive thinking and (B) our survival rests in sustaining an
environment suitable to our species.

What does a Unified Theory have to do with point (A) and point (B)?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: B.H.S.I.

To: J.C.B.

Dawkins and other rational people of logic never 100% eliminate the possibility

of God. This is an "Einsteinian" God they are talking about. Even more
infinitely improbable is the existence of a "personal" God (Christian, Muslim,
whatever). You and I know this, but as a planet, on whole, we are so fucking
backwards most people still can't even fathom this simple difference, which is
why this Unified Theory idea, to me, seems moot and pointless to the
here-and-now matters of our existence. It only matters to those who are
enlightened enough to want to ponder the ramifications and at the very least,
maybe create something beautiful and/or lasting in reaction to those
ramifications.

Natural resources are the only "gold standard" for currency we've ever had
because they are finite. Everything else is just made-up, fiat-based,
short-sighted bullshit built on those resources. Our country is the shining
example. The fact there even are "countries" is in essence, short-sighted and
evidence of our being doomed.

On a bit of a lighter yet still related note, did you hear the news from NASA
today? Awesome stuff.

Ultimately more proof we ain't special, we ain't unique, we're blocks of one of
many organizeable elements, somehow evolved to have the ability to reason,
control, and redirect the energy generated by our primary evolutionary urge to
reproduce. Yet we fucking suck at it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: J.C.B.

To: B.H.S.I.

I watched a documentary on this topic last
week: Stephen Hawking and the Theory of Everything

It is somewhat about the life of Stephen Hawking. And interestingly enough I don't think he now believes the theory is possible.

I don't think it is the least bit "moot and pointless" even to a general
audience. It should be humbling and inspiring for people to realize the
dichotomy of how small and pointless our existence is in the grander scheme of
the universe/space/time and the sheer chance that
we have evolved from single cell bacteria to extraordinarily complex rational
creatures constantly balancing the duality of our existence.

Northwest String Summit 2010

2010-11-23T01:43:00.005-06:00

Confusing truth with perception

2010-10-04T18:42:00.002-06:00

I was trying to remember a quote which Hitchens had referenced in his memoir. Paraphrased this quote is, "confusing culture with politics is the fist step toward totalitarianism." I still can not remember who he was quoting but I did a quick Google search to find the source and was overwhelmed with people using this quote unattributed. I mean page after page after page of chat forums and comments sections where armchair philosophers were attempting to gracefully pass this smart phrase as their own casual language. How important is perception?

Phish @ Deer Creek August 2010

2010-09-19T22:05:00.003-06:00

You will notice from a few of these photos that we were running a refugee tent for shaved albino stick insects.

Early Saudi-American Relations

2009-02-26T12:44:00.003-06:00

Before I return to the bookstore to finish Khalidi's book I wanted to make some short comments about early Saudi-American relations.

In 1945 a few months before Roosevelt dies he meet with King Ibn Saud in Egypt. This early meeting was arranged by Col. William Eddy who later wrote a piece about the meeting, FDR Meets Ibn Saud. At the time of this meeting Saudi Arabia was in a unique position not having been fully controlled by a European power, for the most part they were independent. FDR's meeting was used to springboard full strategic cooperation between the Saudi dictatorship and the U.S., a relationship that continues today. Our effort to promote democracy casually overlooked this brutal dictatorship, then and now. The manner in which the Saudi dictatorship, now in its 5th generation, rules leaves little concern for a public uprising. However, the U.S. would have serious problems if the people of Saudi Arabia overthrew the government and decided they wanted to manage their own resources. Not to mention the problems the world would encounter with the religious fanaticism that has been breeding in that country for the past 50 years.

Another interesting anecdote mentioned by Khalidi is the manner in which Truman continued the relationship with the Saudi dictatorship. Their was tension in early Saudi-American relations regarding the establishment of an Israeli state. King Ibn Saud made comments to FDR and Truman, I am paraphrasing, "What Arab has ever harmed a Jew" and "What has a Palestinian ever done to the Jewish race that would require them to be displaced." Truman's response was his constituents have little regard for the Arab population but are very determined to support Zionism. Both sides overlook their differences and continue their strategic arrangements. Think about Truman's response though. How did this line of thought influence our position today?

Cold War Blowback

2009-02-25T23:07:00.003-06:00

Picked up a new book tonight looking to break from philosophy and 18 hours of Ricky Gervais podcasts. The book is Sowing Crisis: The Cold War and American Hegemony in the Middle East by Rashid Khalidi. Read through the first four chapters, should finish it on my day off tomorrow. The author's name rang a bell when I picked up the book, though I couldn't exactly place it. The first cue was in the preface when Khalidi references the Project for a New American Century. My mind immediately returned to a book by New York Times journalist George Packer, The Assassins Gate: America In Iraq, that I read a few years back and wrote quite heavily about on here. Packer interviews and quotes both Khalidi and PNAC. Key players in the Bush Administration signed on to the mission of PNAC.

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental proposisitions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

I believe there is little dispute that this organization guided the policy of the early Bush Administration and the key members of the administration that supported this neo-conservative thought quietly left the administration as the war in Iraq continued, most notably Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. The data today is overwhelming in how this ideology is an utter failure. You should really check out PNAC's webpage.

Today's issues are not all pervasive in Khalidi's book as it deals with historical context primarily but it consistently ties the historical context to its modern day products. The most perplexing results of Khalidi's scholarship is how we could let such daft logic in regards to history translate into foreign policy today. It seems we almost entirely dismiss academia when designing foreign policy. Let's see if the new administration continues this line.

When I finish the book I'll summarize points that are worth reflecting when we hold our elected representatives accountable for their decisions. So far the issues that really caught my attention deal with early Saudi-American relations, how these relations were started with Truman even Roosevelt and the Arabian American Oil Company (ARMCO). Saudi-American relations kind of acted as a staging point for our hegemony in the Middle East and have fascinating consequences. I'm hoping Khalidi considers how Cold War maneuvering impacted human rights in the Middle East today but that may be a bit off focus for this book.

In my opinion a good non-fiction book keeps one finger busy guarding the endnotes for a quick reference to the author's sources. If each chapter doesn't contain at least 20 endnotes I have to question the author's generalizations.

A quick Google search on Khalidi will show how controversial he became during the 2008 presidential elections but my attention to major media outlets is dismal.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note I was listening to Kid A while I was typing. I think the music is so creative the trance it induces lends itself to thoughtfulness. Am I going out on a limb when I say it is the best album of the new millennium? Perhaps.

2007-08-01T16:10:00.000-06:00

The wider conflict now engulfing Iraq lays bare the absurdity of liberal interventionism - and the decline of US power

By John Gray

Define "better"

2007-05-22T09:56:00.000-06:00

America is the land of opportunity. Anyone who works hard enough can improve their quality of life. They can make life better for their children.

Define "better".

Access to clothes, food, shelter or just overall stability is essential to a "better" quality of life but look down the spectrum of people's lives and figure out what might seem a more essential component to a sustainable high quality of living.

We commonly define a "better" quality of life as occupational stimulation and the capacity to consume. As I look at the spectrum of lives in front of me, the "better" quality of life is found in those who after achieving overall stability can look at what they have in comparison to what they need and feel content. People who remain discontent have established a pattern of looking constantly at what they do not yet have and never consider what they simply need.

Humility

2007-05-19T12:43:00.001-06:00

I'll attempt in this post to clarify what I mean when trying to cultivate humility. Let's employ Einstein for this purpose:

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be
understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure
that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking
person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that
has nothing to do with mysticism.

This is a scientific approach to humility but one that can easily be translated to human relationships. Our reservation in judging others and restraining ego is driven by the fact that we "can comprehend only very imperfectly" how our experiences and conditions relates to others.

Another question that arises in my acceptance of Einstein's observations is how it conflicts with my frequent references to Jesus as a moral guide. Didn't Jesus have everything to do with mysticism? Probably but Jesus experiences, regardless of religion or a belief in God, contain a clear message. To believe in his teachings Jesus doesn't need to be real or the son of God. Just like Humpty Dumpty doesn't have to be real to believe eggs shouldn't sit on walls.

Mourn this...

2007-05-15T14:37:00.000-06:00

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and
the gays and the lesbians ... the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of
them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and
say, 'You helped this happen.'"

-- Jerry Falwell, September 13th, on The 700 Club about last week's terrorist attacks

Heavy Fucking Document Indeed

2007-05-04T17:18:00.000-06:00

I picked back up Hunter S. Thompson's Fear and Loathing in America: The Brutal Odyssey of an Outlaw Journalist. The Gonzo Letters, Volume II 1968-1976. He saved a copy of every letter he wrote in this time period and this is the collection. I don't know how I missed this letter the first time I read this but it stung me the second time around:

I've been arguing for the past few years that music is the New Literature,
that Dylan is the 1960's answer to Hemingway, and that the main voice of the
'70s will be on records & videotape instead of books.

But by "music" I don't mean the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. If the Grateful
Dead came to town, I'd beat my way in with a fucking tire iron, if necessary. I
think Workingman's Dead is the heaviest thing since Highway 61
and "Mr. Tambourine Man".

So for whatever it's worth here's the list:

1) Herbie Mann's 1969 Memphis Underground
2) Bob Dylan's March 1965 Brining It All Back Home
3) Bob Dylan's August 1965 Highway 61 Revisited
4) the Grateful Dead's June 1970 Workingman's Dead
5) the Rolling Stones' December 1969 Let It Bleed
6) Buffalo Springfield's January 1967 Buffalo
Springfield
7) Jefferson Airplane's February 1967 Surrealistic Pillow
8) jazz inovator Roland Kirk's albums in general
9) Miles Davis's 1959 Sketches of Spain
10) multi-instrumental overdubbing virtuoso Sandy Bull's July 1965 Inventions (for Guitar, Banjo, OUD, Fender Bass Guitar, Electric
Guitar).

Jesus, what a hassle to even think quickly about a list like that. Even now
I can think of 10 more I might have added...but what the fuck, it's only a rude
idea. But a good one, I think, and particularly for Rolling Stones
[magazine]. The implicaitons of the final list would vibrate far beyond the
actual music...it would be a very heavy fucking document. You may want to give
it some thought.

Daily Devotional--Wompeters,Foma, & Grandfallons

2007-04-20T08:00:00.001-06:00

For Vonnegut being a humanist means acting kindly towards others without expectation or reward.

Video for the Day

2007-04-20T07:45:00.001-06:00

Big Up Yourself from our journalist from Stains...respect...with our main man Noam Chomsky.

Preamble

2007-04-18T09:05:00.000-06:00

Not enough can be said regarding hijacking a tragedy as a platform for political purposes. There is a fine line in these matters. Likewise there is fine line in questioning the sincerity in a person's expressions of sympathy. Disseminating the lessons from the countries latest tragedy is a balancing act for all of us.

My hope is the shooting at Virginia Tech will expose the lack of access to mental health treatment. This shouldn't be mistaken with reporting other's needs for such treatment, or forcing such treatment on people authorities perceive disturbed. Perhaps a more drastic measure than collecting guns or placing screeners would be deciding mental health is not a commodity to be traded in the open market. It's a line I use all too often but has yet earned due attention. Will universal health care deter all domestic violence? Obviously not but it's one of best deterrents available in a free society.

Living in a country that aims to maximize civil liberties we accept the risk of dangerous ideas as long as reason is left free to combat. The alternative, history proves, is to control thought in the name of security, and this road leads to tyranny.

Hopefully we'll emerge from mourning and realize we can not rush to establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility without promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty.

ReRead

2007-04-18T08:42:00.000-06:00

I am not sure if any of you have picked up the book The Assassin's Gate by George Packer. It's definitely the best survey of America in Iraq, in my opinion. I've just started reading it the second time hoping to absorb everything it has to offer.

Pay particular attention to the issues currently surrounding Paul Wolfowitz. He was the deputy secretary of defense during the build up to Iraq and the aforementioned book really exposed how his neo-conservative ideas where arrogant and misguided. He would literally ignore ANY evidence contrary to his ideas (as did V.P. Cheney). Bush is left, surprisingly, entirely out of the loop.

Wolfowitz is now the President of the World Bank. Among other problems he suspended AID to Uzbekistan after they refused to cooperate with the U.S. in the war on terror. Additionally his position in building developing countries is to displace corrupt governments by force, if necessary. Which is obviously the banner of neo-conservative foreign policy. He appears highly driven ideologically, beyond corporate interests, which raises the question if his arrogance actually blinds him to history. Perhaps my liberal idealogue blinds me to chapters in history.

2007-04-16T18:55:00.001-06:00

Don't picture me with hair down to my shoulders, a beret or Che T-shirt and this will all be easier to stomach.

I'm reading a monograph by Leon Trotsky, "Their Morals and Ours: The Marxist View of Morality". Most people in the west only know Communism as perverted by Stalinism, or more accurately substitute Marxism for Communism in that statement. If you can stomach a read of the Communist Manifesto you'll find how far Stalin and successors strayed from Marxism. This short work by Trotsky is further clarifying on Marxist's behalf.

Language is a barrier, in more ways than one.

From Kurt Vonnegut

2007-04-12T08:01:00.000-06:00

If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WAS MUSIC

Here we are, stuck in the amber of the moment. There is no why.

Take Care of the People, and God Almighty will take care of himself.

From Local Elections to the Global Condition...in 7 paragraphs

2007-04-06T08:10:00.000-06:00

We held local elections on Tuesday. An appallingly low percentage turned out in the K.C. Metro Area. There was one issue on the ballot in my precinct concerning a tax raise to improve roads. Before going to the polls I took 5min to read through the details of the tax raise and the strategy for road improvements. Not long after leaving my voting location I went to the friendly local pharmacy (read Huge National Mega Chain Pharmacy) and overheard a few people complaining about the very issue at hand, the poor roads in our area of town. I left wondering if they had made it to the polls, we'll assume they did. Well, despite the low turn out our road improvement tax raise passed.

Living in a younger middle to upper-middle class suburb I've found that despite most people voting fiscally conservative on federal issues they tend to be fiscally liberal on local issues. I wonder if this trend is national? If so I've never realized the potential for "Thinking Globally, Acting Locally". Sadly I think my assumptions here are misleading.

Local elections tend to draw little attention compared to federal elections. Instead of gaining the overall consensus of the populace you gain a consensus among those with a deep seeded interest in the issue at hand. I think most people just find themselves to busy to vote and no one tends to use the mandatory time businesses must give to participate in the process.

Is it fair to assume the general population values their role as consumers over their role as citizens? I think so, in fact I think this factor holds true even when considering other variables for people not voting, such as family commitments. Let's think bigger for a second. Imagine the problem of local elections is representative of society at large.

Is it safe and wise to place our happiness in our role as consumers? History actually shows us it might not be that risky for some. In 200+ years we see if people are born to the upper half of society they remain in the upper half and likewise if you're born in the lower half. With only one major and few minor swings the ability of the upper half to consume has been pretty stable.

However our society has a difficult time communicating to the lower class they should find happiness somewhere outside our consumer culture. The majority of domestic problems stem from this difficulty with a small percentage of problems being petty issues of the upper class or a few matters of mere survival in the lower class. If this all stands true, we could probably quite bitching about these problems and realize they are something we'll have to deal with or try one of two solutions. First we could find a way to communicate to the lower class they need to find their happiness somewhere outside our consumer culture or second, we could lower our standards of living to allow a higher degree of comfort for the lower half of society.

If we decide not to change we should probably stop assuming superiority among societies claiming to practice classical liberal principles. After all, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" seems rather silly and rhetorical when capitalism is given such an obvious higher priority. Likewise, these principals probably shouldn't be the banner we march under when forcefully trying to change other societies. After all we didn't see the slaves celebrating our Revolution and you'll find few Iraqis willing to give even lip service to liberty. I imagine they would both tell you the face of tyranny looks the same whether it's forced or designed, foreign or domestic, 1 mile away or 3,000 miles away.

Conflicted Priorities...

2007-04-03T15:08:00.000-06:00

...from an interview with Noam Chomsky

There was a famous case called “Dodge v. Ford.” Some of the stockholders of
the Ford motor company, the Dodge brothers, brought Henry Ford to court,
claiming that by paying the workers a higher wage, and by making cars better
than they had to be made, he was depriving them of their profits – because it’s
true: dividends would be lower. They went to the courts, and they won.

The courts decided that the management of the corporation has the legal
responsibility to maximize the yield of the profit to its stockholders, that’s
its job. The corporations had already been granted the right of persons, and
this basically says they have to be a certain type of pathological person, a
person that does nothing except try to maximize his own gain – that’s the legal
requirement on a corporation, and that’s a core principle of Anglo-American
corporate law. So when, say, Milton Friedman points out that corporations just
have to have one interest in life, maximizing profit and market share, he is
legally correct, that is what the law says. The reason the Dodge brothers wanted
it was because they wanted to start their own car company, and that ended up
being Dodge, Chrysler, Daimler-Chrysler and so on. And that remains a core
principle of corporate law.

The United States happens to be pretty much at the extreme of keeping to
the principle that the corporate system must be pathological, and that the
government is allowed to and glad to intervene to uphold that principle.

Like during the New Deal period in the United States and during the 1960s,
the United States veered somewhat towards a social market system. That’s why the
Bush administration, who are of extreme reactionary sort, are trying to
dismantle the few elements where the social market exists. Why are they trying
to destroy social security, for example? I mean, there’s no serious economic
problem, it’s all fraud. It’s in as good fiscal health as it’s ever been in its
history, but it is a system which benefits the general population. It is of no
use at all to the wealthy. Like, I get social security when I retire, but I’ve
been a professor at MIT for fifty years, so I got a big pension and so on and so
forth, I wouldn’t even notice if I didn’t get social security. But a very large
part of the population, maybe 60% or something like that, actually survive on
it. So therefore it’s a system that obviously has to be destroyed. It’s useless
for the wealthy, it’s useless for privilege, it contributes nothing to profit.
It has other bad features, like it’s based on the principle that you should care
about somebody else, like you should care whether a disabled widow has food to
eat. And that’s hopelessly immoral by the moral principles of power and
privilege, so you’ve got to knock that idea out of people’s heads, and therefore
you want to get rid of the system.

The Cross

2007-03-30T07:16:00.002-06:00

The Season of the Cross.

As terrorists were nailing Jesus to the Cross he looked down at them and said:

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do"

Reflective even for us non-religious.

Thoughts on the Feast of The Resurrection

2007-03-19T14:46:00.001-06:00

It is believed that the word Easter derives from a Saxon Goddess who, if I remember correctly, was the Goddess of Goddesses. The time of Easter was also a celebration of the Goddess of Fertility, which is pragmatic as we see nature being "reborn" in spring. The theme of nature "being born again" makes it also convenient to celebrate the "rebirth" of Christ during this time of year.

Three out of the four gospels show the Last Supper took place during the Passover Seder. Thus we calculate the date for Easter from the Jewish Passover.

Holidays in the Christian calendar, like most religious holidays, owe the majority of their characteristics to a perpetuation of customs that precede them, we usually label these pagan customs. For instance the rabbit and egg were used in pagan rituals and customs celebrating the Goddess of Fertility before Chrisitaniy became the official religon of Rome. These characteristics were adapted to the new celebration of Christ's rebirth. Additionally, again if I remembering correctly, most early Christians in the Roman Empire did not abandon their previous Gods when Christianity became the official relgion but added Christ to the list of Gods they worship.

The characteristics of these holidays are at worst corporate, at least entertainment and at best symbolic of a generally peaceful message. Regardless of the characteristics special time is taken each year to remember :

1. The world deserves our humility.

2. For us to be fulfilled nothing of this world deserves anything short of our compassion.

Observations

2007-03-15T19:55:00.000-06:00

I think at times it's hard for people to see the lives of others moving in different or new directions but it's important for us to remember that other peoples lives and decisions don't have to be wrong for our lives and decisions to be right.

And So It Was Said...

2007-03-14T21:15:00.000-06:00

...that on the Grand & Glorious Eighth & Extra Day God did indeed create Sour Mash Bourbon to Keep Me From Conquering the World

These Aren't My Words

2007-03-13T20:10:00.000-06:00

Arguments are wonderful, and so are ideas. But ideas aren't life! They are excellent for guiding us in life. But they aren't life. Abstraction isn't life. Life is found in experience. It is like reading a wonderful menu. You can guide your lives by the menu, but the menu isn't the meal. And if you spend all your time with the menu, you're never going to eat anything. Sometimes it's even worse. There are people who are eating the menu. They are living off ideas, letting life slip away.

What are we to do to overcome this? Krishnamurti warns us, "The day we teach a child the name of a bird, the child stops seeing the bird." The child looks at that sprightly thing, full of mystery and surprise, and we teach it : it's a sparrow. This child now has an idea: sparrow. And later, whenever it sees a sparrow, it's going to say, "Well, you know, its a sparrow..." The same thing applies to the idea, let us suppose, of an American. Every time I see an American citizen go by I say, "American." And I miss out on the unique being that this individual is. Have you experienced seeing a child in wonder looking at this mysterious trembling vibrant thing that we call a sparrow? The idea, the word, can be an obstacle to seeing the sparrow. The word "American" can be an obstacle keeping me from really seeing the American in front of me. The word and idea "God" can be an obstacle to seeing "God."

It's Vonnegut, not God. Or is he?

2007-03-12T21:07:00.000-06:00

I wish I believed in signs. After mentioning Vonnegut in my previous post regarding religion the Sunday edition of the Kansas City Star had a short article on the author. The article was about his books becoming available on audio, nothing astounding but the article began with Religion and Politics. I can't leave you without these quotes:

[Vonnegut] has such glorious rants, like the one about Veterans Day, which
he still reveres as Armistice Day.
On that day in 1918, “millions upon millions of human beings stopped
butchering one other,” he writes. “I have talked to old men who were on
battlefields during that minute. They have told me in one way or another that
the sudden silence was the voice of God. So we still have among us some men who
can remember clearly when God spoke to mankind.”

Armistice Day, he says, is “sacred. Veterans Day is not.”

He carries on about the “evil nonsense” taught to U.S. schoolchildren —
such as that 1492 was the date North America was discovered, when “actually,
millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the
continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat
and rob and kill them.”

Brilliant

2007-03-12T15:38:00.000-06:00

“I am today raising a flag of opposition to this alarmism about global warming and urging all believers to refuse to be duped by these ‘earthism’ worshippers,”--Jerry Falwell

Allow progressive religion?

2007-03-11T11:41:00.000-06:00

I have not found modern atheist scholarship that discusses religious progressives. High time is given to religious moderates who choose not to engage their fundamental counterparts. Frankly, I haven't read a good rebuttal on behalf of religious moderates either.

I presume the argument against religious progressives is they are motivated by irrational thoughts that produce rational ends. So must, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote, "the means we use be as pure as the ends we seek."

I proposed in a post way back that perhaps an entirely rational world might be undesirable. Allow me to explain. I don't want my kids to read the first few pages of a Kurt Vonnegut novel and stop because the plot is completely irrational. I want them to appreciate the imagination and style used and take lessons offered (metaphorically) through characters. Vonnegut readers don't go around trying to invent Ice-9 or praying to Tralfamadorians. Likewise Christian progressives don't translate all scripture to life, only those which are reasonable (read Borg article from previous post).

Christian progressives hold irrational thoughts none of which translate into irrational actions. Would atheists argue as long as these irrational thoughts exist they hold the capacity to produce irrational actions? Would this put at risk products from which we cultivate our imagination?

*Edit: With regards to my Vonnegut reference. Even though Vonnegut is a secular humanist I wonder if he would be comfortable eradicating irrational thought which doesn't produce irrational behavior. He doesn't appear to hold contempt for Christian Socialists from America's past and also has admiration for lessons found in the Bible, particularly The Beatitudes. I would also imagine he finds writings from Dawkins and Harris a healthy much needed outlook in our public discussion.

The Dude Most Certainly Was...

2007-02-25T10:12:00.000-06:00

leaving for vacation.

No internet access.

Little cell phone reception. It's not like I answer the thing anyway, I'm the King of the Screen. And if any of my friends take that personally they don't know me very well in the first place.

Reading List:

George Orwell Homage to Catalonia

Thomas Paine Rights of Man

John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Michelle Goldberg Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism

They are all relatively small reads.

Start reading Mother Jones online while I'm gone.

Moving on...

2007-02-22T12:54:00.000-06:00

Next week I'll be on vacation. Sweet desert air. Nothing but morning/evening walks, eating, sleeping, and READING.

I should have enough time 2 get through 2 or 3 books.

I'll be finished with The Assassins Gate in the next few days. I couldn't have asked for a better wholistic view of the Iraq War. Never did I plan on having this much knowledge of the situation. Though there is no clear answer on the steps we need 2 take the book has prepared me 2 recognize and promote the best pragmatic initiatives that arise.

I am thinking the first book 2 read on vacation will be Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins or A Game As Old As Empire: The Secret World of Economic Hit Men and the Web of Global Corruption edited by Stephen Hiatt.

This interest was spurred by some research I had been doing for an organization I volunteer with. Some documents I was reading through kept referencing the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The more reading I did the more concern grew. Here is a statement straight from the State Departments website.

Three years after it was established, the U.S. Millennium ChallengeCorporation
(MCC) has evolved into a major factor in the developing world inmotivating
countries to adopt economic, political and social reforms, says theagency's
chief executive officer.

I also promised myself I would follow the mantra 'think globally, act locally' so I have printed off and copied a notebook worth of articles and reports concerning local issues.

2007-02-06T10:20:00.000-06:00

Still enjoying Packer's book. In the third chapter, Special Plans, we start 2 see, on an institutional level, the failure of the administration 2 communicate and prepare for post-war Iraq. The civilian neo-conservative intellectuals he introduced in the first chapters refused 2 cooperate with military leaders, each other, or dissenting intellectuals. Any position or statistic that brought negative attention 2 the Iraq war was quickly dismissed. The most obvious example of this behavior, recently discussed during Robert Gates nomination as Sec. of Defense, is the manner in which Gen. Shinseki was treated after expressing reservations on Iraq. I decided 2 do some research and find out what Packer is writing today, a few years after publishing his book, given recent developments. I found this article from the New Yorker, that discusses a new strategy for handling the "war on terror". If you don't believe new ideas are out there here is an excerpt from the article:

By speaking of Saddam Hussein, the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Taliban, the
Iranian government, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda in terms of one big war,
Administration officials and ideologues have made Osama bin Laden's job much
easier. "You don't play to the enemy's global information strategy of making it
all one fight," Kilcullen said. He pointedly avoided describing this as the
Administration's approach. "You say, 'Actually, there are sixty different groups
in sixty different countries who all have different objectives…" In other words,
the global ambitions of the enemy don't automatically demand a monolithic
response.-- http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/061218fa_fact2

Do these comments take into consideration that the monolithic response might be aimed at the American population to communicate the highest degree of fear and rally support for war efforts?

Kilcullen, an Australian military officer on loan to the U.S., is the subject of the article and appears 2 be the brains behind this new strategy.

Check out the article, Packer is an amazing journalist, he lets his subject(s) do the work for him.

Rushed, Dishonest, Unforgivably Partisan, Devistating 2 Alliances

2007-02-01T14:48:00.000-06:00

The book is near 500 pages so yes it will probably consume my entries for a while. Over 100 pages into the book Packer finally starts 2 show his views on the Iraq War. The most intense debates he has are with himself. I share this with Packer though my intense debates in isolation are more a result of not having someone 2 engage with in discourse, save my brother on occasion.

I am not a committed pacifist because I believe at times expressing your will through force may be justified. For instance if my 2 year old niece puts a bottle of poisonous chemicals in her mouth and I rip it out that is a sign of physical force to express my will, however I believe it is justified. Now the wider the scope, the more elements involved, the more difficult to justify. Packer looks back at Kosovo, Bosnia and Haiti, what he considers "just wars", and evaluates if an intervention in Iraq is justified. My background on Haiti is dismal but records show that NATO military intervention in Kosovo (lead by the U.S.) caused more deaths. The majority of crimes for which Milosevic was charged actually took place after NATO military strikes began, leading some scholars 2 believe NATO attacks spurred the crimes we were trying 2 prevent (much like we see in Iraq today). This obviously doesn't make these crimes excusable. The lesson is 2 take these "humanitarian interventions" of the 90's into consideration when calculating foreign policy decisions. Packer has yet 2 mention the failure in Somalia or ignoring Rwanda, neither of which would fit nicely with the pro-war liberalism he is framing for his reader in parts of the book.

It must be understood, in regard 2 everything summarized above, that Iraq falls outside any definition of "just war". Packer's cites four problems he had at the beginning of the war--rushed, dishonest, unforgivably partisan, and devastating 2 alliances. He goes on 2 point out that three different times in the past 20 years a military intervention in Iraq would have been justified under most "just war" theories: 1) in 1987-88 when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, 2) In 1991 when a popular uprising was taking place, and 3) in 1998 when Saddam refused any access to weapons inspectors. In 2002 as the Bush Administration was laying the ground work for an invasion of Iraq there were no mass killings taking place, there was no popular uprising and Saddam had allowed weapons inspectors back into the country (even if he was not giving inspectors full access the chief inspector agreed more time was needed 2 negotiate). Essentially 2002 was one time in the past 20 years when a "just war" case could not be made for Iraq.

One issue I hope Packer addresses, and I imagine he will since he falls in this category, is the labeling of people who change their views on the Iraq situation. You know what I am talking about, the old "well he voted for the war in '03 and now he changes his mind? That is a weak individual not 2 be trusted". This labeling is beyond me, its like mocking people who quite smoking.

Iraq...will require no precedent

2007-01-30T15:16:00.000-06:00

The Assassin's Gate is lining up to be a must read. The first few chapters show more 2 the design of the Iraq War than simply protecting America and its strategic interests abroad. This might come as a surprise 2 many, it did 2 me. Packer writes an expose in the beginning chapters on the priorities of intellectual neo-conservatives guiding the Bush administration since 9/11. Read the first few chapters for Packer's definition of foreign policy in neo-conservative ideology, I would do it no justice here. The neo-conservative global outlook contrasts from the Clinton administration's by championing "democracy building" over "humanitarian intervention". The two are not synonymous nor are they mutually exclusive.

The neo-conservative priorities reflect a fervor of ideology we haven't seen en masse since the 1960's. The same zeal that moved our foreign policy over 40 years ago is lingering today. No movement has paused for moderation and has thus flown past or ignored facts that cost us success. Occupying and disappearing from Vietnam cost 2 many lives just like parading into Baghdad cost 2 many lives.

After only a third of the way through Packer's book I'm surprisingly convinced we have the intellectual capacity on both sides of the argument 2 disseminate the most peaceful route for Iraq. Will it be impossible 2 remove old politics?

America must create a government not threatened by the strength or resting on the weakness of others. This will require creative intellect that can only be checked by history because there is no precedent.

2007-01-26T14:35:00.000-06:00

The book I'm reading by George Packer is providing some much needed background on the build up 2 the Iraq War. Books of this nature, written by a journalist, always take me a long time 2 get through because I am constantly checking primary sources.

The most shocking discovery I've made are the neo-conservative designs for the Middle East developed during the 90's. Essentially the most highly regarded plan was "an everyone move to your left" strategy. They would encourage Israel 2 drop their socialist economic policies, ignore the peace process, and bring the fight 2 Palestinians. At the same time Saddam Hussein would be removed by a U.S. backed coup. Following the coup in Iraq the original Hashemite Kingdom would be restored 2 King Hussein of Jordan moving the Jordanians 2 Iraq. The Palestinians would be given Jordan and Israel would maintain the occupied territories.

I have 2 be missing something because this plan seems beyond crazy. I'm left wondering if these "intellectuals" could actually be this inept. The scary part is it displays exactly the historical and cultural ignorance we show today in our dealings with the Middle East.

The following study was the precursor 2 the above mentioned plan, a letter 2 Israel.
A Clean Break:A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

Another example is an article written by Paul Wolfowitz, in 1997, that clearly displays the priorities of a man who would be given power in the Bush Administration.
Overthrow Him

And finally an outline going back 2 1992, showing how the Iraq War was premeditated.
Lie By Lie

You may want 2 read this...

2007-01-24T13:12:00.000-06:00

From Salon.com
"The Assassins' Gate" is likely to be the definitive guide to one of the most outrageous scandals in U.S. history: the Bush administration's total failure to plan for the aftermath of a war of choice. That failure may have doomed the entire adventure. It cost the United States billions of dollars and hundreds of lives. Its cost to the Iraqi people and nation, which now faces a possible civil war, cannot be calculated. In a just world, Bush, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Feith and their underlings would be standing before a Senate committee investigating their catastrophic failures, and Packer's book would be Exhibit A.

After the past few months of dabble in modal logic and religion I've decided a release is needed. I've put down the philosophers and picked up some current affairs. Outside daily rounds through my journals of choice I haven't read an extended survey on the situation in Iraq. I picked up this book by George Packer. After reading the prologue and a few book reviews, like the above captioned from salon.com, it appears 2 be as good as any. The narrative of a journalist will be an island vacation from robot philosophers.

The Assassians Gate by George Packer

Lets Not Play Follow the Leader

2007-01-19T12:02:00.001-06:00

The line the media tows is beginning 2 seem rather disciplined. Previously I was inclined 2 believe gaps in reporting and language were casual concession 2 the political speak of those governing. For example when American politicians refer 2 one nation's agents as "troops" or "soldiers" and another nation's agents as "terrorists", journalists concede these titles and report in such manner. Given that our "War On Terror" was recently declared (relatively recent) I would concede some time for the press 2 figure out what is balanced reporting on terrorism. It's an area that is new 2 my generation.

Being a student of history however I've found that the press throughout the 20th century had plenty of time 2 balance their reporting on terrorism. The "War On Terror" was actually declared in the 1980's with the Regan administration by the same actors in today's war (see Donald Rumsfeld). The war on terror in the '80s was primarily marked by C.I.A. (read U.S.A.) backed terrorist atrocities throughout Latin America. The press in the '80s, like today, would concede language 2 politicians so again the agents of the U.S.A. were "soldiers" or "freedom fighters" carrying out acts necessitated by "terrorists" from enemy countries. Internal government documents on these atrocities are becoming declassified, though highly censored, but I wouldn't expect any retractions from media outlets for what was very clearly poor reporting at the time. You can trace this controlled press back to WWII, explained in a great book "War Without Mercy:Race and Power in the Pacific War" by John Dower. Even WWI gives us Woodrow Wilson's Office of Public Relations which dealt with, among other items, controlling the press coverage 2 drum support for the war, handled very well by Chomsky and Herman in the book Manufacturing Consent. Do today's journalists ignore history?

Let's see how this issue has evolved today: how many times have you heard "WMDs" discussed in the past year? Not very many I imagine. The term you have probably heard more is "democracy building". This term however is being replaced, as the idea fades away, by "unmanageable Iraqi forces" and "uncontrollable sectarian violence". All sides of government are becoming comfortable saving face by pointing fingers at the Iraqi Government, Iraqi forces, and worst of all the Iraqi people. And the press seems willing 2 concede these targets 2 the politicians. This isn't casual concession it's disciplined propaganda. The larger travesty will be if history writes that once again the most powerful force in the equation of war failed 2 internalize the truest cause of failure, a scared and upset nation with arrogant leadership.

*Edit 1/23: I found this clip on youtube that helps to summarize perhaps the largest problem with the American media. (3 min 21 sec)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cceC3DeFcY

I...am the fortunate son

2007-01-16T23:48:00.000-06:00

Most of the time I shy away from what I am about 2 write. Whenever the urge arises 2 expel in the manner that follows I remember the lines from Platoon, "You gotta be rich in the first place to think like that".

Recently I listened 2 the story of a wounded Iraq veteran whose father is a laid off steel worker and mother a secretary. My blood, which admittedly rests in more than modest comfort, can't help but condemn those who drape themselves in wealth and influence while appealing 2 freedom and patriotism as long as their interests are protected.

FORTUNATE SON--CCR
Some folks are born made to wave the flag,ooh, they're red, white and blue.
And when the band plays "Hail To The Chief",oh, they point the cannon at you,

Lord,It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no senator's son,
It ain't me, it ain't me,I ain't no fortunate one, no,

Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,Lord, don't they help themselves? oh.
But when the taxman come to the door,Lord, the house look a like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain't me, it ain't me,I ain't no millionaire's son, no, no.
It ain't me, it ain't me,I ain't no fortunate one, no.

Yeh, some folks inherit star spangled eyes,ooh, they send you down to war,
Lord,And when you ask them, how much should we give,
oh, they only answer, more, more, more, yoh,

It ain't me, it ain't me,I ain't no military son, SON,
NOIt ain't me, it ain't me,I ain't no fortunate one,
NO NOIt ain't me, it ain't me,I ain't no fortunate one,
no no no,It ain't me, it ain't me,
I ain't no fortunate son, son son son

Holiday Cheer

2007-01-15T21:47:00.000-06:00

Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations and saying "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore."

The U.S. (L) A.

2007-01-15T11:22:00.001-06:00

The number of Latin American countries electing leaders with an overwhelmingly socialist agenda continues 2 rise as Ecuador swore in President Correa today. Recently there was a meeting of leaders from Latin American countries discussing the formation of a Latin American Union. This meeting was virtually unreported by the press though its implications are dramatic. The group of leaders put together a commission to investigate and report within a year its findings.

*Edit: I found an article tonight written by Noam Chomsky on this very issue. Click this.

Dr. Theist Can You Fix My Equation

2007-01-06T12:01:00.000-06:00

I've made it through a second reading of Hawkings. I was hoping 2 assimilate the book in my working knowledge for instant recall in inner-dialogue but I am not used 2 the language in the book. I am going 2 buy a copy 2day 2 have for reference.

I can't seem 2 wrap myself around King's idea of separate roles of religion and science, especially as I entertain the idea of a unified theory that science moves toward. I picture a challenge from theist that "science has become your religion". There has 2 be an analogy here that excuses this thought. 2 theist science is my religion 2 me their is no religion. Remember this is an idea I am working towards. I don't believe in conclusions.

So I next need to explain how morality is shaped in the above view. For this I'll need more Bertrand Russell, perhaps some Dawkins.

MLK shoots Einstein...but he lives

2006-12-26T22:13:00.001-06:00

Reading A Briefer History of Time has provided a base for ideas from atheist writers I have been reading. My past few months of atheist thought has been without and idea from Martin Luther King that religion and science are dissimilar because religion deals with values and science deals with knowledge. I've read this idea a few times in King's book Strength To Love, a collection of his sermons, but I had forgot about it till it surfaced in my inner-dialogue recently.

All reading I've done in atheism thus far has been based around the idea that rational thought could not lead 2 God. Rational thought is represented most often, though not exclusively, by the scientific method. Science is the most rational aspect of modern society.

I would agree, at this point, that religion is always irrational but is an entirely rational world desirable? Is it even sustainable? If the answer is no then we could entertain King's idea that science and religion are not at odds.

The negative products of religion are answered by the negative products of science and vice verse. There is much more 2 develop in this line of thought. I hope 2 maintain continuity though it will be tough.

"Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary. Science keeps religion from sinking into the valley of crippling irrationalism and paralyzing obscurantism. Religion prevents science from falling into the marsh of obsolete materialism and moral nihilism."--MLK

Einstein Shoots Jesus

2006-12-21T13:21:00.000-06:00

I am little over half way through Stephen Hawking's A Briefer History of Time. It's made me feel like a little kid with a new chemistry lab ready 2 blow stuff up. I am definitely going to re-read the book immediately. This information must be part of my working knowledge.

The atheist authors/philosophers I've been reading lately have all commented on the complexity of the universe fulfilling a persons emotional space for God. I don't believe I've ever internalized this until reading Hawking.

After finishing this book the question left is do people replace religion with science? If so does science become your religion? At which point I pick back up with Bertrand Russell. I will also need a strong theist's perspective 2 this question.

You Can't Start Rationalist Philosophy Without Science

2006-12-19T22:41:00.000-06:00

I finished my first set of readings by Bertrand Russell. He breaks religion in three parts; the personal or emotional, the theological and the institutional (i.e. churches). He leaves the institutional consideration to historians and deals with the personal and theological. These two parts connect outside of the institutional. The emotional space we hold for religion is fulfilled most generally and historically through theology. This first paper of his was a summary on how religion has evolved and is highly pragmatic. Karen Armstrong, in A History of God, writes that it is far more important for a particular idea of God to work than for it to be logically or scientifically sound. This pragmatism eludes to how religion does in fact evolve which for me blows any question of doctrinal loyalty out the window.

You can definitely see the shadow of Dawkins as you progress through Bert's philosophy.

I checked out a copy of Hawking's A Briefer History of Time tonight because I need that general background to start understanding much of what I will be reading. While I'm pretty grounded in humanities my scientific knowledge is slush. I don't plan on extrapolating super string theory next week I just want a general understanding on the development of a unified theory. If this doesn't provide me the confidence to plow through Bert and move on to Leibniz then I may pick up The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene.

The Calm Before The...

2006-12-19T00:06:00.001-06:00

In 10 days it will be one year since I woke up on my good friend's couch 2 a man charging through the front door. The next clear moment I had was raising my head above the sink. A few moments ago I was finishing an article I've been putting off and I heard a sound outside my window. I went downstairs, open the front door, walked 2 my office window, looked around, "is there anyone out here?", all of this as natural as if I was putting on shoes. A few weeks ago around 4:00 a.m. there was a knock at my front door. My dog automatically jumped from the bed and ran 2 the front door. I opened the door, looked right, looked left, yelled at Charlie 2 come back inside. Both episodes were probably animals, maybe the few random dogs that roam the neighborhood freely. My dog is 2 lazy and friendly 2 provide any protection (he takes after his old man). I have no intentions of painting a tough image for myself, primarily to avoid anyone relying on me for physical safety. The lesson reached from last year's experience is that rare susceptibility 2 misplaced physical harm is weak when contrast with everyone's frequent susceptibility to emotional harm. Place your fear carefully.

Let Me Explain Something...

2006-12-18T22:36:00.000-06:00

10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage would be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract

Larry David Christmas

2006-12-15T16:29:00.001-06:00


This didn't work last time. Lets try again.

Obstacle Course

2006-12-14T11:45:00.002-06:00

Last Saturday I had 2 Mormon missionaries visit my house. While I did not have time 2 entertain their mission I can't help but hold a certain respect for their faith. I recently listened to an interview with Noam Chomsky regarding faith. Chomsky tries 2 not have faith because he believes in a position enunciated by Bertrand Russell 2 keep away from having irrational beliefs. He further clarifies that what we believe should have some evidence. So equality, justice and peace are not principals we have faith in but commitments we hold supported by evidence. The respect I've held for people very disciplined in their church doctrine has recently been shaken. Most of my concerns come from the political arena of the past 5 years. The major issues being war, gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research and 9/11. I formerly thought the largest obstacle 2 stability in this world was education and poverty but as I see educated people, bred in comfort, flying planes in2 buildings I'm lead 2 believe that faith might be a larger obstacle than I had considered.

In Praise of Me

2006-12-13T12:22:00.001-06:00

I was preparing 2 write this long reflection on the holiday season being/becoming/having been pretty bogus, but as I began 2 write I saw the task 2 laborsome and instead found this quote 2 support such laziness.

Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for the others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish for ever.
—Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness, 1935

I will seek more of this man who writes In Praise of Idleness.

FIRST POST

2006-12-12T12:43:00.000-06:00

Here is my introduction.

"Conscience does make cowards of us all"

Stolen from Shakespeare but rest assured in all other mediums I am equally unorigional.

One positive attribute you will find here is an ability 2 admit error that I believe is without precedent. I've seemed 2 have found a thin line between self-reflection and self-loathing.

Conclusions, I feel, are overrated.

Contentions I allow.