religious oppression in PA

  I have recently been the victim of religious oppression. An inhabitant of the state of Pennsylvania, I was a few days ago in the market for buying alcohol, which I could not do because of the religious laws that have been adopted by this Commonwealth. On Sundays, upstanding citizens of legal age cannot purchase alcohol because it is forbidden in this state to sell booze on that day, not due to laws based on rationality or on efforts to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, but laws based on the codex of one specific religion (even though the Sabbath, which occurs on Saturday, is the day that in the Christian bible Yahweh says to keep holy, not Sunday, a day not specifically mentioned as holy in that text).

  I am not a Christian, but I am being forced to follow its (purported) teachings. I am being oppressed by the rules of one specific religion, rules that have been incorporated into the laws of the state, making Christianity the official religion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This state of affairs violates the constitutional right of all Pennsylvanians to liberty by taking away our ability to decide for ourselves on which days we should wish to purchase alcohol for private consumption. Just as women would be incensed if they were forced by the state to cover their heads or to hide their faces out of some sort of religious observation (as the Taliban did in Afghanistan), I am incensed that I am being forced by the politicians and lawmakers of the state of Pennsylvania to follow the rules of a religion not my own.

  For some strange reason not rooted in the teachings of Jesus (who himself supposedly performed a divine act at the wedding of Canna just to keep the booze flowing) but located solely in the Old Testament of the Christian bible, religious zealots in this state have found a way to codify their beliefs into law, thus restraining me in my liberty and forcing me to live under the rules of a religion not of my choosing. Additionally, these religious laws force the individual to cross state lines on Sunday to purchase booze for private consumption back in PA, an action that, as bootlegging, is illegal at the federal level because it violates the Interstate Commerce Clause.

  In order for liberty to once again reign in this state, all laws based on religious codices must be nullified and struck from its constitution. This must be done in an effort to maintain the separation of church and state, and to forestall the implementation of additional Old Testament directives, the worst of which are found in Leviticus, where Yahweh demands the murder of homosexuals, adulterers, the incestuous, and girls who are discovered, on their wedding night, not to be virgins. The right to buy booze is just one front in the national war against Liberty that is being waged by religious conservatives: laws that prohibit abortion based on the rules of the Christian religion violate the individual's constitutional right to property by restricting her ability to decide to have unwanted growths removed from within her body.

  To be the shining example to the world to which we so often aspire, America must return to rationality by putting a stop to this oppression. If one state in the Union is oppressing its people religiously, by extension all states are being oppressive, violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by passing laws that establish religion. If these laws are not struck from the books, and Americans do not regain the right to decide for themselves how best to lead their lives, our system, weakened as it has been by the actions of the greedy and the dishonest, will surely crumble under the continuing onslaught from one specific religion in a nation of thousands of different systems of belief.

  To end religious oppression in America, we must obey the constitutional mandate by securing for ourselves and our Posterity the Blessings of Liberty, a mandate that can only be fulfilled when the individual is allowed, unfettered and unhindered, to do those things she deems are best for herself and her body, so long as she is not infringing upon the right of any other person to life, liberty, or property.

  End this tyranny. Reinstate liberty among the American people. We will not stand to be ruled by one religion among many. Freedom will ring when the Blessings of Liberty are prosecuted as aggressively as certain religious observances. In the words of George Washington and John Adams, “[t]he government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” (Treaty of Tripoli); let us honor these founding fathers by making sure America remains a safe haven for all peoples, regardless of creed or color, and by fighting to the last against those who would see us dancing to the tune of whichever god they have chosen for themselves.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on cutting grass

  Over the past few months, I have been cutting an acre of grass on my family's estate that must be regularly trimmed (to avoid fines) with an eighty year old push-mower I had found in the barn. A regular spinning-wheel-of-death number, this thirty pound cast iron beast (which after a good oiling now operates much more smoothly) with a fourteen inch wide cutting surface cuts best when the blades are running at full speed. Momentum captured by gears within the wheel hubs rotates the spinning cylinder of blades as the wheel o' death moves forward.

  Cutting with the ancient system requires skill, physical acuity, planning, and determination; it best resembles a cross-training workout in which a person sprints while pushing or pulling a heavy object (necessary in this case to keep the blades moving at cutting speed), but it is more demanding, because she is constantly altering the course of the machine as it bumps and lurches across roots in an effort to make the cut even and to thus spare herself the hassle of going back over everything every time, all the while applying significant force on the wooden t-bar connecting her to the cutting deck to keep it mowing efficiently. Two of the more demanding sections to cut on this land are a steep and lumpy hill as well as a shallow, sloping incline rutted by a sunken septic tank.

  One reason I do this is because my powered mowing machines broke or were getting too expensive to maintain and run. Another reason is that it is such a good physical workout that, if parceled out among the days of the week, I will be performing an hour a day of intense physical labor with much good sweating and working out of the entire body (especially if done barefoot). A third reason I do this is because of the increase (in my observation) in the biodiversity of the mowed area since starting to hand-mow, an abundance of tiny insects and myriad spiders, praying mantises and crawling bugs, food for a robust food chain with avian predators (Barred owl, hawks, buzzards) at the top and smaller mammals, birds, and reptiles making up the middle class. The final reason I do this is because I believe that it is my patriotic duty, that as a Son of the American Revolution and as one seeking to carry on the spirit of self-sufficiency and -reliance that resonates yet today among the peoples of this land, even such a small contribution to the national necessity of weening ourselves off foreign oil supports the cause of American energy independence and reduces the need for our troopers to go and spill blood in distant and alien places.

  It takes me six hours to cut my lawn, but even if you have a smaller lawn, one that would take only an hour to mow by hand rather than twenty minutes on a ride-along, cut it up into two or three parcels and you've got your workout for those days of the week (20-30 min of honest sweating). It might seem less expensive time-wise to do it with a mechanized machine, but consider the time spent going to the pump, buying gas, filling up the riding mower and maintaining it regularly, spending time and money waiting for it to be maintained or driving it to the shop, the blades dulling down and needing sharpening, whereas a push mower sharpens itself while spinning.

  The wheel o' death cuts down on emissions because it runs on cheeseburgers. It strengthens communal ties because it puts you out there upright and strong, the proof of your efforts dampening your shirt, not on a clanking go-cart from which conversation with your neighbor is impossible, but right out there with your feet on the ground, a fine example for those in the neighborhood who might not know how best to show their love for country. It fills you with a deep appreciation for your land and the things that live on it, hastens the grasp of blessed rest, strengthens the muscles, toughens the bones, and fortifies the position of America in the world.

  So consider mowing by hand: the benefits over mechanized mowing keep stacking up. Do it for yourself; do it for the Earth; do it for your country. Few other forms of patriotism are healthier.

場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on necessity of immigration

  In the founding document of the United States, that unanimous declaration of the Second Continental Congress, is found a list of the Injuries and Usurpations which compelled the founders to the Separation. While it is often argued (see here, here) that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, and it is for this reason that we do not celebrate July 4th as the founding of our nation but as a pleasant time to watch the sky explode, we should occasionally return to this most fundamental and important of American documents to make sure we are not repeating the mistakes of an oppressive tyrant.
  One of the Facts submitted to a candid World as proof of the Tyranny and Despotism of the English king was that: "He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migration hither[.]" This endeavor was so loathed by our revolutionaries that they included it in their declaration to the world, a declaration that started our process to statehood and that proclaimed, immutably and eternally, the right of the People to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
  Today, we again face a threat to the emigration of individuals hither, which is a threat to our economy, our collective notion of self-worth, and our continued existence as a place in which dreams can become reality. This threat comes in the form of American citizens, themselves descendant of immigrants, who think that the United States of America has an official national language (it does not), who consider this country theirs and theirs alone (it is not), who see anyone with dark skin and dark hair as a threat to their personal safety (also not true). Just as in the past, immigrants today perform those jobs (in agriculture, food service, waste-removal, landscaping, etc.) that few native-born citizens seem willing to perform. But now, instead of openly shuffling the newly arrived into crappy and low-paying workshops and letting them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, we are building continent-long fences and criminalizing large groups of aliens who come here because they cannot make enough to support their families by working in the countries in which they were born.
  Loud are the voices that call for the booting of immigrants back over our borders, voices emanating from bodies that consume lettuce in the spring and cheap apples by the bushel, bodies that eat in restaurants priced reasonably because of the illegals working in the kitchen, bodies that perambulate happily in well-manicured gardens. Incensed they are, pounding their chests and saying, This is my country, and no brown person is going to sneak in and steal my job.
  These xenophobic and confused people among us do not understand that our greatest national symbol stands atop a stone base on which is engraved an open plea for immigrants, no matter how poor or tired, to come to this nation. They do not understand that, since our nation's founding, we have been a haven for base and penniless people seeking to better themselves and to make for themselves new and happier lives. They do not understand that the founders of the United States of America took up arms against the most powerful military nation at the time because the leader of that nation was obstructing the emigration and naturalization of peoples wishing to settle here.
  We are a nation of immigrants, and of people descendant of immigrants. Immigration has allowed our country to grow even while the populations of most other industrialized nations are shrinking. Immigration allows us to consume cheap produce and to do many things that would be prohibitively expensive if not for illegal aliens working for starvation wages just to make those things possible.
  We need cheap labor in America, and cheap labor comes from unskilled immigrants. Give these people who believe so much in the potency of the American dream that they will undergo unimaginable hardships a pathway to citizenship, or at least provide them with some method by which they might more easily gain temporary employment status. Let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps without having to live in perpetual fear of being ground down under the boots of club-wielding police officers.

  I am a Son of the American Revolution, a descendant of the ur-immigrants who came ashore at Plymouth Rock, a lover of Lady Liberty and of the principles for (and on) which she stands, and I welcome any and all persons who would like to pursue their Happiness in the country for which my ancestors fought and died.

  Bienvenidos a los Estados Unidos. Andale – mucho trabajo aqui.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

counterweight Constitution

  Citizens of America: the Constitution of these States is a covenant we all share equally. Simply by being citizens of this land, we give our tacit consent to the opening declaration of this covenant, wherein it is declared that we are one People, a People with the common goal of making for ourselves a more perfect government. Among the established parameters of this goal are Union, Justice, Domestic Tranquility, Common Defense, general Welfare, and Blessings of Liberty, goals that must, by any reckoning, be the counterweight against which all legislation and other national decisions are measured.

  The XIV Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the People life, liberty, and property until they shall be taken from them under due process of law. Blanket prohibitions that restrict individuals in their liberty, foremost among them laws that prohibit the People from possessing and consuming Mood Altering Substances, restrict the individual in her liberty by prohibiting her from utilizing methods by which to pursue her Happiness; they violate her right to dispose of her ultimate property, her body, as she as a consenting and capable adult should decides is in her best interest. Therefore, the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional, as it infringes upon the individual's constitutional rights to her liberty and to her body even when she has in no way indicated a desire or willingness to do harm to the property of bodies of other people. It is already permitted for the People to dispose of their property in most any other way, by tattoo or surgery or haircut, by consuming of certain Mood Altering Substances (MAS) such as coffee and sugar and alcohol and tobacco, by entertaining in the mind any number of opinions on religion or morality or social equality, all activities or states of mind that are universally recognized as components of liberty. It would be unthinkable for the government of the United States to pass laws specifying by which methods the People would be able to wash or mend property such as socks; it is just as unthinkable that our government specifies the methods by which we affect our only true property, our bodies, by its enforcement of blanket prohibitions on the consumption of specific MAS other than those socially-accepted ones listed above.

  Laws banning the possession and consumption of specific MAS do not insure the Domestic Tranquility requirement set forth in our Constitution, as they do not outlaw the use of alcohol, a substance that in its use is responsible for countless acts of insurrection and aggression, a substance that in its use degrades the general Welfare by enraging its user and reducing his ability to make reasonable judgments, a substance that in its use violates the individual's liberty by often ensnaring her in its addiction and all but forcing her to feed the sickness she has unwittingly brought into her life. Overuse of substances, addictions to substances, especially substances such as tobacco that in its use degrades the general Welfare by ruining the health of the People and leading to their premature demise, addictions are conditions that must be addressed with a logical and compassionate eye, so that the individual can regain the capacity to use those MAS that he decides he needs to facilitate or enhance his pursuit of Happiness instead of being relegated to a prison cell and treated as a criminal for his inability to control his appetites.

  Punishments for consumption of illicit MAS cannot be applied to great swaths of the population for infractions that in no way cause direct and measurable offense to the life, liberty, or property of any other person. Just as a lengthy process is required to deprive a person of Life and to condemn her to death, the removal of liberty can be meted out only on an individual basis by an august panel that shall decide that the person in question should no longer deserve specific and enumerated liberties (the penalty for the continued execution of these liberties being tailored so as to maintain the parameters of the Constitution), thus ensuring that her constitutional right to freedom of action and thought is not taken from her without profound and rational deliberation.

  A person is not sentenced to death for anything less than infringing upon or extinguishing the Life of another person. Therefore, a person cannot have his Liberty revoked unless he has infringed demonstrably upon the right of other people to their Lives, Liberty, or Property, or if he has clearly violated the parameters of the constitution. The incarceration of non-violent drug offenders whose sole purported violation was to consume or possess MAS degrades the general Welfare and the Domestic Tranquility by removing those individuals from their long-established familial and community ties, by restricting them in their ability to work and to be productive, by holding them in close proximity to violent and dangerous criminals.

  A woman seeking to abort an unwanted fetus has the constitutional right to do so. Under the XIV Amendment, she has the right to decide for herself what to do with her body, her only true property, so she may pierce or tattoo it as she sees fit, cut its hair in whatever fashion she desires, eat and let it become fat or exercise and keep it in shape, have her stomach stapled and her organs and cancerous tumors removed, and abort any fetus growing within her female parts. Furthermore, as the Blessings of Liberty have been bestowed upon her, she may decide for herself how best to lead her life; she is allowed to do anything to herself so long as she is not infringing upon the constitutional rights of any other persons (a fetus is a part of a woman's body until it is born, at which point it becomes a baby, or a tiny little person with constitutional rights).

  The requirements of a more perfect Union and the provision for the general Welfare are not being met under our current system of top-few capitalism, under which a minority of the People is compensated in the form of great wealth for the labors of the majority of the People. Allowing the wealthiest few Americans to amass such great wealth gives them the power of the purse strings, which breeds corruption and makes these few rich folks so essential to the reelection of political figures that they become the masters of said political figures, dictating, formulating, and influencing legislation to their own benefit at the expense of the vast majority of the population. To provide for our future Prosperity and to redirect the wealth of this nation toward realizing the Welfare of the People generally, it behooves us to alter the fabric of our corporatized and corrupted society, and to seek new methods by which to assure that all Americans might benefit equally of the bounty inherent to this land that is daily brought forth by the People of this nation.

  Great bodies of men and women have joined the U. S. armed forces to provide for the Common Defense, and vast stockpiles of personal weapons and other mechanical contrivances stand at the ready to assist them in this task. To provide for the Common Defense, however, we must keep these forces at home, on true American soil, so that, if needed, they can defend the American People from threats here at home; we cannot continue to launch wars of aggression, as we did in Iraq in 2003, to protect or to promote the business interests of a tiny fraction of the population that has a corporate or otherwise monetary interest in the oil fields located in that Middle Eastern nation. There is a role for American armed forces to play beyond our shores (humanitarian aide, protecting innocents, punishing those who seek to destroy us), but it cannot ever again be a war of aggression against another sovereign nation. Many good Americans have died, and much of our nation's wealth has been wasted by intervening in conflicts not our own, in nations not our own, against people who just want to see us leave. Let the chips fall where they may, unless they are huge chip-shaped bombs raining down onto our cities.

  Until it comes to pass that all political and government efforts are focused solely on meeting the requirements set forth in the Constitution, and until such time as the rights enumerated in the Constitution are granted to all People fully and without prejudice, the fundamental American documents are protecting only those people who are rich in monetary wealth and political connections; they have ceased to be documents that serve for the elevation of the People generally, and have been high-jacked by an oligarchy that has lost sight of the deep and enduring essence of the American Dream, i.e. Safety, Happiness, and the Blessings of Liberty.

p.s. This is a general appeal to all police officers in America: If you have ever even attempted to trick or browbeat someone into forfeiting their Constitutional rights, or if you operate in a fashion that in any way even attempts to sidestep said rights, and if you have ever sworn an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America, take a good look in the mirror, and consider that you very well may have violated your oath. If so, relinquish your post immediately, and pursue a different career.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on the animal within - pain

It is important to understand the extent of the beast that lives within our minds. Too often do people fall before the power of their impulsive selves, and they resort to assault or murder, completely consumed by the knee-jerk rage of the monster that lurks within, tearing their own lives and the lives of others apart for the all too short bliss of the jerking, cold-sweating moments that follow explosive bouts of violence. Without a proper harmony between the high mind and the animal mind, between the thinking self and the self that simply is, it is impossible to lead a successful life, as there will always be a part of you that is screaming for attention, or screaming for you to act when you are thinking, or flying off the handle in an unbridled act of rage when faced with a complex or frightening situation.
But, you say, it is going to take a fortune for me to reach harmony, for me to be able to control my impulses while still allowing them to guide me in the direction that is most right for me, a path that I am likely to follow that will make me happy while keeping me in good health. To this, I say: exercise, read the Tao Teh Ching, and meditate, every day. These are activities that do not have to cost you anything, or at the least not very much, activities that are guaranteed to have a positive affect on your day to day.
So check it out. Check it out.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on the necessity of Union

  When the Declaration of Independence was written, and its sister document, the Constitution, the need for Union among the States was great. Joined in Union, the States proved better able to effect their independence, and to stand strong collectively, a dozen-odd entities working together against the many pressures that faced our young nation as it fought to make a place for itself in the world and to prove that its shockingly progressive ideals had merit.

  Then, halfway through the 19^th century, divergent forces and interests among the States compelled them to split apart in the attempt to form two separate nations, one seeking to maintain large numbers of slaves, the other seeking to maintain the Union. Whole populations that no longer felt that they should be following the same path rose up in conflict, two seemingly foreign peoples that understood that they had grown simply too far apart in thought and in method to be able to stay together. In those times of relative national weakness and persistent internal turmoil, the Union held; it has held through two world wars, scores of other undeclared wars, and rapid and widespread cultural and societal transformations both here and abroad.

  Today, however, we have witnessed the ascendancy of a federal supremacy over the states, and within that supremacy the elevation of the executive branch (in clear violation of the checks and balances built into the Constitution), as well as growing divergences between the citizens who live in roughly the same areas as those that split asunder in the 1860s. Two loose but still recognizable camps have formed in this nation, with millions of voters hovering at varying degrees around the edges of each, one camp calling for more punitive and dogmatic responses to our problems, a camp that relies on the gullibility of the masses for the propagation of its conservative views on religion and society, the other camp one that strives at least superficially for rational debate, the reinstatement of the constitutional right to liberty, and a more compassionate and socialistic view of the role that government and society must play in the elevation of the American People and the bringing about of Their Safety and Happiness. (It would be convenient to suppose that I am here referring to Republicans and Democrats respectively, but as these parties have become the necessary repositories of most anyone seeking political office, their ranks are as varied in their opinions as is the greater population, which is split roughly between liberals and conservatives, i.e. between those who seek to propagate liberty through rational debate and those who seek to maintain the status quo through Fear Of The Unknown and an inflexible mind-set. In my opinion, debate and rational thinking are essential to the propagation of liberty, as the concept of liberty presupposes that the individual is capable of deciding for himself how best to lead his life; it demands of him that he understands the consequences of his actions and allows him to decide to live a virtuous life devoid of privations against the life, liberty, or property of his fellow persons.)

  Perhaps it would be best, then, in this time of America's military supremacy around the world (when no danger is clear and present enough to enact its total destruction), in this era of seemingly irreconcilable rhetoric and clear societal, moral, and religious divergence, to conclude with this chapter of our experiment and, as the Union of all States is no longer absolutely necessary for the basic preservation of our nation, to allow those portions that wish to pursue their own course to secede.

  Since our country's inception, we have added a good number of states, in locations sometimes far-flung from our original borders, that by their isolation are seen even now as foreign and distant lands and peoples whose primary binding characteristic is the feeble footprint of the homogenized corporate retail location. In the interest of Domestic Tranquility, it would be better to allow those who wished to establish a religious and socially conservative nation where they might better keep the ignorant in Fear, a place where the individual would not have the right to decide for herself how to affect her body (by tattoo, weight-loss, or abortion), where the benefits of the joining of individuals in marriage or civil union would be bestowed only according to the writings of a specific religious text, where a specific language were declared officially and a specific system of beliefs were recognized by all, unanimously, as the state religion.

  Perhaps the citizens of America should be asked directly if they feel that these two clearly divergent populations should become separate nations, an official poll to gauge the possibility of such a move, even an outright vote for their fragmentation and reintegration as separate nations according to the wishes of the respective majorities. (These new nations would have to be well-established, sovereign states with clearly demarcated borders, their constitutions well-written, with provisions in place for the unobstructed movement of goods and people between them, especially people who decide, within a set amount of time, that they had made a mistake and would like to switch nations.)

  The essence of liberty that flowered in America and in the world during the 1960s was stamped out here for a number of reasons, among them conservatism, Fear of the Unknown, war-mongering, and racism. Chief among these reasons, however, was the passage of legislation prohibiting the use, possession, and distribution of mood altering substances such as marijuana, legislation that to this day continues to violate the liberty of the American People by restricting their ability to obtain legally those substances that they deem would best assist them in their pursuit of Happiness.

  Until such time as the citizens of America are granted their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property; until such time as their right to abort unwanted fetuses and to use whichever substance they decide are best and to marry whomever they please; until such time as the citizens are entrusted fully with their unalienable right to choose for themselves how best to lead their lives and they regain the right to pursue their Happiness as they decide is best; until that time, liberty does not abide in these United States, and the rights enumerated in the Constitution are null and void.

  Certain constitutional protections (against unwarranted searches and seizures) continue to be violated courtesy of the Patriot Act. Similarly, enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act violates the individual's right to property (her body is her only true property). Since some of the most fundamental rights and protections our Constitution was supposed to provide continue to be withheld from the American people, we must assume that our Constitution is no longer functioning as intended, that is has morphed from a bedrock legal document into a nice thing to read on a sunny afternoon. With this our finest document already torn, tattered, and violated, with our most basic rights and protections reduced to the theoretical, we would do well to allow those seeking liberty to break off from those seeking to cling fearfully to the mistakes of the past, that a new Union based solidly on the principles set forth by our nation's forefathers might be formed, a new nation that would not rest until the Blessings of Liberty were guaranteed to all equally.

  Let the religious zealots thump their holy books and legislate according to their morality in their own nation while they funnel the wealth of their people into the pockets of the richest one percent. We rational, progressive, compassionate few, we who yearn for liberty, would like to treat our bodies and to pursue our Happiness as we see fit, our Safety protected by the might of the Declaration, our rights as enumerated in the Constitution immutable and unalienable now, and forever.

  Only through constant vigilance and rational foresight can we ensure Liberty and Justice for all. Stand up. Speak out. Demand your constitutional rights. We have not yet begun to fight.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

all equal under reason

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on mixing races

  When discussing the procreative mixing of the races of humankind among themselves, I have often heard said that the children of such unions are somehow inferior. Additionally, the following phrase is often used in context: "If god wanted the races to mix, he wouldn't have made them different," or something similarly absurd. (If you think that some specifically male god is tinkering with every aspect of your life, or that the Force That Cannot Be Conceivably Named only prefers people with a specific lack of melanin content in their skin, I suggest you read The Way Of Myth, by Joseph Campbell, and switch your places and methods of worship.)

  Firstly, there are no distinct races among the many cultures of humankind, for we might all mate with one another and, so long as the mating is between a male and a female, produce viable and healthy offspring. (Nothing against homosexual mating – it simply produces no offspring. In fact, we find homosexuality in various species of animal, such as seagulls, porpoises, and certain primates [see here], which means that homosexuality is a natural condition of certain animals, humans among them.)

  Secondly, there is no scientific proof whatsoever that mixed-race children are in any sense inferior to their supposedly less-mixed counterparts. (Mainland Europe was invaded numerous times by strange and foreign tribes who passed along their genes to those exact people who now consider themselves, by some insane form of reasoning, somehow more pure than others.) American children of mixed race can in fact more easily find their place in our overly race-conscious society (see here), which, if anything, would indicate that they are more flexible and adaptable than individuals who are supposedly (but who only superficially appear to be) less mixed.

  Thirdly, recent scientific research into the genetic codes of various far-flung peoples suggests (see here) that the ancestors of all peoples, besides those residing in or otherwise stemming directly from sub-Saharan Africa, mixed with that supposedly separate race we know today as the Neanderthalers. Hence, indigenous sub-Saharan Africans are the only truly pure humans left on Earth – all others are descendent from troglodytes with thick foreheads, myself included. (Perhaps that is why I have such strong bones, pronounced eyebrows, and shifting tempers.)

  The human body is remarkably adept at shutting down and aborting the growth of invalid fetuses. Invalid fetuses are sometimes (see here) the result of too little genetic diversity between the genomes of the parents, not of too much genetic diversity. (If you want to bear valid offspring, find a person as far removed from yourself as is genetically possible and take them out to a nice dinner.)

  We can look at a number of populations throughout the world that show signs of significant genetic diversity (at least based on physical appearance). People in the Republic of Georgia, Afghanistan, and the other 'Stans (see here for a list, for pictures here and here) tend to exhibit the genetic telltales of the numerous invading armies that have over time passed through their lands. In these countries, you find individuals who have lighter skin and lighter hair related to individuals with darker hair and slanting eyes related to individuals with dark skin and significantly slanting eyes (I am not trying to be racist by using the term “significantly slanting eyes”). If there were something biologically wrong with the mixing of the races, the populations of the aforementioned countries would have either long ago died out, or we would be able to detect major and chronic diseases attributable solely to the (inherently racist) theory of genetic fouling through genetic mixing. (The infant mortality rates in these countries [see here, here] tend to be somewhat higher than those in the West due to insufficient medical care during and beyond pregnancy [no data – that one is deductive reasoning].) Based solely on the continued existence of the Afghan and Georgian peoples, we can now put to rest the idea that mixing among the races is in any way biologically unsound.

  If you do hear anyone implying that mixing the races is bad, kindly remind them that it is bad only in their own minds, that they are making assumptions based on ignorance and Fear of The Unknown, that by mixing with one another we are in fact broadening the strenght inherent to the genetic diversity of our children, and that Nature, in all her ingenuity, continues to prove them wrong.

Never rest. Always doubt. Demand liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

WTFWJD - driving

  I was behind a driver recently who was weaving all over the road, crossing over the double yellow line into oncoming traffic to avoid parked cars he was no way threatening to hit, with his entire arm out the window and generally not paying attention. When I snugged up behind him at a stoplight, I noticed he had a medallion of a Christian fish wherein was written the acronym, WWJD.

To answer this sage and perpetual question, I said to myself, what Jesus would do would be to: retain all limbs within the vehicle (as any limb located outside the vehicle is a limb that is likely to be ripped violently off the body); follow the rules of the road; drive like a gentleman; stay within the lines; wash his windows to maintain visibility; and generally respect the great responsibility and always-present dangers inherent to operating a motor vehicle.

Instead of gluing a piece of plastic to the back of your car and expecting it to eliminate the need to be kind, courteous, and self-respecting, I call upon the WWJD set to apply the guidelines set forth in their holiest of books to their everyday lives. It is not enough to browbeat or otherwise fear-monger people into worshiping the gods you worship; acting like good and upstanding citizens and operating according to the highest principles of your religion is far more likely to spread the word about your chosen god and to display the honor, self-respect, and virtuousness you can glean from your chosen teachings.

Remember: America was not founded as a Christian nation (see article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted by George Washington and released under John Adams), and its recognition as such would invalidate the essence of liberty by forcing her citizens to worship a god not necessarily of their choosing. Worship your gods as you see fit, but don't be too hard on those who don't share your sentiments, and don't try to tell them they are wrong in their beliefs. This is a nation of a million religions and a million points of view, where the liberty to decide for oneself how to live one's own life and what thoughts to entertain is a constitutionally-protected right.

So, what would Jesus do? For one, he probably wouldn't drive like a complete moron.  

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

revenue through regulation

  On Saturday last, on NPR, the topic of discussion revolved around allowing hunters in Pennsylvania (PA) to hunt on Sundays. Individuals representing the PA game commission and hunters' groups were in attendance, giving their opinions on the merits of Sunday hunting and debating the various statistics for and against this suggestion. One of the main arguments for Sunday hunting was that the increased activity and travel within and to the state would bring upwards of six hundred million dollars in revenues to the state coffers. During a segment in which the announcer read listener emails aloud, a commenter wisely stated that, since the state is currently facing bankruptcy, any revenue streams that could generate money for the state that did not in any demonstrable way cause harm to large segments of the population and that did not infringe upon the People's constitutional right to life, liberty, and property (their bodies), any such revenues are needed to keep the state afloat during these times of economic hardship.

  This is a solid argument based on the idea that, by licensing individuals to perform and engage in activities that bring them joy or satisfaction, and by said licensing to ensure that the People remain safe and secure in their person while not negatively affecting or otherwise infringing upon the rights of others, the People should be granted the ability to act in liberty and to enjoy those activities they wish to do while contributing to the economic well-being of the state as a whole.

  This argument also remains solid when applied to the concept of granting licenses to individuals who desire to cultivate and consume Mood Altering Substances in the privacy of their own homes. The legalization of the cultivation and consumption of marijuana, for example, by fully emancipated adults in the privacy of their homes who are not demonstrating a willingness or desire to harm others in any way, would: provide steady and reliable revenues to the state coffers through licensing and cultivation fees; reduce overall crime by limiting the power of organized criminal enterprise; decrease state expenditures on prisoner housing by eliminating roughly twenty percent of state prison populations that are made up of non-violent drug offenders (see here); lower the instances of gateway or crossover consumption by reducing the average, upstanding drug consumer's need to visit drug dealers to obtain the means by which he should decide to pursue his Happiness; and reinstate liberty to the American citizen by granting her that right that is enumerated in the constitution, and thus allowing her to take responsibility for her actions and to lead her life as she sees best fit so long as she is not infringing demonstrably upon the enumerated rights of others.

  Additional revenues can also be generated by placing a usage and manufacturing tax on individuals brewing, distilling, or consuming alcohol, a Mood Altering Substance that in its use is responsible for widespread physical harm and for various societal suffering, most notably assault, battery, rape, and otherwise violent and aggressive acts. We would do well to tax those who so brazenly tax our society with their consumption of alcohol.

  The commenter rightly stated that activities that do not threaten the well-being of others and that are well-managed and well-structured can provide revenue to the state, through licensing and fees, thus allowing the People to live their lives in liberty by the methods that to them shall seem most likely to affect their economic, spiritual, or bodily Happiness. Marijuana consumption in the United States has remained constant throughout the so-called War On Drugs (see here) over the last forty years, billions of dollars have been spent to restrict the People in their liberty, billions of dollars that could have been funneled into state and federal coffers through the legalized, taxed, and structured manufacture and distribution of the drugs Americans want to consume. Just as there are laws in place to assure that Mood Altering Substances (MAS) such as alcohol, tobacco, and coffee products are manufactured in ways that will not harm the consumer, the manufacturing processes of all other MAS must be regulated to ensure that the American citizen can access and consume whichever MAS he or she decides are best while being fully confident that those MAS are not contaminated with toxic or otherwise dangerous fillers.

  According to the Declaration of Independence (see here for the document you should read once a week), the purpose of government is to bring about the Safety and Happiness of the People. We already allow for the safe manufacture of certain MAS; let us now allow for the safe manufacture of all MAS, so as to satisfy the constitutional right of the People to be safe in the property (their bodies) while they are operating rationally under the liberty of thought and deed.

  If a person can be entrusted with the responsibility of handling and operating a weapon in areas where other people are present, that person should be entrusted with the responsibility of handling and consuming, in the privacy of their own home, whichever MAS they decide would serve them best.

  Give the people liberty, and they will prove that they are worthy of rational thought and virtuous action.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

everything you read

  On two separate occasions in the past few weeks, individuals responded to links I posted or blogposts I wrote with the phrase, “Don't believe everything you read on the internet.” This seems to be a phrase used frequently in sloppy attempts to disqualify or to otherwise call into doubt the veracity of the posted material, as I have seen it used to this purpose on other sites throughout the interwebs.

  While it is true that one should use caution when accessing the Terrestrial Interconnectivity Matrix, and that one should be critical of anything found thereon, I would like to ammend the aforementioned phrase to read thus: “Don't believe everything you read.” Just because something is printed on a physical medium does not mean it is true, unbiased, or based on solid and irrefutable evidence. Having studied statistics in college, I know that numbers can be skewed in most any direction to support most any sort of point. Having argued often with religious and social conservatives, I know that opinions are shaped by a myriad of influences from all types of media, and that opinions based on Fear Of The Unknown are more dangerous to the wellbeing of society than those based on rational and open-minded contemplation.

  The most effective way to foster open-mindedness and rational thinking is to read a breadth of differing opinions about a given subject, doubt the veracity of all those differing opinions, and then form one's own conclusions about the subject at hand based on the subtle truths that the mind inherently gleans from exposure to the differing viewpoints. No subject is completely black-or-white, and anyone attempting to portray it as such is likely trying to obfuscate certain aspects of that subject with which he or she agrees by damning those aspects with which he or she does not agree, so as to gain power or advantage.

  Throughout the millenia, strategists from unconnected regions and different time-periods have all pointed to one fundamental truth of warfare, or struggle: “Know your opponent” (see here, here). Refusing to read a book written by a presidential candidate because one cannot stomach that candidate's viewpoints, or dismissing an argument off-hand because one does not understand the argument, violates the fundamental rule of Knowing One's Opponent. To underestimate another person's viewpoints or opinions is to set oneself up for disaster, as one's personal biases will invariably fog up the mind and prohibit the effective application of one's own forces.

  Read everything avaiable, but doubt it all. No person and no organization is infallible, and nothing is set in stone.

  Open the mind. Defend liberty. Fight injustice.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on spamming

  As the writer of this blog, I have been trying to increase readership by using social media sites to improve traffic to my site. On the social media site facebook, I regularly post links to my blog so as to indicate to my friends that I have written something new that I feel they might enjoy reading, or that I think would make for an interesting conversation. Additionally, I sometimes post updates to my status telling people what I am doing or posting an idea or a saying I might have just developed.

  Thinking this type of behavior was acceptable, and not having been informed that the aforementioned activities (posting links to my own material, calling attention to my own actions or thoughts) was in any way frowned upon, I set up an account on reddit.com, where I proceeded to post links to my own material while also reading and voting on the links posted by others. Not long after starting with this self-promotion, however, did I receive a message from the staff at reddit.com telling me that, by posting links to my own material only, I was committing violations in spamming, and that the continued performance of these actions would lead to my account being closed and me being disqualified for membership with reddit.com.

I would like this blogpost to serve as a warning to all people who post links to their own material and to people who are not posting links to random or varied other material, even if they are also voting up or down or "liking" the posts of others: you might are likely guilty of spamming, even if your links receive positive feedback from the community and readers seem to be enjoying or at the least reading the material to which you link. If you do not regularly promote the work or content of others, you will likely be shut down for spamming, and attempts to self-promote or to promote your material in ways other than paid-for-advertising will likely result in you being asked to stop.

  The reason I acted the way I did on reddit was because it was exactly the same way I for years have been acting on facebook - drawing people's attention to things I enjoy, to things I make or create, to things I find funny - never even thinking that I was committing an offense or forcing people to consume my spam until a friendly administrator told me what I was doing. So educate yourself about the exact and often arbitrary parameters of the social sites to which you are submitting, readers, for if you do not pepper in the occasional link to someone else's page, you will be likely scolded for spamming on one site when the same activity is the order of the day on another.

  If doing things and then informing other people that you have done something constitutes spamming, then I am a spammer, and I will remain one.

場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

my hope lies in reason

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

on nationalized religion

  In recent times, loud voices (here, here) have claimed that the creators of the American nation were influenced by Christianity, saying that because our founders were somehow influenced by that religion, that religion should enjoy a higher standing in society. Why these people cry so loudly is unclear (although they seem to be following a historical precedent – see here – by turning to religious hyperbole, xenophobia, and downright Fear), but I suspect that they are making so much noise to obfuscate the reality of the world they so dearly desire, a future fantasy of Dystopian proportions in which all religions but one are outlawed in America, all who fail to fall to their knees before the new national god or gods are beaten and incarcerated, and the liberty we hold so highly, the liberty guaranteed in our Constitution to all equally, shall be replaced by oppression generally and by intolerance for dissenting thought specifically. What other purpose could these people have for pushing for some form of recognition of Christianity as the official state religion than: to destroy the liberty of their fellow citizens; to favor one religious doctrine to the exclusion of all others; to punish non-believers for their lack of belief in one god among many gods; and to relegate those non-believers to the status of second- or third-class citizens for failing to follow one out of the many religions practiced by those flexible and profound individuals who founded these United States of America.

  Many times in its history has mankind attempted to make one religion the mandatory religion of all people. In each of these cases (England Reformation, Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Afghanistan under the Taliban), the initial religious prohibitions were soon followed by widespread murder, looting, and other acts of Domestic Chaos as members of the newly-empowered religious class fanned out across the land to punish those unlucky people who did not meet the newly-established and painstakingly exacting standards of that specific religious teaching. (This potential threat to the Domestic Tranquility requirement set forth in the Constitution therefore makes any attempts to establish religious rule in America unjust and unconstitutional.) The leaders of America have shown a lack of respect for, and a lack of an even rudimentary knowledge of history in recent years by deciding to invade Afghanistan, a country that had previously withstood invasion by the Macedonians, the Persians, the British, and the Soviets; we hope that they will do some research into the realities of specific religious rule before passing any legislation based on religious texts, and we trust that they will be inclined to preserve the Contitution and to shield it from attacks by the intellectually stagnant and theocracy-minded quasi-patriotic forces active in society today. (We also hope our leaders will strike down existing laws such as those that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sundays in Pennsylvania, or the laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman, laws based not on a rational foundation but on writings from the biblical Old Testament, laws that violate the declared Rights of the individual to Liberty and to pursue whichever Happiness he or she decides is best.)

  To justify the claims that the founders of our nation were influenced by the Bible, our current religious extremists ( "No religion is free from extremism," declares Abdelfattah Amor, the UN's Special Rapporteur n Religious Intolerance; for examples see here and here) point to correspondences and other writings created by the founders of this nation that mention the teachings of Christianity (for examples of these writings, see here). Furthermore, they point to the establishment of the Mayflower Compact (here) as proof that this our nation was in some way founded on the Christian faith. In light of the first argument it follows logically that any religious teachings mentioned by the founders of this nation in their writings should be declared as the official state religion, which would make Hellenistic polytheim (or the belief in gods such as Zeus, Athena, and Poseidon) one of the official religions of these United States, as it was mentioned by Thomas Jefferson (here) and John Adams (here), among others. As to the second argument, the Mayflower Compact did not legally establish this Union; it therefore cannot be used as justification for the establishment of an official religion over this Union.

  In the document that did establish this nation, in the Declaration of Independence, there is made mention of the Creator and of the Supreme Judge of the world, but these terms could apply to any of a number of forces, including the Universe, the forces of Chaos, or Raven of the First Peoples (that god who stole the Sun, made the world, and spread knowledge and learning among the scattered races); to assume that by Creator our founders meant Jesus, or Yahweh, or any other deity not specifically named in our founding texts, is: to make assumptions founded on narrow-mindedness and on a penchant for exclusionary practices; to violate the constitutional mandate of securing the Blessings of Liberty (for a definition of liberty, see here) to ourselves and to our Posterity by restricting the ability of the American citizen to operate according to his or her free will (by forcing him or her to genuflect before a god not necessarily of his or her choosing).

  America does not have an official national language, and it will never have an official national religion. The establishment of an official national religion would signal: the ending of our republic; the ending of the rule of rationality and of Justice; and the violation of the constitutional parameters of Domestic Tranquility and the Blessings of Liberty.
  Join me in fighting this threat to our fine nation, so that we together might safeguard our most precious documents and maintain Liberty here and abroad. Let us give in neither to irrational fear nor to irrational judgement; rather, let us maintain the principle of Reason and practice it in all our daily affairs. There is no time to spare, but time is short.

  Stand up. Speak out. Spread liberty.

Ultima Ratio Regum - 場黑麥 John Paul Roggenkamp

Violations In Grooming

30JUN2011
Westminster, MD
  Timothy Blastac, an unemployed auto-mechanic from this bucolic town near the Mason-Dixon line, was taken into custody today by the federal government on charges of violating interstate commerce laws. Blastac, who since losing his job has been seen cutting his own hair, declined to comment for this story. Agent Brown, the lead FBI investigator on the case, said at the scene, "Mr. Blastac was witnessed cutting his own hair in his back yard using a hand-held mirror and a pair of cheap clippers. As his actions violate the potential for a discount hairdresser in Pennsylvania, which lies but a few miles away, to perform these grooming services for him, we apprehended him on suspicion of violating interstate markets. Pending further investigation."
  Dalton Lambert, Mr. Blastac's neighbor, said, "I saw Tim out back trimming his mullet, and I joked about it to some of the guys down at the shop. Someone must have contacted the authorities." Under the interstate commerce clause found in the Constitution, the federal government routinely punishes individuals for growing marijuana that those individuals could potentially transport across state lines, thus potentially affecting potential markets in other states, even if those markets are neither legitimized nor regulated under legislation of any type. Mr. Blastac, by allegedly performing grooming services on himself that could have been performed by an individual in a neighboring state, allegedly compromised the potential for an individual in a market in another state to potentially profit from potentially performing these services. "We will not tolerate violations to potential markets," chief inspector Ryan Henneman, of the ATF, said. "Just as growing vegetables in your own garden violates the potential profits to be made by vegetable growers in other states, we cannot allow individuals to perform services on themselves that could potentially be performed by individuals in other potential markets, in other states."
  The federal government has issued blanket warnings to individuals who mow their own lawns, raise livestock such as chickens or rabbits, or maintain and service their own vehicles, as well as any activities that smack of self-sufficiency or self-reliance, saying that individuals performing these tasks, which all stand to violate potential markets in potentially different states, will be brought to justice. "We have for too long allowed these violations of potential commerce among the states to go on unpunished," Agent Brown said. "Soon the general public will understand that the potential rights of potential markets to make potential profits far exceedes the fourteenth Amendment right of the individual to his or her liberty, or to decide for his or herself when and how to cut his or her own hair or what it is he or she should grow or consume on his or her private property." The ACLU declined to comment for this story.

James J. Jameson, reporting for Bronco 8 news

(This non-news article is satirical. Any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. None of the statements attributed to the various federal agencies or other groups are intended to be taken as factual statements. This is a joke.)

on gods we praise

  Sarah Palin recently made reference to the Statue of Liberty (see here). By doing so, Ms. Palin has given her tacit support to the notion of goddess Liberty, a deity from times of old whom the American people have adopted as our own. Fair and gracious Liberty is not the only deity whom we praise, however – the goddess of Justice, or Iusticia, graces our city seals (see the seal of the borough of Hanover, PA), and we etch her likeness into the stonework of our highest halls of justice (see here). Every time you wear running shoes with a certain swoosh on them, you are praising the Greek goddess of victory, Nike. Our connection to ancient gods runs so deep in this country that even our Declaration of Independence makes the right to Happiness unalienable, a right as often as not personified by goddess Felicitas (or Tyche), the goddess of joy and good fortune.

  To utter the name of a god is to give that god power in our minds and in our lives, such as in Jewish rituals, and in Muslim rituals. For example, every time we say the word Wednesday, we pay homage to the god (Wotan, deity of wisdom and poetry) for whom the day was named; on Thursday and Saturday we pay homage to Thor and Saturn (the gods of fertility and of the harvest respectively), deities hailing from separate realms and distant times, gods who still inspire us today.

  It is good to have as many gods as you can have on your side, so while you may go to a place of worship and pray to one god, remember that throughout your day you are also sending up praises to the other gods who shelter you under their wings (though you might not realize that you are praising them with your shoes or words, or even that they are sheltering you). Similar to the concept of polyamory (the capacity to be in love with multiple people), the capacity to love and worship many different gods is called polytheism. For an example of polytheism, see the practices of Roman Catholics, who pray to one god when traveling (Christopherus), to a different god when competing athletically (Sebastian), and to a third deity (Gabriel) when working in the postal trades.

  There is no limit to the number of gods you can have working for you, or looking out for you, just as there is no limit to the amount of goodness and virtuous action you can perform during your life. Maximize your coverage by increasing your spectrum of gods – you are sure to like the results.

no se permite vagabundos

  It is a good thing that Jack Kerouac lived when he did, for if he were alive today, he would likely be in jail for vagrancy. It was a subtle and unique culture that was lost when the day of the tramp and of the wanderer came to a close, when we Americans came to see those people who are perpetually on the move as threatening and dangerous, when we passed laws that made their existence all but untenable, and stamped out forever their culture, their language, and their way of life.
  We are lucky that Kerouac wrote his book On The Road when he did, in the heyday of the tramp, in that glorious period when hitch-hiking was not illegal, when strangers and transients were not viewed universally as outcasts, when it was still possible for the auto-less to make his way across our fine continent on conveyances other than corporate run bus, train, or airlines. For if he were to have attempted to live that life in our current era, he would likely be spat upon in the street and avoided like the plague by callous and uncaring people on their way to shell out five dollars for a medium coffee.
  The tramp lifestyle had its inconveniences and perils (dogs, weather, floods, robbers), but it was also in a way a deeply American condition, the tip of the spear of restlessness, the true embodiment of the notion that we can start a new life on the other side of this ridge, on the far bank of that river, on the shores of some distant ocean. The tramp had to rely on his wits; he had to trust in the chalkings of his fellow vagrants to alert him to a hostile town, or to one with generous inhabitants, or to one where a bit of labor was available for the eager but wanderlustig.
  It is unlikely that we will ever have another author like Keroak, another person able to simply perambulate across the land (like Herodotus and Pliny before him), absorbing and retelling the stories of those whom he meets, a person not necessarily pursuing a goal but one who has made the Way his Goal. We have adopted the notion in this country that raw ambition and unbridled egocentricity are virtuous states of being, when, in my opinion, they are the beginning of folly, cul-de-sacs that nearly always end in the mid-life-crisis, after which the individual will lay down her lust for money to pursue that which she knew intrinsically would make her Happy, thus rediscovering for herself the deep and abiding meaning of the Declaration of Independence.
  We are not a nation of clones, nor are we a nation founded on the notion of rigid conformity - we are a nation of Many who share a common binding purpose, to make of ourselves One, to pursue Happiness according to the myriad ways that each of Us must decide for ourselves. I fear, however, that we have over-legislated, that we have made so many things illegal in an effort to protect ourselves from potential yet only vaguely defined harm that we are now truly afraid of the transformative and perpetual process of upheaval, that we have made it all but impossible to wander the land in search of an undefined yet tremendously important goal, a goal found neither in the cubicles of the corporation nor in the folds of our wallets, a goal that eschews materialism for internal or spiritual tranquility.
  I fear also that there is no going back, that the child-like wonder and inherent purity exhibited by the characters in On The Road has been forever lost in the white noise of the television, in the vociferocity of the religious extremist, in the blind hatred that hides in an Us versus Them mentality. Woe be unto us, for we have strayed from the Path and become: calcified in our ways; blinded to the subtle wisdom of the vagabond; convinced that turban-wearing boogeymen are lurking in the shadows; and intolerant of anything we do not understand.
  Stand up. Speak out. Spread freedom.

"Fear is the mind-killer." Frank Herbert, Dune

JPR

on girls in movies

  Some time ago I was discussing,  with a close associate, the film Kick Ass. He had expressed his concern about the scene in which the character named Hitgirl is beaten unconscious by the movie's main antagonist. He had said something to the tune of, "If it's now ok to have little girls getting the shit kicked out of them, then, in films releasing in the future, it will be ok for all little girls to get the shit kicked out of them, and we will likely be seeing a lot more of it." At first, I found this comment funny, and made as if to laugh along with the joke. Soon, however, I realized that my counterpart was serious, that he had a problem seeing a fictional scene depicting a fictional young woman locked in choreographed combat with a fictional villain. I do not condone violence toward children; I have (and will in the future) personally intervened in situations in which I witnessed children at risk of physical harm so as to protect them (even if only briefly). (Side note: if you are smoking while children are in your car or in your home, or smoking anywhere near children, you are causing harm to those children, and you are an asshole.)
  Then, last night, I watched Leon the Professional, a film directed by Luc Besson, starring Jean Reno and Natalie Portman, in which in one scene the protagonist, a pubescent girl, holds a gun to her head and narrowly avoids blowing out her brains. After watching that scene, I realized that this scene was the origin of all the depictions in recent Hollywood blockbusters of young women holding guns to their heads and trying to blow out their brains. In nearly every movie since Leon the Professional came out, over the past couple of decades, at least one young actress has held a gun to her head and threatened to cap herself if not given the love or the attention or the breakfast cereal she felt she deserved. It has, as we all know, become a hallmark of modern cinema to depict young women playing Hanoi roulette, one chamber empty and the other five full, the metal flashing as they spun their pistols shut and thrust the business end dramatically to their temples.
  After having re-watched Leon, I now agree: we cannot allow the continued portrayal of young women who are willing to put their lives on the line for something in which they believe, or who have the courage to go up against great and tremendous odds in order to protect their friends or to avenge the murder of a loved one (for this might encourage our women-folk to take action, to challenge the strictures of our paternalistic society and win for themselves an equal station in the workplace and in the home). Also, we cannot trust that movie-makers or movie-goers will be able to differentiate between fact and fiction.
  For to allow one movie to show a young woman taking action in the face of adversity, to depict one girl demanding the swift and merciful execution of justice, is to invite chaos into our homes, into our hearts, and into our minds. We have already stamped out poverty on a global scale; we have already eradicated disease across the seven continents; we have already ensured that each and every human being has the means to lead a peaceful and hunger-free life devoid of suffering and deprivation; now, all we need to do, is to make sure no fake children are hurt in the movies we watch. The general public is sheep-like and utterly devoid of any inherent ability to think or to judge on its own, and must therefore not be exposed to any such violent portrayals lest it succumb immediately to the temptation to act out what was just shown on screen. Join us in our fight against this terrible scourge, and let us together ban these horrendous portrayals of strong young women putting it all on the line for their beliefs. Sign the petition at your local censor's bureau, and remember: we are watching you.

(postscriptum: Movies are make-believe, and worrying about their potential impact on future society is counter-productive and a waste of time. Keep expression, and the mind, open and free.)

declaration of corporate supremacy

When in the course of pursuing profits it becomes necessary to remind the People for whom it is they toil, and to formulate the rules by which they shall lead their lives, we, the assembled capitalists and corporations headquartered in these United States (but not necessarily operating here), only occasionally and perfunctorily respectful to the Opinions of Mankind, declare that the economic wellbeing of our executive boards and voting members by far outweighs the Right of the People to Safety and Happiness. The original Declaration of Independence, that document upon which the United States was founded, those words that might have given mankind the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, is, and has for some time now been, a dead and forgotten document, its declaration of unalienable rights null and void, its formulation of the core principle of the role of government - to bring about the Safety and the Happiness of the People - ground to dust under the jack-boot of our Capitalistic Greed.

We hold these Lies to be enforceable through police action: that a small percentage of Americans should by rights reap the profits generated by the labor of all who work in this country; that we have the right to speculate with and to risk the invested monies of those Americans stupid enough to have entrusted us with their savings, and, when our speculations fail and millions of Americans lose their hard-won gains, to be safe and secure in our gated communities, our ill-begotten money protected by the federal government, our risky businesses kept from failing by the taxes paid by the very people whom we had hoodwinked originally; that we shall profit from the sale of drugs, such as alcohol and tobacco, that are legally available to the People, drugs that kill them by the hundreds of thousands and maim them by the millions, while supporting the persecution and the imprisonment of the People in for-profit penitentiaries owned and run by us, for the crime of consuming drugs not to our liking, such as marijuana, drugs that have no discernible negative affect on their health or on their Happiness; that the US government should wage un-winnable wars against faceless foes (see the "war on terror") so that we may continue to manufacture, develop, and sell arms and weaponry, wars that might be won only if every person on Earth were placed in concentration camps and forcibly lobotomized; that we have the Right, through unscrupulous and down-right false advertising, to convince the People that unbridled consumption and unchecked personal debt are the bedrock of the American Dream, that Happiness does not grow from within, that it is not a fragile state of mind that blossoms from patience and self-understanding, but that it is something we cram into our wallets and pocket-books, that we spend in our shopping plazas, that we waste on useless items that supposedly make life easier but that are little more than clutter; that it was our patriotic duty to abandon the American manufacturing sector for foreign shores, sacrificing the jobs of millions of our countrymen to boost our profit-margins, allowing children across the Pacific Rim to work as slave-laborers in free-economic zones so that unemployed Americans could buy cheap goods that break soon after use; that we have the Right, regardless of the complaints of tree-hugging hippies, to rape and destroy the land for short-term gain, to saturate the lands with chemicals to make plants grow instead of learning from the soil, to poison the streams with mine-tailings, to clear-cut the once-great forests for export, and to pump the animals we slaughter for food full of steroids and antibiotics instead of providing them with clean and open places in which to live out their short and pathetic lives; that we have willingly and to vast personal profit rejuvenated the methods of the ancient Romans for controlling the lower classes by providing them with bread (fast food) and circuses (television), methods that poison the body and the mind but that keep the rabble blessedly quiet and contented throughout their pitiful and mostly worthless lives; that we will run our corporate societies, not as democracies, but as quasi-totalitarian states, while convincing our workers that, through hard and dedicated labor, they might reach the highest rungs of our bogus organizations, while, in reality, they will, after infighting, backstabbing, and reckless self-promotion, find themselves flung out into the cold, the pathways to our fleeting and hollow ranks closed to all but a most rapacious and lustful few.

  At no point in the long yet subtle Process of making a mockery of this once great Nation did we pause to consider that our hoarding of the nation's wealth would violate the Constitutional directive of promoting the general Welfare, although we will, by funneling the collective wealth of all Americans into the pockets of our cronies and fellow oligarchs, secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, not to all Americans equally, but to those who have, as we have, dutifully sacrificed their sacred Honor on the altar of Capitalisic Greed, who have shat, as we have shat, upon the once-grand notion of Liberty and Justice for All. We have stopped our ears to the Voice of Justice, preferring rather the Shreik of Lies, preferring rather to profit from spying on the People (through the sale and maintenance of the materials necessary to the surveilance society), under the falsely-titled and unpatiotic Patiot Act, rejoicing in the violation of the flimsy protections once, but no longer, afforded the People by the Constitution.

  All this we pledge, and more, for: we have the means to lobby the Legislature for our own gain; we have the money with which to live comfortably for ten lifetimes while millions of American children go to bed hungry each night; we have convinced the People that consumption is preferrable to ingenuity, that watching TV is preferrable to creative expression and the telling of stories, that there is a universal formula for Happiness, a formula that starts with a dollar sign. We, therefore, the capitalists and corporations headquartered in these United States, Assembled, appealing to none but our majority share-holders, by our own authority and the might of our wrongly appropriated wealth, brazenly Publish and Declare, that this Country belongs to Us now, that the dream of a more perfect Union has no place in the world of top-few-capitalism, that ninety-nine percent of all Americans shall toil ceaselessly to make us, those of the remaining One Percent, rich beyond reckoning, that governemnt is not instituted to secure the Rights of the People, and that they have neither the Right to alter nor to abolish their governemnt, even though it long ago abandoned them to satisfy the needs of the most monied few, as it is too late, and they waited too long to act.

  So suck it, you hard-working American fools, suck it good and hard.

wine & dine - limerick

I'll be in town, so if you're around
I certainly would like to meet.
But if not, that's fine,
I'll wine and I'll dine,
The next girl I pass on the street.