BUREAUCRACY

Look down, all you see are shit heads,
Look up, all you see are ass holes



h/t sonia belle

TRASH TALK CONTAINED

“I hate people, don’t you hate people?,” slurred Wanda Wilcox upon downing a shot of vodka.

“I don’t hate people, I just feel better when they’re not around,” replied Henry Chinaski

With these words, the antihero in Charles Bukowski’s Barfly, spoke my mind about practically all of Western civilization; from the gullible believers in the mythical stick and carrot lie behind the crucifix and dollar sign disguise, to the profiteering puppeteers pushing the unnoticed addiction. If it weren’t for the saving grace of loving music running throughout humanity reminding me of my connection, I might be a downright misanthrope when it comes to majorities, masses or other such groups in which people gather for the authoritative might of group righteousness in lieu of the more direct experience of taking personal responsibility for ourselves before thinking we have anything to contribute more than our deficit.

Man has been fucking with nature steadily enough, long enough to change the evolution of local species. The Heike crab has been selectively evolved by the ancestors of the survivors of a battle in which samurai combatants died heroically. For many generations fishermen have thrown back the crabs with the face of a samurai on their shell in honor of their memory.



What does that say about enforced tradition on the evolution of the local human adherents? James Watson is treading on some pretty anthropocentric toes suggesting that further research has indicated that biology from different indigenous humans is as different as varieties of any species. This pricks up the ears of the “man created equal,” civil rights crowd among religious and scientific minded alike. I have long suspected an eventual species split between the technologically addicted prosthetic dependent supporters of man’s destiny in the stars and the indigenous and reborn, re-realized Earthlings remaining directly symbiotic with the natural curve.

That’s my best scenario. I may be an optimist, but not foolish enough to expect mankind to return to complete symbiosis. The heedless momentum of corporation’s gutting genuine quality for maximum quantity at the bottom line seems quite capable of milking customer dependence until the entire species dies of cancer with multiple collateral damages to the planet as mankind finally makes its mark — a gravestone made of trash.

°

Our early reactions to the startling accumulation of waste inherent in our throw away society, already apparent in the early ‘50s, wasn’t to insist on manufacturer’s designing for easy updates, repairs or recycling of 100% of the product and on 100% recycling or biodegradability for the packaging industry, easily the two most obvious culprits to blame as we carelessly opted to hide the evidence further out of town in a cover-up anti-litter campaign which touched the packaging or thing manufacturing industry not a whit. Same thing with nuclear waste, “Bury it so deep that it won’t mutate anyone we know before our grandchildren die.” Good planning. They must have gotten away with cheating on many tests. They were certainly among my fellow engineering acolytes who, upon graduation, burned their books vowing to never read again. Got degree, close mind, rake in cash for pseudo authority.

This is a perfect example of the mindset of this and many administrations about every ripple in the pond. They don’t do what needs to be done to remedy the situation; they decide what the people want to hear, say they’re doing it with the most inventive vagueness they can manage, and exploit the upset to the most efficient advantage for the actual offenders, their prime paychecks from satisfied stockholders, lobbying industry dollars, off the books and out of congress and the papers!

The biggest boon to the packaging industry was a single case in 1982 of someone putting potassium cyanide in some Tylenol bottles resulting in the deaths of seven people and a 40% increase in the packaging cost of consumables for security against the still-at-large Lone Tylenol guy. Maybe it was Bin Laden — on the payroll of the packaging industry? So now we drink our tap water only after being poured, unfiltered into toxic, plastic, assembly-line-safety-sealed containers, which we then throw away to continue poisoning land we hope to never live on.

Increasing crises in food and water are being macro managed as water becomes privatized and food becomes patentable by the pushers herding humanity into more controllable groups and mentalities.

In my explorative reading I came across Jane Roberts’ series, Seth Speaks, a channeling of an ancient wise man. Despite my skepticism, I found some very profound statements among these transcripts, especially the idea that purchasing insurance is a deep denial of personal responsibility for one’s actions. The most unsafe thing one can do is cede personal responsibility to authority. All the other dangers result from that willful ignorance of the environment on the word of those who would control both it and us.

I quite enjoy reading metaphysical, metaphorical, fringe-exploring curiosities letting themselves roam with out tether to the “real world” of traditional civilization except for the transformation of thinking by novel ways of using words. In an interview with E.O. Wilson, he talked about the preposterous claim by religion that science is a conspiracy against god and creationism. He chuckled with the humor born of thirty years of ridicule before his colleagues caught up with him in social biology, saying that it is the drive of the curious, truly scientific mind to be the one who finds a key to life so simple a creator is proven, so far they have only extended and verified the complexity and steady development of the theory of evolution. There is no conspiracy to curiosity except from the one-way surveillance viewpoint of a closed mind with indisputable conclusions and beliefs to defend and constantly annoying curiosity complaining of the containing.

Well, back to containers and litter. Did you know that the US spends three times as much to contain heretics and sociopaths in prisons like human landfill than it pays teachers to close children’s minds with national criteria? Imagine that we spent the prison money on paying educators open minded enough to allow generations of children to follow their genetic memory with mentors answering the inevitable questions about civilized inventions; always too artificially fleeting to become part of primordial memory.

•

Well, this has been quite a rambling rant, but I decided to go with the stream of thought rather than the sliced and diced categorical packages per post since to me, here in the vapors, it’s all one big ball of wax. E. O. Wilson disparages metaphorical thinking while describing the universe as onion-like layers of reality. No matter how biologically determined they prove I am, I am still responsible for the choice to direct that determination toward harmony with my environment or toward suicidal war with it. Neither god nor chemistry have a say.

Yamono

This video matched the mood of my morning after a long missed friend got back in touch.

PERSISTENCE OF VISION, ER, AH, BLINDNESS

When I came across this political study via Philosoraptor I immediately resonated to the chord still echoing throughout my entire being from the recent experience of finally admitting the utter futility of trying to debate faith.

Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse.

A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

First of all I must set up some premises in this rant. I refer to Robert Pirsig for the primary definition of the split that exists throughout all major differences in human thought and, thereby, reality. His Metaphysics of Quality sees the spilt between establishment and heresy, security and growth, closed and open minds, traditional and anarchic. These are names of the two sides of the coin that determines human behavior as naturally as sunlight and moisture determine the direction of the roots and branches of a plant. If you put a potted plant on top of your TV, the roots will begin to grow back out of the soil to avoid the radiation below being stronger than the absent sun, which they are avoiding in addition to seeking food and drink in the soil.

I mention this unnatural aberration on the plant as a metaphor for how we artificially thwart our instinctive risk management’s ability to maintain a healthy, expanding stability of the wise balance between understanding and its encouragement of curiosity, by exploiting fear of the unknown with lies to impassion the desire for security through reliance on the liar. Once being uniformly taught shouts naturally curious personal learning into silence, authority becomes believed to be the fount of truth making the security found under the wing of god, the president and the boss appear to have a niche for any and everyone.

To continue with my premise, I am going assume that conservatives represent the establishment side of the coin and liberals represent the heresy element, to steer my point towards the noted backfire that’s puzzling the pros above. Creationism and the Bush regime require unquestioning belief in their stories which the authority dependent defend like a dog his master. The still curious progressives keep their theories open for any possibility, looking for the exception that expands wisdom.

The conservative enters any encounter with an indisputable picture of the world and the intention of either converting naysayers to such certainty or disqualifying them from consideration by censorship or destruction. The liberal enters encounters to see what he can see and perhaps learn more about the world through familiarity with the strange and no fear of the unknown. Okay, okay, I realize these are the most extreme cases, and everyone is their own blend of the two, but this is for clarity in discussing the mentalities behind the two approaches to experience. The conservative will bullshit, ban or bomb all opposition where the liberal will negotiate for harmony or at least mutual respect.

When faced with a refutation of his beliefs, the conservative will dig in to defend them more fervently than in a discussion with those who tend to agree. The examples given in the article are all refutations of Bush policies, attacks on the family that lies to everyone, even each other, draws them closer together for defense. The liberal may have favorite theories, which he is most eager to discuss as a test of their validity, the stronger the opposition, the more valid the test and surviving ideas.

Of course the backfire of pouring truth on flaming lies results in a bonfire of mendacious vanity. The refutation of Bush policy didn’t change the reaction of liberals because they saw the bullshit before it was exposed by others. An old saw about politics is, “Don’t believe anything you hear about politicians until they officially deny it.”

•

I must add this beautiful summation of the way to solve the impasse between liberals and conservatives which I recommend to anyone on the political/moral spectrum. It doesn't address how to talk to religeous zealots, and if somehow the conservatives could finagle a way to believe the Republican party was a creation of god, even this approach presented in the TED talk would do no good

DARWIN’S 200th BIRTHDAY: FEBRUARY12, 1809

Wow, two posts in a row bouncing off P. Z. Meyer’s Pharyngula. One might take me for a scientist if they haven’t noticed the heavy sprinkling of spirit on my observations, which Mahakal, points out P. Z. lacks. Anyway, I came here to rave about the video he posted which I embedded below.



There are so many delightful things in this conversation I hesitate to comment for its superfluity, but that’s rarely stopped me before. Tangents are what they are. My favorite comment was on the fact that Darwin had the Origin of the Species pretty much completed by 1840 but didn’t publish until 1853 because he didn’t want to upset his God fearing wife. Wilson pointed out that here 200 years later 51% of the population of the US believe strictly in creation while 34% more believe evolution can be spun into intelligent design or "God dood it all, smart ain't'e?", leaving a mere 15% of my fellow countrymen who realize the import of Darwin’s discovery. He was the first person to grasp man’s place in life on earth and that it had nothing whatever to do with a creator. As Wilson, a gifted scientific writer, said, his was the greatest contribution to man’s discovery of the reality of life in world around him.

Toward the end they got to discussing a finding which is raising a controversy throughout the entire field whose basis is that if you are human you are equal to all other humans. For science to show that different strains of humans have different capacities alerts defenders of civil liberties to indication of racial profiling. Despite the history of disastrous results for indigenous cultures whose vulnerability to diseases carried by exploration crews who were immune, the latest theories of the nebulous diversion within homo sapiens has some scientists running around like monkeys. It is to laugh. One person’s certainty is another man’s prejudice.

•

I am including a series of emails between a favorite commenter, lilwave, my daughter and I, begun with my special invitation for her to critique the video in return for my reviewing her recommended reading of “The Shack”. It serves to exemplify some of the debilitating results of faith-based certainty. I invite anyone to jump in anywhere to help resolve this impasse. I fear there is none.

Yodood:
I have just watched an hour show that I wish for you to watch and send me a critique of. It is a Charlie Rose Interview with James Watson and E. O. Wilson on their two books on Charles Darwin for the 200th anniversary of his birth. I would carry on more but I am putting together a post, which will have further enthusings within. I read the Shack with as open as my mind can be, please do the same for this request.

Lil'wave:
First I believe that everyone wants to know the truth. No one wants to believe a lie.
I do not dispute that Darwin was a genius. Why would anyone not want to investigate the ideas of such great minds like Darwin, Leonardo DeVinci, and Einstein. They were all gifted with seeing into science in a way that was almost like looking into the future.
On evolution though.... I know there are several steps to evolution from cosmic evolution, chemical evolution, to the two areas of organic evolution(macro and micro). Some parts can be proven true but some parts are given theories that still do not exclude God. There is nothing that proves to me that God was not the beginning. To me everything started with Gods creation process.
Now, the part of evolution that I have the biggest doubt about is macro-evolution. There is no proof to support macro evolution yet evolution scientist expect that theory to be accepted over ones belief in a creator. My spirituality/spiritual relationship with the creator is my own proof that there is something more than the ideas behind macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is where some try to use their theories to prove God does not exist. A theory is not enough for me to deny what I have come to know as the creator.
Really the only part of evolution that I do agree with is in micro-evolution. In micro-evolution DNA adapts to all the things of the environment in which it lives. Simple variations within kinds for survival. It is this means of survival in which I think God created it to do.
When someone says they are an evolutionist, to me, they hide behind the truth of micro-evolution to justify their claims of rightness in all aspects of evolution theories.
It is ridiculous how the scientific community has controlled the ideas of those who want to investigate the creation theories. You should watch the movie "Expelled."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGCxbhGaVfE
Why is creation theories such a threat to evolution theories if all we are really after is some proof either way?

“Any serious science student will become aware of a spirit that manifests itself in the laws of the universe and that spirit is vastly superior to that of man. We don’t know 1 millionth of 1% of anything. ” Albert Einstein

Yodood:
Here we go again. That you would put "Expelled " up to counter the generations of biological research represented by the conversation in that interview is a perfect example of unprovable belief claiming more authority than realistic scientists who honestly admit that the closest we are to knowing are more and more probable theories always open to new experience. If you can come out on the religious side of such a comparison and fault science for not claiming truth as its shortcoming, the only thing you have proven to me is that you have lost all sense of reason.

If there is any primary reason we are making a mess of the planet and our relationships with our neighbors it is the ingrained belief in the myth that this world was created especially for humans which manifests in our lives as greed, covetousness, ownership(and the endless junk we turn out to have lots of things to own) and an attitude of superiority over what we don't want to understand beyond making it into food for more babies or more toys to hook them on. I don't believe Christianity was the originator of this myth, especially since it was a collage of other religions copy/pasted in an editing job that's still going on. Oh, those immutable words of God, where are they now. but over the past two thousand years have been the biggest pusher, profiter and exploiter of using flattery over the truth of our true place in nature. Creationism is what has created a nature conquering, throw away culture of Western civilization.

I don't know where you got the division of micro and macro for evolution. It sounds like a your way to try to divide and conquer a theory that is cohesive from one end to the other, which would only be attempted by someone who doesn't understand what they want to destroy. Your definition, " Macro-evolution is where some try to use their theories to prove God does not exist. " There is nowhere in any part of evolutionary science designed to prove that God doesn't exist. It just does — as collateral damage to the bullshit of creationism being a byproduct of the higher purpose of gaining a clearer picture of how it all works and man's place in it. That anonymous "some" you snuck in there craftily using their theories are actually just going along developing their theories with no consideration of any creator when one of you blind faith believers decided to get up in their shit raise hell because he realized that the theory is reasonable enough to upset the faith in the apple cart. Evolution, gays and clothing made of three materials; three things true believers must avoid. So tell me, does your macro evolution fail to prove the earth is older than six thousand years to you?

As an example of your refusal to use reason in favor of unprovable faith and the source of the heart sore depression with which your attitude clouds my optimism for the future, I give you your statement, " There is nothing that proves to me that God was not the beginning." I couldn't agree more, but you have said nothing as a justification or a point of reason. You are saying nothing exists to prove that God had anything to do with any part of life. If scripture is your proof, we are finished here. If you claim that the image of Jesus appeared on the Cheeto you got stuck in your ear and it sounded like he was talking to you, how do you know it wasn't Tony the tiger? Everyone has an inner voice. They are more likely to hear it if they are not afraid to be alone physically and mentally and more likely to identify the voice with whatever deity is worshipped locally according to their degree of reverence. People who have never heard the notion of a creator or taken it to be a fairy tale are free to posit any observation they may imagine they perceive. The Native Americans called it the Great Spirit, despite the insistence of the White man to read that as God. Free spirits represent the rich diversity that stabilizes the balance that religion seeks to tip with faith based certainty. Open minds are too tuned to the spirit of nature to suffer the uniformity absolute indisputablility requires. Gotta be free to grow.

You didn't address my example of different images appearing to different cultures if the Shack were written in Iraq or India. I have never doubted that you are following your inner voice, dear. What gets me is that you are so close to seeing life as it is, yet somehow insisting on making it fit a bad movie about a God who wants to keep you beholden to him and guilty for betraying him so you will never relax into who you are without such control, how free you are in the spontaneous freedom of equality with all of life, not just the parts that fit your unprovable knowing. But as your quote from Einstein states, "We know less than .00000001% of anything," so what make you so sure you know it all and science has fallen short of religion because it limits itself to theories. The spirit that is the universe and manifests itself in the patterns, the laws we detect is the theme, the tao, the way of everything — superior in that it is the common thread running through the entire universe of varieties of manifestations just as I am the common thread through, the gestalt of all my cells, the learning-to-become a self-realized being, more than the sum of my parts but deaf, dumb and blind without them. The gestalt, that more than a simple total is the process of becoming symbiotic with the spirit of the universe, the way of all things. Picturing the universe as a place created as a gift to the creator's exceptional creation, man, is so obviously narcissistic I can't believe it isn't dismissed just for that. But then, most of science is too — just not as man heir to deity — as in man to the stars to spread our wonderfulness.

You stated in large letters "Simple variations within kinds for survival." as the limit you can accept as the role of DNA in the scheme of life. So what is responsible for the variations of kinds, or the variation in all life, plant and animal, over millions of years traceable all the way back to one celled beings. And what was there to survive if God made it just for us?

As I said in my request for your review, I was working on a post in praise of the video when I recommended it to you specially. Your answer was such mainstream Creationist propaganda that I thought including it in the post would be a good illustration of the everyday conflict that plagues the faithful trying to make belief trump the experience of natural contradiction. Please don't resent my publishing this, after all I'm spreading the words of what you believe. Isn't that the aim of people with such authority from god as to say dinosaur fossils are God's test of faith in a six-thousand year old world? Oh, and that part about believing the parts of evolution that don't prove the Bible is bullshit; evolution is the most inclusive view of the observable universe ever conceived and expanded upon since. It's kinda like pregnancy: there's no partially pregnant, there's only abortions like religion attempting to prevent ideas coming to fruition because they don't look like Jesus.

TEACHING THE CONTROVERSY

I enjoy reading P.Z. Meyers’ blog, Pharyngula both for his scientific curiosity and his raging against the trinity. He has just posted his opposition to the idea of teaching the controversy Christians raise whenever being confronted with evidence of their absurdity. As I commented there, I consider atheists to be above such irrelevant arguments just as I am above debating the value American Idol, whereas he, as an antitheist, challenges all evidence of belief in a chief wherever he finds it. It would seem he seeks out chances to shoot holes in the holy, but he’s become so notorious it is no longer as obvious who is seeking who as it is who crawls away full of holes.

I would probably still consider myself the more aloof atheist had my daughter not tried to save me, a pain worse than having to care about American Idol. Though her faith is irrelevant to me no matter how far up into my shit she gets, she is my closest relative; if I love her I must be honest with her and try to work it out. This makes me an antitheist.

With the Sarah Palin introduction to the political campaign, the Republicans have diverted the Democrats intent to heal the Bush wounds, by claiming the nation is born again upon the miracle of her nomination. Bomb, bomb Iran… The national media is definitely into teaching that controversy. Sex and religion, who could resist the temptation? Great distraction, McCain — we may go all the way to November without discussing anything of value to our future.

Someone in the comments to his post mentioned that the theory of evolution is not intuitive, requiring the logical arrangement of evidence as compared to the faith of believers in following the awesome. Here’s where I discovered the key to my skepticism about science being much more accurate a view of existence than religion. To me intuition, instinct, genetic memory is a knowing process with which our bodies come equipped; like a process flow chart with the particular name of each station to be filled in depending on the life experience encountered. For me, the epigenesis process in genetics is the spiritual element missing from most scientific consideration of knowledge. For those faithful who abdicate their mentality to external authority, the flow chart has been hard wired to deal with all experience the same, “God made it special just for us, because the Bible tells me so.”

I realize that in using the term, teaching the controversy, P.Z. is railing against the requirement in public education to include the absurdities of religion as a balancing contrast to evolution in science classes. I agree. But giving faith any room in any debate, whether for purposes of balance or total annihilation, does a great disservice to the value of debate’s search for theoretical reality.

As an inadvertent example of the limits of the scientific method I am appending my comment on PZ’s post including the ensuing discussion of it by two other commentators who, I suppose, consider themselves intellectually beyond consideration of my meaning in sounding as afraid of the unknown as a kneeling Christian:

#57 Posted by: yodood | September 15, 2008 8:38 AM
PZ, you teach the controversy with this blog every day and I thank you for it. I make a distinction between atheists and antitheists in the sense of the former indicating without god and the latter against god and all his believers. I find very few true atheists in the world because they have risen above the absurdity though surrounded by it and must be discovered, whereas antitheists, like you and I, declare themselves at every confrontation with faith in an attempt to teach the absurdity of the controversy to the absurd. The effort is as futile as getting capitalists to become symbiotic with nature, or governments to actually be of, by and for the people. This post triggered the labor pains of an embryonic post that has been gestating for quite a while. I see its head emerging now. Thanks for the inducement; I'm naming it after you though it was conceived 58 years ago through spiritual rape.

#58 Posted by: clinteas | September 15, 2008 8:43 AM
yodood,@ 57, I want what he is smoking.

#59 Posted by: SC | September 15, 2008 8:48 AM
Has anyone clicked on yodood's name? I'm afraid to.

#60 Posted by: clinteas | September 15, 2008 8:52 AM
SC,i did, and let me tell you,theres a strange world there,Im not quite sure what to say,probably best to just ignore.....

#61 Posted by: SC | September 15, 2008 8:57 AM
Thanks, clinteas. I generally don't click on links from people I don't "know," especially if they appear to be deranged, but I was curious. Come to think of it, now I'm even more curious... :)

#63 Posted by: clinteas | September 15, 2008 9:13 AM

SC, dont do it,its like watching Palins church people twitching,kindof...

#64Posted by: SC | September 15, 2008 9:23 AM
SC, dont do it
Too late. Once I knew it wouldn't kill my computer, "theres a strange world there" was impossible to resist. Had to watch the whole video, too. :S

#65 Posted by: clinteas | September 15, 2008 9:30 AM

//Once I knew it wouldn't kill my computer//

You must be using Windows. The insanity that is on display on the internet if you know where to look is somewhat amazing,isnt it. Scary,really.Im afraid McCain/Palin will actually win this election.On this thought,im out for a cig...

I’m at a loss as to what they found strange or deranged, but thank evolution for the variety.

Since these remarks were made before I published this post and I read them after, I am also at a loss as to how the thread gave way to McCain/Palin? And what video? Maybe neither clicked on my link and both think they are getting away with lying to each other. How political. Scientists you say? Is political science as scientific as creation science?

OUT IN THE BOONIES

Once again Leslie Hawes’ honesty and artistry with word and color has inspired a comment to her post "Boonie" that has since expanded as it evoked the source of my deep sympathy for the trauma suffered by veterans of combat. The comment was

How dare he remind us of our helplessness in preventing our government from sacrificing generations of the country’s less privileged youth to exploit big business interests abroad by surviving the death bath they were sent to deal out to strangers in a strange land? What gall he has in displaying his unwillingness or disability to contribute to the “American Way of Life” he has learned to see his defending of to be the obviously oblivious source of his traumatized condition. His audacity at holding a tin cup out to collect his unpaid and unpayable due from the ones he was told he was defending causes city councils to propose the banning of his activities to protect the sensibilities of folks who want to forget that time he never can. Our impotent discomfort at his existence is our share of his trauma, and he has enough for everyone.

A touchy subject. Thank you for bringing it to the surface, Leslie. Hiding our shame only makes it fester into a new war.

Although my four years in the military fell three years after the Korean War and three years before the Gulf of Tonkin hoax got us into the Viet Nam big time, I shared the lives of war heroes who, upon returning to the United States, discovered they no longer fit into civilian life, or the civil part of military life during peacetime for that matter. All around the base I could see salty uniforms with sleeves showing the brighter colors where combat awarded rank insignias had been stripped from steely eyed veterans who just couldn’t stay sober or out of fights with townies and officers. The seriously traumatized ones I knew who just didn’t resign themselves to life in the bosom of the military, if not dishonorably discharged, rejoined society to land in the constant care of their loving families or not so loving asylums and jails, in the boondocks hoarding armament and hate, in the job of belligerent criminal or cop, or life on the street.

The government and the military refuse to admit responsibility for or even the existence of such a record, preferring instead of mental health care to malign them with dishonor as whiners and malcontents. The latest program to utilize graduates from Shell Shock U is called Blackwater, Bush’s high priced cannon fodder. The field research data gained by sending troops into combat with arms and armor varying from hard-ons behind hate speeches to depleted uranium behind remote underground bunkers by radar is improving the equipment of our burgeoning law enforcement here at home. With such equipment and the addition of a missing ingredient in Iraq: hometown knowledge, they should have no trouble quelling any protest against the occupation from the folks who don’t really need so much security, just like the field studies showed.

Just stretch your mind between Boonie, who doesn’t want any more killing and cannot contribute to the way of life that affords its preemptive genocidal wars, and any one of the anonymous Darth Vaders hiding their tiny penises behind great big guns and Kevlar cod pieces arm in arm by the hundreds wherever Boonie’s younger, less experienced kindred spirits arise against the walls of the trash compactor. Two career paths from the same school of thought.

THIS IS NOT A PIPE, PART II

Fresh green scenes sprinkled with colorful highlights of animals and flowers fill my bowl with fresh natural potential for the light of curiosity to ignite the imagination with images drifting in the breeze as I draw from all that has gone before and vent all that does not remain. Spontaneous symphony of humming birds, grackles and dogs mark the variable tempo to the ballet of zephyr stirred saplings, dew drop dipping butterflies and constantly curious cats. Admission free, new performances all day every day, never the same, always enlightening to realize it has yet to be written or rehearsed.

Floor sweepings and shredded agribusiness products sprinkled with addictive pharmaceuticals fill this assembly line rolled joint with a filter on experience that, when lit upon, winds down the generators of curiosity and focuses imagination on strategies to deal with this all too explainable creation as I draw from all the cars that have passed this corner and cough up the particulate matter. Scheduled close order drill of profit stirred suits racing between their air conditioned cubicles and cars, constantly needy shoppers looking for some thing to make it all better and poison farting machines making it worse all marching to the monotonous cadence of the traffic light, corner clock and ambulance siren. Admission costly, no performances (it’s supposed to be the real world) ever, always more intolerable than the last time, always depressing to realize it is the result of constant rewrites by geniuses for an audience who have been educated out of their ability to think without words.

One of the forgoing experiences is of a product, the creation if you will, made out of the other. This is not a pipe. I cannot believe in this creation even though it may run me over way out here in the relatively unwritten scene. Still living too close to the plot.

A TALE OF TWO BOYS

Aye hated the people his leaders told him had killed thousands of his people and turned his will over to men vowed to take revenge. So did Bea.

Aye was trained to load explosives on his vehicle and explode them in the middle of the targets his leaders assigned him. So did Bea.

Bea’s target was a café in his hometown where Aye’s people were said to be. His vehicle was his body. He died being torn into more pieces than the others who died that day. Such was his passion for avenging the death of his entire family the day before.

Aye’s target was the general area where Bea’s people were said to be. His vehicle was a tank. He watched entire blocks explode from the isolation of his armor and lived to see those people and more dying for the rest of his life. Such was his passion for avenging the death of his friends in ambush the day before,

Which came first, the terrorist, or the terrorist?

•

WALKING

Walking east today at two
Before a breeze that behind me blew
Through the land where a forest grew
I reached a glade
Where there was no shade
No more underbrush to wade
Just ahead of my tread
O’er the field a spot sped
When I caught up with it, instead
Of the thing of my belief
The spot became a yellow leaf
A shard of autumn relief

PONDER CDXX

With my fingers in the earth

And my head in the clouds
My eyes fill with other’s eyes
Seeing the same scene
Through their uncommon facings
On the surface of the same potato
Out from which I stare in wonder.

Man’s pride in small conceits
Blind him to how much more he is
Than his superiority can admit
Without dissolving into it all.
Artificial shell of self-congratulation
Isolation from the eternal gestation
Of evolution’s energy we call enemy
Building futile dams to stop entropy

Each being is a point
In the hologram of the universe
The whole contained in each
From the perspective of the point
Like the honest pictures of a child
Gigantic feet tapering to a pin-head
When drawing the big people,
So vast and godlike above.