Archive for April, 2012

Reading Dreams of My Father

April 22, 2012

Reading Dreams of My Father. Here it is, straight from the horses mouth. I hadn’t known of this book. I am almost the last to know. I only found out his middle name is Hussein at the coronation. I had always thought the Tea Party made that up to taunt him. After some sputtering I realized this is actually a priceless gift to the people we have hurt the most in the past decade, Arabs, now have a moral-spiritual claim upon the Character of our Presidency.

But, of course, I voted for Obama, because if anyone needed a role model, it were our willing and spirited minorities. Now, of course, I realized during his campaign, his poetry, didn’t hoot about racial issues, such as violence in bad neighborhoods, high percentage of minorities in prison, not even how more insensible our economy must appear to minorities compared to us; but I hoped against hope this was to avoid being villified via the pressures of the campaign, and he would respond towards the reason I voted for him, in style.

Then, just recently, I learned he spent ages 6-10 in Indonesia, so, not only did he not get the experience of a darker mama, but the elementary school system in These United States, is practically the capstone to understanding racial harmony in America. With bussing back in the seventies, ordered by the courts, to provide racial harmony, elementary school was bound to be where many a white kid experienced the whole gang and gaggle of blacks, for the first time, on a consistent, daily basis.

I to this day I have the fondest wishes for Byrum, and remember how Jerome always insisted on be called Maurice, which always made me think why; and Veronica Michtell, one of the smartest black girls who I believe is a lawyer now. To think Barrack missed out on this critical component of integration, going to school together, ….I mean, elementary school in America, just may be an elemental, natural, and moral criteria to being our president. It’s a little like the way I find myself objecting to governors who are not from the state they govern; gives em that carpet-bagger feel.

And then I learned, not only did he live in Indonesia, while I had to take a bus to elementary school everyday, but he wrote a book about it; and then here I am, cleaning out where I live, and I find this very book. And then this black kid Isreal is over and starts to read it, and when he leaves, I start to read it, and when I read a book I write about it in this blog.

Now first, let me get this out of the way, I’m jealous, someone with a white trash mother, who lived in Indonesia, aged 6-10, became president; while I toil away with witty remarks on the subject, in obscurity. However, I have learned, to be suspicious of jealousy, and its incitement, because jealousy is not real; nothing is that good or great, earth slides to the dismal scale fairly easy and quick, and no one earnest and true doing good which would cause jealousy, these people are too true to be jealous of. So jealousy is just a mexed up feel generally, and I very rarely feel jealousy.

Then Obama learns of his father’s death, while describing his apartment on the east side of Manhattan at 94th st; and this is funny; because I can definitely see the East-Sider in Barrack; being a west-sider; but then some manhattan nuance springs up; he says most of the people in his Harlem  were peurto rican; whereas I’m pretty sure in general they tend to be Dominican and gang based, rather than individual and peurto rican; and you would refer to this sort of Harlem as a Spanish Harlem, as he says his neighborhood was mainly peurto rican. Now I do not know for sure as I didn’t get out to 94th and first back then.

The short chapter 1 is 90% images from the border of East Harlem, then ends with receiving the news of his father’s death.

But I understand now, if he spent his elementary school years in Indonesia, with a muslim parent and alianated mother, he’s not the right candidate to rouse and lead minorities through their issues.

There are three tells in this first chapter; revealing some jagged angle; the first is the image of his roommate yelling down from the fire escape they took smoke breaks on, at the white women walking their dogs, to scoop their poop. That’s what rednecks call “cracker”, cracker-behavior; where normal politeness is lost via peculiar social pressure; for surely the first thing you learn in these neighborhoods is keep the voice deep and well moderated; so that’s a little weird vignette.

Then he trots out an old yarn about his father, dangling a younger african student, over a ledge, in hawaii, for dropping his pipe down the ledge. That’s a violent image showing the anger of his father. Is that camouflaged, or what is meant to be shown?

Then Barry says he prefered at that young age as a student of higher education, to be alone, than hang out with the stupid repetitve hanging out people. I can relate to that. I remember at 24 how much I liked and needed to comfort myself, with myself, applying the excericise of the mind, as the wisest activity; something I still hold true; yet especially young, there is a tendency to have been weilded through primary education so swiftly, the mind is not applied, exposing school as stultifying the classical behavior of enjoying your mind.

Likewise, in my mind, there is a positive promotion of himself, as measuring the news of his father’s death; which does seem authentic and thoughtful, rather than passioned and foolish, false and not real.

Then, the story about his father, by his grandfather, reminisced from Hawaii, drifts on into further scenes, images and vignettes about his father; and frankly we are exposed, to what seems unacceptable, the interplay between his white mother, never good at intercultural relations to begin with, and her dark black husband with a british accent, comfortable with a beer at a bar; because this issue must be very hard broach; particularily as you come across more and more circumstances where these relationships tended painfully. How really is the author going to address what is often the folly of relationships born of something other than relating.

His grandfather portrays his father in sem-flattering terms; and yet how often have we seen a niggardly sycophant attitude by whites towards blacks; where the issues aren’t dealt with, and the interaction not genuine? Is Obama going to deal with this? Is this real praise, or does the story of his father accepting a Phi Beta Kappa awared, which requires good grades, in jeans and T-shirt, unaware it was a tuxedo event? Is this the innocence of a near-genius? Someone very out of touch? Or a normal response at some level?

Barrack laments these anecdotes were trotted out rarely, as even a sugar-coated therapy for the abscence of Barrack Sr., and thus he really knew his father very little? Which brings up the point of hardship, can be the assumption, that there is something magical beyond the hardship; and yet the world is moderate or worse, beyond the hardship; there is a wonderful relief to any recovery; but there are finite chisels to everyone’s sculpture; and the search for son-father relation, symbolically spiritual, to explain where and how we are.

Obama’s father was born in Kenya, in tribal society, and if you even meet Africans, ask them about their tribes and how they live; for it is not nearly as bad as what we’ve read growing up. Barrack Sr. showed promise and was selected to study abroad, in Hawaii, where he graduated top of his class. Africans in America do have a specialized social side. I have lived and worked and helped train with Kenyan Marathoners on a farm, so I certainly have experienced their special social pride; but I have also experienced how white girls trip them up, and how foolish that infatuation for them, and cutting for the girl.

According to his mother’s story, Barrack Sr got a scholarship to a Harvard program, but it didn’t afford his family, and from Harvard, he went back to Africa for Kenya to return on its investment.

Up to the age of 5 or 6, this was the story he heard of his father; that his mother white, and father, black, made no impression on him. And there is a wry tone, that truth will be revealed, and what seems true, changes, and yet, there is truth, to everything.

He then starts to discuss interracial marriage; how its outrageous to make it illegal, how his mother’s parents were gracious regarding, how it is an issue; yet there is a tendency to be proud of it, and being proud of one’s identity is important; but I for one am tired of the dilution of blood as an outright positive; its a real issue, morally ambiguos, like many others, signaling a silence of society, rather than potent discourse, being all alone by design, regarding explanations.

Then there is this thread, of academic parents, whereby its inculcated, some are respectable, some are not. I’ve come across this also, and can only say, as someone who has experienced the lower class, this bifurcation ignores the fun and goodness and skills, some of the less respectable have, in that some of the less respectable, are more respectable than the respectible, and good society recognizes the less educated can be more enlightened, and the important thing is working, and there is something good about people working with their hands honestly, and the poor and the rich, or college-educated and drop-outs, are compelled to be polite and respectful to each other; and this what hospitable society constitutes; yet Hawaii seems a little far off this Mark; even though I am sure the natives understand this.

His mother’s parents, from Kansas, living in Hawaii, are very nice to Barrack, and Barrack obviously returns the favor speaking very warmly of them. He looks up to his grandfather, and sees his American Heritage refracting through him, his mother’s father, in that that is wonderful, as there is a tendency to forget, Barrack is half white; and for some reason we treat that as minority, rather than half-majority.

Barrack wonders whether his gramps kindness is from liberalism, and not therefore genuine; as he recognizes the significance of the interlude between his parents, before his mother’s parents. But 30 pages into the book it becomes starkly apparent; the lack of racial harmony and addressing minority issues of his campaign is no fluke. This book has the wrong racism. If you believe these vignettes of his grandparents consitute contemporary, relevant racial issues that have even existed in my lifetime, you really missed forced bussing and integrated elementary schools.

Let me repeat; he writes these images of the forties and fifties, where you can’t call blacks Mr., and if you have a black friend you are taunted by your peers en masse, and the blacks are not allowed in the store. This entirely was not of my mid-forties life time. If anything Whites are not sympathetic to the alianation Blacks may feel, from and too, the insensible economy, the insensible promotion in commercial sports, the admixture of race, the violence, the prisons, the alianation from being far from their traditional power in Africa; these are the issues of racial harmony.

I have never seen Whites mean to Blacks. I have though, been robbed by blacks, and never by blacks, I have walked through a black neighborhood and had bottles thrown at me for being white, and yelled at for being white, and seen dead dogs around, the way I never see in white neighborhoods; these are the serious issues of alianation, that are relevant, and have been experienced, anger towards our own and others. But I have never seen whites persecute blacks, in my lifetime; really. I even remember in the late sixties, a handyman came by a few times a summer, Mr. Vance, who I remember, even under the age of five, was to call him Mr. Vance. And as for segregation; if you make the issue out of the timeless seperation of neighborhood by color, you miss the true issue, which is one standard or tier of living for one color, and a usually inferior one for another; that latter is the definition of a racist society. So we do have a racist society; that runs away from the issues; that up to page 30, seems led by Obama, out of touch enough to not relate to the real issues of anger etc, apparently from living in Hawaii and indonesia. But surely there is a coming of age, no matter how late, that comes, undocumented by media, when one realizes there are problems, unique problems within the black community that must needs be addressed, where harmony is created by awareness, and discomfort, by ignorance.

Let me give you an example of ignorance: A racist society is defined by segregation, not different standards of living for different races.

Often the anger towards minorities regards the ocassion of violence towards women; something the media will not admit, as it would lead to a reconsideration of the metaphysic here. Same way, I can not be helped, through where power is placed, because the metaphysic of local elect, or me influencing society by becoming famouse, is offensive to no person, but to a metaphysic saddling society so; a society whose primary is deception, a lying about earth, by western civilization, by societies previous; for within lies, enabled the creation of the kingdom of god; done for a reason.

Again, I have had memorable experiences, with minorities; from jamaican weed dealers at Washington Square Park in Manhattan; I’d carry s sign indicating the abscence of the world, and they would tease me by thinking I was a cop. All right, anyway.

Hawaii does have a different rythm of harmony by virtue of the powers the natives yield and weilding power often better towards racial harmony by the minorities in a local majority; as Hannibal united a more diverse group against The Roman Republic, than the Romans to defend themselves against The North African warrior.

Yet he speaks of the United States oppression of Hawaii, and certainly, we should set Hawaii free; but he speaks of Hawaii as if Japan never owned it. We took it from Japan. If we set it free, Japan would probably rule it again, and still does have a sphere of influence there. His demonization here, and his earlier phrase, “sword that tasted wars first cut of blood or something”, is frankly a liberal tendency, that mispeaks to the international community, that seems to compell the liberal subject from himself, his experiences, to some written world, not directly relevant, of segregated imagery villified, and minority friends not allowed; when our age today has an amazingly high degree of peaceful racial interaction; where if anything whites lack sympathy to blacks, while blacks may live in dangerous neighborhoods, like Brooklyn.

He rhapsodizes liberally how self-segregation leads to whites receiving racism, in Hawaii; but then ends the chapter, before going to indonesia, with the start of the wry even measured commentary, one hopes for in a leader, that casts reflection upon the first chapter as homilies the media wants to hear, and not actual. “I was too young to realize I was supposed to have a live-in father, just as I was too young to know that I needed a race.” He ackowledges he was caught in a dreamworld, whose waking world reclaimed his parents, and left him there. So we approach Chapter 2 and Indonesia.

There were in indonesia because his mother fell in love with one, which had to be a terrible embarrassment, because children know the truth. I’ve seen mothers like this; I’ve tended their children. I relate to them, insofar I didn’t cause it; a hard thing for society to own up to together, as deserved, of tribal times; but something their mothers may lack without an aware grace. So right away, I feel tremendous sympathy for Barack, because I know these kids; makes me wonder how he became president. The images with his mother are painful. Will he deal with the tragedy of his mother? Honest imagery and a wry tone are not enough.

The irony of moving to Indonesia–for of late I’ve found irony marks or mocks our society more than any quality, is that it was genuinely, probably a good and worthwhile move for him. If I was him, I could see how Indonesia was more comfortable than the situation in Hawaii, insofar that are more minorities, or racially mixed people, or darker skinned, in Indonesia, so Barrack gets along with neighborhood kids, and I imagine is more comfortable; Indonesia sounds wonderful compared to the western limitations upon animals; The new husband to his mother, actually seems the genuine type that cares more about the kid, than the single mother. Indonesia, for all the hardship, is unpretentitious, warm and comfortable.

He ran with the neighborhood kids, which, you may know, include bullies, who throw rocks, that land on the head, if pursued for taking a soccer ball from a game.

When I was six, I met the neighborhood kids, having a rock fight, amid the hills of slate and shale bulldozed into hills often taller than a six year old.  Now, that would be totally unacceptable to me; I would stop unsupervised children playing like that. And to be sure, the rock fights died out in a year or two, and at some point, there was enough head injury and pain, no one threw rocks; throw crab apple fights, with the big crab apples especially, were painful and lingered.  It was like peanuts and Charlie Brown, there were no grown-ups, no adults keeping an eye on the kids, which seems so normal now.

Likewise many people do not seem to have an age of 6-10, so deceptive and true, this world around me; the notion people have experience, when experience leads to reason, and reason away from the oppression of school, into  the wisdom of community and thinking together—so with a grain of salt to many experiences.

Advertisements

Reasons Against The Federal Government

April 16, 2012
  1. When the former colonies considered the best course of action, ten years after the war for independance; there were three options on the table; unite as one nation, form three nations and strive to be friends and allies, further manifest 13 seperate autonomies; And in so far as they were to be bound as one nation; the choice was between a virginia plan, which we have today, and a N.J. plan, where the states could make pacts with each other, the federal judiciary more about judging pacts and treaties and laws for morality and common sense, and the federal government perform less at the expense of the states.
  • The idea of a strong federal government was to avoid becoming a wartime europe of frequent warring states. The idea was one strong overarching federal government, obstructing the evils of many particular states, would grant a peacetime prosperity, under par with many other epochs in history.
  • Yet there were arguments against this, that had faith in the states working it out among themselves without a federal government; that realized the indians would be more appreciated were we not under federal policy; that it would dangerous to give an army to a federal government that ruled the states, which in turn, would have no recourse to right any wrongs in the direction of federal government; that realized that binding many future generations, to a decision made now, was not logical, and that any constitutions be better off short term.

So arguing against Madison, Hamilton and Jay, were lesser known pamphleteers, lesser known, because, their side lost, such as one known by the Pseudonym of “Brutus”; who rose against the tyranny of Ceasar, whereas one rises against the tyranny of federal government. Yet to me, Ceasar was a genius, on parallel with Jesus Christ, in legacy, and initials, as a writer, and general, who saved Rome from the civil wars and political proscriptions, that legalized killing oppossing political supporters; nevertheless, for the lack of form in style, the substance of his arguments are sound, and deserve, rehearing now.

As everyone complains about the federal government, except the democrats in power, a weak link in the polity-chain you’d think that would make the whole of society fall apart; but apparently this is a different kind of chain, a chain, not where the innercorrosion turns on and blames the other corrupted-but-holding on links, the democrats, actually even while everyone blames them, blame no one else; that’s part of their problem; they’ll go extinct before they turn on the church, or war, or banks, or school or corruption or anything, as inadequate. It’s an amazing study of entrophied-atrophy. Not that the jeffersonian designs, and peaceful assembly protections are anything to scoff at. But the implementation of ideals through entities designed to fulfill them, has not worked with communism, or the tribunals of ancient Rome, or the Democratic Party: Because Power Corrupts, is unable to over come the power it has; but more so, may we blame a rejection of the spiritual for this folly?

But let me say is the way to take on the federal government…..well, let me start again, I, you, us, other people, your average joe, people on the street, none of us can take on the federal government. Not the lawyers guild or New England Journal of Medicine, or Amherst College, or your local high school teachers or cops or farmers; not the rainbow family of living light, the presbytarian church, or facebook; the federal goverment is too strong. God might be able to take on the federal government; but you know what; it’s possible to make the case the federal government is stronger than God.

  • Only the states can take on the federal government, and that’s at least three combined or better, with proper media support. And the states are the tcraditional designated driver for curbing any drunkenness we perceive in the old federal.

So we must explore how and what states can do to take on the federal government in the interests of the people.

  • Two quick points or digressions. The first is that one may identify the federal judiciary as stopping change, as the policeman for the way things are; It is a backwards judiciary on several counts; overworking judges, not allowing more making decisions together, an aversion to spirituality as compatible with law. Congress expanded by several hundred members since the Supreme Court was formed. The courts are a natural source of rights for the people, and compelled to recognize truth in general, but so few judges working so many years, professionalizing something accessible to most = big problems in America; we must note the media does not examine our judicial, and flawed infrastructure.
  • The Bill of rights, some said, needn’t be added to the constitution, as the constitution is in the spirit of all wise things. That more rights would be respected in general, without the bill of rights. If there wasn’t a bill of rights, and peaceful assembly not practiced, then maybe we would start to question the whole body of the constitution as inappropiate for future centuries, decades, as aribitrary in its terms and divisions; and most of all, as grounded in elections when the kingdom of god does not vote. Now this last, is most important. If you understand the term here, I am sure you know what I mean, elections are made up, a final ruse upon the illusion of society, and any society concerned about truth, must then be concerned about elections, on earth, when humans are converted to beings, and yet these beings are said to have a choice, about a goverment that ignores them???
  • It is indeed ironic that our world, purposefully unaware of its place in the universe, having descended into a Judeo-Christian age, is unaware of the application of the Christian Term, The Kingdom of God, particularily in relevance to voting. This omission so highlights the dichotomy between church and state, (And states should foster positive relations with religions); that it makes the state, and each of us, seem nonexistent. The logical conclusion of this ignorance, is our own abscence. Call it an existential-freudianism that deems itself, feel itself, is treated as if, non-existent.
  • Certainly I feel nonexistent. And that’s enough to make me cry, except I think of all the beings around me, they are nonexistent, and insofar as you reproduce the beings, you have become more nonexistent, and insofar as people’s lives are thus so largely controlled by Heaven, is stately design, in a sacrificial metaphysic, so then the people do not exist, and their concern about their concerns, subjucated enough ensuring nonexistence. Thus my own futilty, my own nonexistence, parellels states of earth, and people in the world, this is what I work through and try to change, through an analysis of the metaphysic in toto, where this is so blind, that we are all connected, and the notions of fortunes rising individually, capitalistic illusion.
  • Brutus is very concerned and compelled that one generation is making decisions for future generations. This could be cause for the nonexistence I feel now. Brutus is particularily interested in this issue the public is invited to consider, precisely because the happiness of future generations is at stake.
  • Brutus states the case, that energies have been lacking that would fulfill the public interest, so there’s a convention of states, and they have formed a constitution. The people are the fount of all power, so the people must approve it. If it’s a good constitution, there will be future happiness.
  • But surely there is a contradiction between the spirit of the people consenting to something for all time, and the spirit of the people enabled to reaffirm and reexamine its polity and structure; surely that is not so high a bar as to exclude generations; surely that will make the people more apathetic.
  • And what is the nature of general concerns the states can’t agree about. What is the inability to manage, the states have been going through together?
  • For surely the folly of our society is the lack of self-examination and healthy thought upon structures of society herself. As nonexistent, then asserting states as countries, is consistent with all asserting themselves, and feeling out what existence may be felt; for we are all beings all about. Any mismanagement is a calculated even sacrificial design by heaven. And what is heaven? Something attached to the consciousness, reading this, resigned to the state of affairs; my concern with the renegotiation of everything; is in their concern; defeated as heaven must be, to enforce this state, lie and sacrifice, sugarcoating metaphysic otherwise apprehended as serious enough to phantoms.
  • Two general impressions: Forming a long term union is a real politic; the low and acceptable offer to take, generally accepted. But what is that meta-physic? Why is that low ball relatively easy to take? Are the costs and rewards of other shorter term options explored? And, secondly, the assertion of power in the people, called to examine a constitution, that power can’t parted with for many generations can it? Now that the power of the people is accepted, is the point to tuck it away unneeded for centuries?
  • The dismal formula seems to be that the situation on earth, of the being, and nature of heaven, is more than our leaders can deal with; that the people in general are unable, partly that they gave power to leaders and institutions, partly that the design is not meant for something better; Recourse to the people comes rarely actually, as it did in Ameria in 1987, thus we conclude, power comes to the people, when the leaders decide to give it to them; yet the situation on earth likewise is too serious for one in the Kingdom of Heaven. Decisions, involving the serious nature of reality, must be made collectively, for it is too serious, otherwise.
  • If America exists to keep her states from warring, and collect the indians, that service has long been rendered. Our leaders, and peoples, too asleep to recognize that…..well, it’s just impossible to fathom a nation of mostly good people missing this key component of its critical constitution…..I can’t. Even without the structures some short-term cconstitution would have turned over to the people to excercise every other generation, even without giving back the form of peaceful assembly for local decision making, with ayes and nays, even with the military arrogance of a large nation: All these things may influence the psyche, surely as we wonder how much power the government has ever given back to the people: But it is not who we blame.
  • It is too glaring an ommission, only God ordains this; God in this sense defined as the kingdom of heaven, in negotiation or analysis upon, the universe; within a situation too serious to be considered without everyone; So therefore I feel the logic of dissolving 95% of the federal government, replacing it with state governments, and regional councils, is abundant, and hard to miss, and logical; so it will change and come about, soon: But somehow it must be coupled to our own empowerment. The world must turn upside down, or at least start to; and the commingling of heaven, with this world, seen. I must enter the Kingdom of God, and yet there still be a preponderance of seriousness to transmit the cause.
  • Yet it is such a gaping maw, to consider the allowance of humans, into the face of the risk involved. We are treated as if we don’t exist; we nonexist in that sense. The universe does exist, by transmitting its will upon earth with ease, or so we say. My nonexistence, in terms of being able to exert rational influence upon my society, in terms of ideas of obsolete government; intended for a sacred half of earth, signalled a time, as does now, when the people may assert within their nonexistence, where ideas I write of may be recognized and expanded, where America does the right thing, somehow this is all tied together in a spiritual reckoning, and a time given, to an epoch or age, where, like in 1787, the people have to be consulted, for the deal to be made; so now politics may overspill into the spiritual, and the extension of society critically include the calculations of risks, potentials of gains and losses, explanations why: For the Kingdom of Heaven seems dug in, to what its doing, for ages; yet so that consideration of policy, even amid the complex development of the afterlife, is not considered, dug in to trenching through each day, like myself; without hope in policy considerations effecting, mine, or Earth’s Practice.
  • There is the ability to think, there is sight, and the power that generates such, and it is serious about, but there are conceived of communications within a logical scope. Aristotle suggests politics is a metaphor in general, and for the human body in particular: But let us look at The Metaphor of 1787.
  • Brutus really understands 1787 is an important year in history. A) There are overtones of some great deal made to shift history out of medieval nobility and into Constitutional Republican democracy. B) The people are being affirmed and recognized as essential to government because government comes from the people. So this is a time very important, and Brutus argues we must convey that special issue of timliness, where the people are affirmed as central to government, by endorsing government, to future generations, rather than their greatness be marked upon taking away this democratic and essential affirmation.
  • Yet a done deal is a done deal. This was not to be, anymore than people decide issues rather than their local mayors today. The unfettered trust placed in the Government, has led to an apathy and dearth of concern among the people regarding their daily life, what they want from time life and what community offers; Should teaching be professionalized? Isn’t agriculture everyone’s first concern? Can we talk about our spiritual differences and why we think the way we do? Does anyone thing the universe is alive?
  • And the Unfettered Trust, Brutus argues, comes from rejecting the states as checks upon the federal government. Of making the judiciary, contingent upon the federal government, and then endlessly finding for federal government. Were states involved, and needed to approve legislation, things would be different; they would have placed the check, upon the ever increasing duties of the federal government; government which rarely gives back power; government which needs the check and balance and political development of its regions, closer to home.
  • Brutus says because federal law nullifies state law, because the line between what the constitution says the federal government can do, and what the federal government may eventually end up doing, is too easy a line for such a power body, to not cross.
  • The state becomes a metaphor for organizing sentiments of thought, even collecting like-minds. The state could be a check upon the revenue-raising ability of the federal government; upon the use of soldiers; upon what is the general interest and welfare. When the federal government is paying the salaries of these all important federal judges, do you really expect them to rule against the federal government? These arguments are very relevant today. Somehow these relevant arguments, credible and arguable as they are, have been filtered out of the dialogue, omitted from education; its hard to say this effect is not consistent with propoganda, and ungodly controll of media; not through any evil people at the helm; but because God wills totalitarian features in a metaphysic special times may consider.
  • The great and insurmountable difference between the ways of the ancient world which our constituional republic emulates is that ancient times had a viable and traditional culture of tribes. The tribes would handle criminal affairs amid the people; overarching governments, the tribes, from their cities, which had senates and constitutions, would send representatives to, were not invested with the awesome power of punishing criminals. Whereas America did away with native tribal culture, and coming from medieval europe, had little tribal sense; the state was the closest thing, the county, the locality, to tribal thinking; exactly what the constitution fails to foster.
  • Brutus goes so far to speculate the federal government may end the states; which has not happened; though the state rarely engages in relevant legislation, and national issues dominate the news. He cites how large countries, expansion of Greece and Rome, is where the tyranny comes from; whereas when they were smaller, as they originated as city-states, and amid a balance of power, they were must less tyrannical, and known as the good models political scientists seek to invest.
  • It is not hard to infer Brutus is recommending something like a constitutional convention, every 25 years, where each state has 50 delegates at one assembly, and maybe 10 of them in a senate, much like the political party conventions every four years here; and you could talk about what the states can do, what the feds should do, how long the terms should be, could the executive in chief be by committee, The Supreme Court, regional concerns, dealing with new issues. Can the assertion of the people every 25 years be allowed on the dark theater of history? Is this something for anyone to fear? Why wasn’t it enacted? Why have this Constitution for all time, yet every four years convene to nominate a president to lead us through its structure? Wouldn’t conventions, supercede these post carrying conventioneers; when the issue is men, and not strictly ideas?
  • The issue of humanity and what is on earth, is omitted; nor considered what is reproduced, and where does all the violence go to- Is it impossible to renegotiate? It must start from the acknowledgement of the Kingdom of God and what to do with it. Whether consensing together is time to consider what is possible considering this; what it takes is seriously known of course; Nor is it hard to imagine this discourse shying away from tribal circles and councils, or true peaceful assemblies; though the truest paths are often corrupted obstructed.
  • The number one thing I think a regular constitutional convention would consider is what pacts and trade deals states or regions could make with each other. The country would be sustainable as possible, states would produce for markets in other states, this would inspire states to have their own automobile manufacturor sort of thing; producing for direct and nearer market would also value producing what is needed and valuing not producing what is not needed, waste would become a clearer guide.

Brutus argues forcing the vastness of this country through the thin lines of this federal government, will disenfranchise the people of this country. The people are underrepresented in this federal plan. There are too few congressman, and having more, would make business more cluttered. So Brutus is identifying the form of congress as where common local issues may be addressed, in concourse. But our distant climates, different manners, ad interests are too diverse and heterogeneous for one government. And this is true, our economy would be streamlined and powerful if states developed trade pacts with each other.

  • Brutus goes on that a great army will be needed, that our great soldiers, are first there to enforce the federal government, and great armies are where tyranny comes from, as armies are more naturally approved as needed by the people, than be standing forever.
  • Along with soldiers, the legal system will be beholden to the federal government and this is out of backward medieval courts, where the king controlled the judiciary.
  • The dispersion today, is not as great as it was in 1787, because we are much closer via media. Maine and Georgie had not much recourse to each other’s mind, he cites.
  • Brutus opines the soldiers will be used on its own people and officials soon corrupted. The former only seems like its about to happen, whereas the latter is a longstanding complaint it seems only a cconstotutional convention addressing such isues as these are needed. I think Brutus exagerrates here on both points to excite the people here.
  • We have to ask ourselves how much is limiting the people’s asent to the constitution to a one-time one-shot deal, rather than putting in language for a constitutional convention every 25 yrs, is that some play to power by a ruling class seeking the mercantile homogeity and expansion a one size fits all government does?
  • Brutus writes of taxation in his second published essay. Like Hamilton and Madison in The Federalist Papers, and also I believe, writing out of NYC, and New York; Brutus also totally believes the power to tax is an awesome power of the federal government to tax, is the most significant power to the federal government. The ability to tax, to enforce taxation, through soldiers ultimately, is the critical cog to government; not because taxation in itself is bad or evil, but because taxation potentially, and does, fund government across the board.
  • Regulating the taxation of the federal government is of utmost important so as to check unfettered government able to spend on whatever it wants to spend on; like a girl on a shopping spree. Checking taxes, through forms such as state consent, would guarentee the federal government wouldn’t get too big, evil and onerous; and likely limit wars.
  • I hope the people wanting their taxes lowered, ultimately understand this is about limiting the role of government. And I hope people about limiting the role of government, understands those roles probably do have a need that can be filled by the people, through the people, and also that eliminating federal expansion is consistent with increasing the experience of state government. There need not be a total reduction of government. I fear the debate forgets, how the responsibility of state government will increase, as federal government, and the expanse of land it is entrusted with, is questioned.
  • Taxes will always be approved by a government approving itself, through a judiciary as well appointed by the federal government, and therefore it is assumed to government to theoretically have an infinite amount of concerns, yet the idea of an unlimited government, is something no one wants; Particularily in preparations for war, we should not assume some unlimited quality. That is wrong. It is better to shrink the concern of war, than make it the infinite fount for taxation.
  • —————–
  • Likewise having a standing federal army is threatening and inhibiting to the states and the people and contrary thus to moral government, and an unchecked government likely to propell into further soldiers; citing Ceasr transforming the republic to an empire via his army. Brutus also cites Cromwell, as a general, who by maintaining a standing army, curtailed the freedoms of the people and virtuos government. Thus the idea of a federal government having a standing army, is a bad idea. 70% of the former colonies eschewed a standing army. Brutus argues the constitution needs a clause citing what criteria has to be met for an army to be raised. In this, he cites trade with the indians as a goal.
  • Brutus mentions that Massachussetts and Pennsylvania compelled an army, because there were militia’s actively waging war against it. What is Brutus’s opinion on militias? A recourse for the people against federal government, or a weakened form of standing army ripe for manipulation? In any event, the unresolved, important question of how states can exert a check on the federal, is mentioned, and unresolved, short of saying he could not support a constitution where there was no way of states checking federal government. States should ratify wars; likewise this is the huge problem today still: There is no check by the states on the federal, and that simply does not make sense.
  • The idea, Brutus says, is for the federal to be much less than the states. The state representatives to the federal will soon be federal, and the notion of changing them into another politician who will not fall prey to the federal, cynical reality. That is why a real debate in the constitutional convention was state legislatures controll their state federal representatives; then decision-making would originate out of the states; thus you have to see how the states, must meet the federal, and giving this responsibility to the people, through elected representatives, treacherous, how it appears to offer power to the people, but really is about extinguishing effective and potential limitation upon itself. It’s a real example of a masquerade, a snake oil , the U.S. is founded upon.
  • Brutus Hamilton and Madison agree where the issues lie, but see them differently. The power to tax according to its desire is agreed upon as critical, but seen as positive by one, and negative by another. Soldiers are seen as intimidatig, but that is good to one, bad to another, and finally the strong and concentrated judiciary as well.
  • The concentrated judiciary is firmly cast as being bound by the constitution. Brutus’s questions that as limiting the number of wise rules that may guide us. Likewise, that our legislature is so judicially bound by the constitution, rather than the constitution bound by congress may not be wise, and certainly limiting.L
  • As we see played out every year, the judiciary encourages the federal government; which Brutus warns of, as in thiheretly wrong structural design.
  • The terms are too broad in the constitution. “The general wellfare” and other such terms, can include anything, this too will make government inherently expand at the expense of better government, “equity” “domestic tranquillity”
  • Brutus then goes on to point out legal similarities between our proposed government and recent British kingdoms, mainly that the executive still greatly controlls the judiciary, and the judiciary be more a rubber stamp for the government, then an active engaging entity of morality for the people; which was why history loved The Roman Republic, and I the jersey plan, which would focus the courts on pacts and laws, and innovation, while criminal, be handled, I say, by the people, who are closer to God than the government.
  • How do we incorporate approval by states, into national legislation and war? How do we make the judiciary more about rights and morality. Did Brutus know the judiciary of the roman republic was staffed by the lower class, the upper class couldn’t work it, out of fears of class collusion. Hamilton cites antiquity all the time, and pointedly ignores the liberal effect and intent of the republic judiciary, that’s what missing.
  • Where is the god and christian terminology in all this? Where is the tribal understanding spirituality and government go together; or does that lead to hard truths, the kingdom of heaven wants us to not deal with?

 

  • DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

1) The first thing is agreeing our name is The United States of America

2) Every power not expressly delegated to the United States, is retained by each state.

3) The point of joining together is to protect ourselves, from europe and indians.

4) Paupers, Vagabonds and Fugitives must be turned over, and have less rights.

 

 

5) Decisions for the United States are made in convened conventions also known as Congress, as necessary.

6) Each state sends 2-7 delegates, each state has one vote

7) These delegates do what the state legislature tells them to do

8) All speech in this congress is protected, as are the persons of the delegates

9) You can’t be a delegate more than 3 out of any 6 years.

10) One of my big problems with the U.S. Constitution is it forbids states or entities making their own currency, and doing trade pacts with each other, and pacts in general. In The Articles of Confederation, pacts and treaties between states, are allowed, as approved by congress, as their purpose and duration explained.

 

11) States can’t have standing armies, specifically, but should have an official armed state militia. The government may commission garrisons and warships for states; not the states themselves.

12) States can’t make war themselves, that needs approval of Congress. From this tone, you can see, states tighten up around indians. Yet if the state learns of an imminient Indian attack, it may go to war.

13) Each state ponies up funds and soldiers if required. Said officers to be appointed by State legislatures. Each state is assessed by the value of its land, and then the state collects that from its people. Hamilton thought the right of Direct Taxation, the right of the federal government to tax individuals, critical; as the states wouldn’t collect enough, being closer and kinder probably to its citizens.

14) Congress would resolve disputes between states, including how much a state could expand into Indian Terratory.

15) There is no president or executive in the Articles, a majority of congress decides everything of importance.

Jesus didn’t really die for you AND other Easter Comments

April 16, 2012

 1) If Jesus was seen on Sunday, he really didn’t die on Friday. Easter is a celebration of how Jesus didn’t really die, was ressurected. So if he didn’t really die, then how could he have died for you? The catholics, methodists, episcopalians, baptists and lutherans are victims of a corrupted christianity. This corruption stems from the Letters of Paul, not the first three gospels.

A) The literary form of repeating a story four times, in a different light, is a literary technique based on the old testament habit of the same.

  1. 2) Jesus preached the terms, The Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of God, as a term, is a euphemism, for the alteration of the human in the womb, into a being, referred to as The Kingdom of God. This alteration makes it very easy, for a human like Jesus, not to be punished at all, but merely have such exist on paper as much of the world exists on paper to color the world with a representation other than the kingdom of god.
  1. 3) In the pre-jesus pagan world, human sacrifice was alarmingly common. They would sacrifice criminals, or those stragglers in society no one gets too along with; because pagans were scared of the universe, and the universe would cause enough bad things, that sacrificing people, was thought to ward off bad things happening. So from this historical perspective of the transition from pagan, to judea-christian, we see the effect of the teaching to reinforce the christian age was not going to be known as an age where people were openly sacraficed, ie, killed specifically in sacrifice out of fear bad things happening otherwise.

4) I’m one of those people who believe the Gospel According to John, the fourth Gospel, was written by John The Baptist, who was a Christ too. Therefore there is a sarcastic quality to John, whereby his having to step aside, for Jesus to ascend, for all the work John did to not ascend alongside history, was like a death, for Jesus to succeed; because John sacrificed his fame, for Jesus’s, the gospel per John’s theology of sacrificing for you, tonally represents his own literary feeling regarding the whole scene. For the bible is primarily a literary work. It should be read no differently than any other book. Start on page one, interpret it for yourself, try to finish it, find it a page-turner, discuss it with other readers; It is writing, manifested towards spirit; an example of the literary path.

  1. We redeem our misbehavior, brought on by the world of sin, through godliness. We are not removed, but active participants, in moral society, as possible, and we ask god for mercy upon our performance.
  2. Does the Kingdom of Heaven return to dust? Dust is where we came from, maybe, but not where we will return to. Except the kingdom of god, entranced, will return to dust, but energy, does not seem to, hence the older mean.
  3. What is hard to do is render the kingdom of god. The soul, mind, required for this, may be more serious than me. Likewise, should that be possible, earth becomes somber, not willing to move, and seriousness marks those similiar qualities; as humans, and minds, have gross similiarities, making the particular differences, harder to see.
  4. What christians seem to me to be worrying about, is becoming an active participant in life, when so often, life is so much too much to be an active participant, brought down in sin, sin, heaven acknowledges, renders society a metaphysical design for sacrifice, than for good, so what does the christian wonder to do?
  5. To understand we are part of a great universe, is a hard thing, because this universe oppresses us. Divinity that can end the oppression, stems from the resoluteness of the kingdom of heaven. It is possible to go forward, in this context. There is no need to get down by defeat. Don’t take it so seriously. Holy Spirit is possible, and believed in, as a remedy unto salvation at all times.
  6. Praying for your persecutor to heal, is a basic. Religion can go farther than this. For that to happen, we must realize, in society today, religion may not enact its precepts; it’s merely advice; yet if that was a basic constitutional clause, then from there, we may go to even greater services of religion.
  7. There are misconceptions of christianity and by christianity. For instance Paul, really corrupted the gospel. His taking the gospel and story so seriously, in unliterary fashion, is one of the realest examples of the corruption of good, we can find, and historical. The notion of life after death, is not preached by Jesus, who preached of a material salvation on this earth, but a part of Paul’s corrupt translating of material salvation in the physical world, by society as a whole, into something about qualifying for heaven. This heaven thing is a greek concept of greek mythology; not gospel. While the idea is take teachings and run with them. Christianity has a bit of a bad habit, based on Paul, of going in the wrong direction.
  8. Forsooth being aware how we are children of God, And aware of our belovedness a good direction. Certainly, good christianity understands it is about, here, now, making our lives better; and not this mythology about an afterlife politically calculated by ancient greece to make people fear, or be comforted.
  9. Can you understand dying as leaving the world of sin. As thanking you?
  10. Lifting ourselves up, christians forget, requires communities, friends. Friends of spirit.
  11. When I worry, about people, who suffer more than me, surely they must find my suffering comparable? Particularily as we are in the same community. For Chrisitianity is good, when it says to the alone, I am greatly alone; when we remind the handicapped, that we are handicapped: Compassion, as a compass, to find our salvation out of the world of sin.
  12. I think Christianity is very troubled by war, doesn’t understand the historical evidence of war, wants world peace as a criteria for established religion. When truth is spoke, amid ageis of state, when a state, that wars, rules us, and not god; christianity believes in that opportunity to transform the state out of its warring and sinning condition. In earlier times, pagan practice was closer to the state; yet history records frequent wars amid the tribes of europe and africa and everywhere.
  13. Seeking to have God deliver us, seems no more than accepting we are critically a part of the kingdom of god. So what matters is the lack of anxiety, the seperation of modern society, from the kingdom of god, creates.
  14. It would seem the pagans, through less population, enjoyed and cared, a more lush earth; whereas we destroy nature and farm fields, and this is surely not God being nice, but God sacrificing earth itself; but we must believe it is for an end, it is a sacrifice that brings something to heaven; that there may be a pay-off from it; that future generations may live, for our sacrifice. I don’t know if that is true, but it seems what is logical to believe: Unless the power of Satan is seen as never being overcome.
  15. Do we seek to be cheered up with other people, or tackling spiritual problems, that may not be able to be tackled?
  • Verily I say unto you there are two true themes here.
  1. The world of sin is great enough upon all and each, that we are enabled to relate to the suffering and the troubled well enough.
  2. What christianity offers is a true peace of mind; that counters the flailing through society, by admitting the original sin, the altering of the human to human being, at least we are at peace, and neither fooled nor anxious.
  • Likewise, this explains the service::Paramount, guide.

Prayer is important in as it is not done alone but with another or others. Don’t pray alone; the pipeline to god must go through the conduit of another who listens, represents god, and will answer your prayers. Then, I like to think, prayer, within reason, works.

Athens Greece today celebrates more Easter more than xmas. Easter time sound systems, people on stilts, and young impetuos ten year olds with air bats, converge on street corners, for all ages to dance to, 2-80.

But we have to be honest here. In pagan times, religion was in controll, or at least a part of government, and there were routine sacrifices of human beings. At the same time, we have to conclude, in the heart of Africa, humans died midway through life, for we must remember, the kingdom of god is because dying halfway through life is too hard, for we must remember, we can die as the kingdom of god, or we can die as humans; the pagan universe wants it take unaware, and this was what actual and pagan and religious government tribes actually dealt with in local communities.

So the question is, can we be honest about the situation. Obviously, as the kingdom of god, those deaths of crime in the newspaper constitute modern day sacrifice, for the same pagan universe, but could we reveal all the lies, and still say there is a quota of death. Could we be that honest about it, and reveal the kingdom of god, still have society, that discusses human sacrifice. Likewise, is it so hard to figure the universe switches our condition from natural to limited. Likewise is it hard to figure, the kingdom of heaven lives alongside this society and the kingdom of god, elaborately creating society, unable to make it better, per metaphysical compact, and speaking to each and every each day, with a thousand voices perhaps, that we are loved, and this is the best we can do.

The Kingdom of Heaven may have several or many forms. And it is important to talk about and try to articulate these forms. I think now, the souls in heaven are very small, have their hours ansd days just like we do, live a sobering, serious and difficult existence, and are close to my consciousness, if not attached somehow to the brains of everyone, particularily to mine, to view society as it is viewed, so as better to replicate it. I wonder where and what stock the memories of the experiences of the forms are?

The mind then is about focusing on small things. Yet it is very hard to register and feel these small things, and yet everything from earth to its gravitational field feels a little absent. We do not live in a passionate world embracing weather and people. The mechanisms of illusion obscure true feelings as well. It’s a metaphysical, totalitarian oppression. God is absent from political discussion: that’s atheism and communism, together, in America. People need to Identify America, not that I don’t love her, as a communistic totalitarian entity whereby this dark dream be ruled by higher power.

And the oppression from Paul and Catholicism and C. We would celebrate that one exceptionally lived, not that one commonly died. Jesus would lose his glory were he actually killed on the Cross. Hence the irony of “good” in good friday. It is not truly good, it is the fake good of government. It is not truly good, and the “good” does not actually mean good, and intoned so.

Likewise, the reformation is consistent with a reform of the errant last gospel and paul. Catholicism was chased from northern germany.

But this discussion is much less than the discussion of the kingdom of heaven jesus intended.

The Kingdom of God is because the universe demands too much death. This is not much of a discussion.

The Lord of the Old Testament is a half-pagan God. The Lord of the New Testament, has to be Jesus. One is an earthly Lord, the other, by virtue of extending into the universe both promises the power to deliver to his people, and predates earth, the way Judeasm is the father of Christianity. This discussion does take us to where we are now.

The extent of Christianity’s ability to promote a dialogue, beyond a soothing service, and into the Halleluiah realm, should be questioned. There is a lot of christianity around, but is that where the origin of talking about the truth going to come from. Is it going to originate from any religion. Will its source be the media, or politics, or facebook or community, or all-might God, pure and simple. How does one gain the recognition in a world which creates the negative? Where creationism is about creating an ignorant society, where almost nothing is true. Right off the bat, and don’t conform to society’s rules of and for recognition. Recognition is a fake artifice for society. If it is not true, discrepanical, then how can it include me? That includes facebook. The foundation of ignorance does not go up far. What have we got to do about it? How can we recognize truth and weed out the false and reform the false with the truth?

This, what you read, is essentially a form of prayer, you have to answer and deliver; insofar as I may answer your prayers, and we may answer each other’s prayers. The power of prayer must be challenged, and recorded, estimated; powerpoint presentations on prayer- thats the new age christianity.

It is hard for a rich man and the kingdom of god. Occupy wall st forgets the kingdom of god makes it so that the good people may not have to use money, if money is merely seen as a prop for an ostensibly evil society. It is possible to imagine better societies where the people did not actually use money, even as their history, their lying history, records that they do. As the kingdom does not use money, so money really doesn’t exist. Yet it is possible to make the 1% use it, while the 99% doesn’t, in a metaphysical sacrifice of the sensibility and borders of the 1%.

It is so true that living in a world without prayer, and the recognition of god, as consistent with a work ethic and community, is no way to go through life; as deam wormer said to flounder in animal house. But even where that community exists, will it spread through the greater community to you and me? Or is the origin of the kernel going to be something else; like a crime that is solved and shows the picture of some morality plays? Or some fascist play of the people?

Again, the pagan assumption, christianity lacks, making christianity a trail head, as paganism be a path, is that the universe is in pain and requires sacrifice from earth; so the overtones of sacrifice may be legitamate literary fodder, essential to the unity of the book.

This powerful assesment does trump the darkness of the world, but there is an overall tendency for christianity to talk very staid and even sugar-coatingly in its address and description of this situation, and convey what is tragic, as something that is acceptable, and though it is accepted, it is still tragic.

Prayer is central to christianity as a potential origin for good. When this will be manifested, we don’t know, and we see the dryness that makes christianity naturally staid, ie, the difficulty in pacifying the universe.

Another thing we must discuss is why from the turning water into wine, to the last supper, which I think was 4 years, was that the whole duration of the story; why wasn’t the tale of Jesus longer; why did it stop, did he go to live amid the kingdom of god, did he want to stop being a part of the story of the world, was that all the pagan gods allowed, were other denouements and retreats from society considered?

The souls in heaven must be very strong and low to move the kingdom of god, which may be seen like a mass. Likwise two souls may come together in a way to generate power it seems.

We are limited in our bonds with each other, that is the nature of the totalitarianism; which stems from the nature of a lack of truth in society. The lack of truth, limits our bonds; otherwise we would be asserting righteousness. But something between us promoting something is not, limits truth, and so we have a lot of meaningless communication.

REMARKS ON MAUNDY THURSDAY

Maundy Thursday must be contextualized as the last supper for Jesus’s friends with Jesus, not as Jesus’s last supper on earth.

 Its an ironic comment on eat, drink and be merry

    •  ‎(if you go by this phrase, one half of being merry is good food)
    •  
    •  But being merry ain’t where its at. The bottom line is untangling our heads

       Like Its not about a bunch of people being cool, its about things being so hot you all are stunned
    •  because you really are stunned, its just the world that’s not. And yet the movement of the world, may be a reaction to not being able to take the heat.
    •  The heat that you are stunned

       Yet you are everyone, and the link to the spirit energy beings all around.
FINAL POINT: Some people celebrate Easter, because of the joy that Jesus was seen Sunday, lived. Others, that Jesus died for you. Except you wouldn’t celebrate Jesus dying for you.