StiflyStiferson

Jake Gyllanhaal and Heath Ledgers new movie Brokeback Mountain is a tale of forbidden love with a new spin. But I think this is just a Hollywood remake of a movie shown at a film festival in a quite little mountain town. All thats missing is the pudding.

{ 0 comments }

My mother always told me that two wrongs don’t make a right. I think that’s true unless of course your older brother won’t share the remote and you leave a piece of freshly harvested shit under his pillow. Most other times though, I don’t think much is accomplished by exacting vengeance. I wish the same were true for the rest of the country. According to a May 2005 gallop poll, 74% of Americans favor the death penalty, and it is legal in 38 out of 50 states.

There was a period in American History, between 1967 and 1973, where the death penalty was ruled cruel and unusual by the Supreme Court. You can imagine how irate Texas must have been, and sure enough, the decision was reversed. Since then, America has sentenced and executed 1,000 people, and since then, 122 people who were sentenced to death have been exonerated, sometimes minutes before they were scheduled to be executed. Clearly, our criminal justice system is imperfect.

Part of that imperfection is due to the fact that 95% of all defendants cannot afford legal representation and are given the court appointed attorneys or, as I like to call them, “Ree-rees”. These “Ree-rees” are rarely up to par in terms of their ability to defend. The fact that we issue the ultimate punishment in a fallible criminal justice system calls the legitimacy of even allowing capital punishment into question.

It is inherently illogical to punish murder with murder and it is a little disconcerting when our laws suggest that justice has not progressed since the days of Hammurabi. By saying that in some circumstances taking another human’s life is okay, this country only gives psychological credence to the purveyors of vigilante justice. The way I learned it, life is an inalienable right and when the law place conditions on that right it brutalizes the minds of those who accept it, which I is apparently 74% of us.

There’ve been some recent studies that support the rational that capital punishment acts as a deterrent. However, as Columbia Law School Professor Jeffrey Fagan stated in his testimony to the New York State Assembly Standing Committees on Codes, those studies “are fraught with technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failure to consider all relevant factors that drive murder rates, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years and the absence of any direct test of deterrence.” When statistical analysis of the deterring effect of capital punishment is controlled for other factors, there is no evidence of deterrence. Some studies even suggest an increase. In Canada the murder rate sure as shit dropped after they abolished the death penalty and states with the death penalty host significantly higher murder rates than states without.

Even if we ignore the numbers, we can look at it logically. Crimes of passion aren’t conducted in a rational manner. When someone murders in the heat of the moment, they are probably not looking very far down the road—they’re probably not thinking “Hey, I might be sentenced to death for this.” But even if these people did think such a thing, would they be any more deterred by the possibility of death than by the possibility of life in prison without the chance of parole? As for those who murder without passion, they are likely beyond the reach of rational behavior and deterrence. However, if someone does commit murder in a temporary state of passionate disregard, when they return to a level state of mind, and consider the fact that if they are caught they may be sentenced to death, there is a good chance that they will be all the more motivated to evade capture—even violently evade capture.

Now, I’m not one to accuse entire countries of belligerent racism, but the numbers tell an interesting story. 80% of defendants in death penalty trials are white. 14% are black. But 58% of those executed are white and 34% are black. It is interesting indeed that the tables shift more in the favor of whites and more in the disfavor of blacks. Perhaps Justice wears white hoods and gallivants around on horses, burning lower case t’s on lawns, and causing all kinds of ruckus. I don’t know. Maybe.

But fuck logic, racism, lack of deterrence, and imperfect punishment. Let’s look at it economically. You might think that it costs more money to keep someone alive in prison than it does to juice ‘em in the chair—“Why should I have to pay to keep murderers alive”. Well, you’d be wrong. And stupid. In a report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury, they found that Death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal. It’s not just Tennessee either. The state of Kansas found that the investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases, the trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases, and the appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater. The state of Florida spent average of $3.2 million per execution. Duke University conducted the most comprehensive death penalty study in the country and found that the death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million more per execution than the a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of life imprisonment. It costs $25,000 to keep an inmate. An inmate would have to live 86.4 years to cost the state the $2.16 million more dollars that would be spent on his death. Prison gaurds are less expensive than lawyers. So, if money is the only thing that matters for you when it comes to dealing with criminals, then lock their bitch asses up. Don’t kill them.

I’m not suggesting that crime shouldn’t be punished but, I want my country to be able to say that “murder in cold blood is never right.” I want my country to be able to understand that forgiveness is the best revenge. I want to be able to look to my country and say, “My country is the greatest country that ever was.” But it’s tough for those things to be realized when the assumption is held by so many that they always know what is right and just. Its tough to do that when the mentality of retribution is so prevalent. I guess Civility has a lot of progress to make in the good ole U S of A.

{ 2 comments }

As a man, I am sometimes given to thinking purely in the interests of my genitals. It is an inherent affliction that is sometimes friend and sometimes foe. However, when such interests are impeded, I may go to great lengths to see them prevail.

I am, to say the least, not a devout Christian, nor am I any variety of Christian. But that fact does not extend prejudices upon my fancies. I am often times intrigued by the gentile vixen. However, any advances I might choose to take could conceivably be thwarted by the widely held Christian dogma that claims that premarital relations are sinful.

I have often found that when Christianity and logic are at odds, there can be some reconciliation through interpretation. Because I found abstention to be illogical, I sought out the passages of the bible that are cited when justifying the Christian position on premaritals hoping to find room for interpretation. To my, and my lesser compadre’s, delight I found much room for interpretation.

I mainly discovered passages that describe what will happen if one is “Sexually Immoral”- burning in a fiery lake of sulfur and all of that tralala. “Sexual Immorality” is without a doubt not acceptable biblically speaking; however, the bible never really defines what “Sexual Immorality” is. In fact the only time “sexual immorality” is even mentioned in relation to marriage is in Hebrews, chapter 13, verse 4 when it says “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.” But again, what does sexually immoral mean? Does it mean the rape of a spouse? Does it mean bringing a third party into bed? Does it mean giving ones spouse a Dirty Sanchez? I don’t know and neither do you, because the bible doesn’t specify and neither of us are god.

In the book of Corinthians there are some possibly more legitimate passages pertaining to the immorality of pre-marital sex. The first is in chapter 7, verse 8, where the apostle Paul says, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” This passage only says that if a woman cannot remain celibate, then it is better for her to marry. It doesn’t say that she must marry. There is no talk of fiery lakes of sulfur following this passage. Also, this is Paul the Apostle talking, not god. So I think this is one of those times the bible is offering guidance rather than putting laws into stone. It was after all written in the days before Trojans (of the prophylactic variety) and Birth Control Pills. Maybe the bible is just saying it sucks to get preggers. And I agree. It sucks to get preggers.

The other often cited passage in Corinthians is in book 7, chapter 1, and goes “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” This passage is similarly spoken by Paul, and similarly a guideline. So while that advice may have been sensable at a time before birth control evolved beyond uteral punching and clothes hangers, it is a bit outdated now.

Passages that are not often referenced when defending abstention can be found in Exodus and Deuteronomy. The reason that they are not often cited is because they’re fucking ridiculous. In Exodus chapter 22, verse 16, it states that “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.” Deuteronomy has almost the exact same passage. So, according to Exodus and Deuteronomy, a man can seduce a girl, with or without her will, as long as he pays her father a dowry and offers to be her husband; should the father refuses, the man has to pay market value on her virginity. Now, how much is virginity going for these days? 15 goats? I probably have to adjust for inflation from the 1300’s. So, that’s 1,050 goats give or take. Sweet.

The Old Testament is riddled with all sorts of surprisingly odd little foibles. Leviticus in, chapter 19, verse 19, instructs us not to wear clothes made of two different fabrics, and, in chapter 14 verse 43 it describes how to remedy Buildings that catch leprosy. So, perhaps this is not the direct word of god. Perhaps this is just a reflection of the standards of society at the time the Bible was written. Remember that in the bible, young women were betrothed to men based on a financial deal and fathers could fetch a better price for their daughters if they were virgins. Also because paternaty tests werent available when the bible was writen, women who were sexually promiscuous would frequently birth babies whose father’s could not be determined. So, perhaps virginity was such a protected status because it was beneficial economically and perhaps “Sexual Morality” refers to loving monogamous relationships rather than ones irrevocably bound by marriage or ones where the woman was “common”.

Now, It should be known that I don’t say these things to challenge people’s faiths. I don’t say these things simply to be heretical. I do not even say these things purely in the interest of sex. I just feel that when 2+2=5, you need to check your math. Faith is a fine thing-even a great thing-but it is sometimes friend and sometimes foe.

{ 3 comments }

Fall has fallen
And Summer has set
Winter has come
Much to my regret.

Now in this season
I sit at my station
With cold, clammy hands comes
Uncomfortable masturbation.

{ 10 comments }

Mark Twain said Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it. I love America. America is a fantastically wonderful idea. America is a place where that idea is made tangible every time we speak freely and live securely. I love my country. I love America. But when my government tells me that bombing another country is how we make the world safe for democracy, I’ve cannot sit idly by.

No one disputes the fact that there are those who wish to do America harm. But is the best way to prevent America from that harm actually to humiliate an entire region and to pepper a country with bombs-bombs whose blasts destroy indiscriminately? I don’t think so.

Let us say for a moment that you’re a male Iraqi teenager living in Baghdad. You’re life has its ups and downs. Sometimes you get to play a game like soccer only you ride horses and score with a dead goat. You have some laughs-impress the ladies. You don’t really care about global politics. Then, all of a sudden, the place where you live gets bombed-your parents are killed and then written off by the aggressors as “collateral damage”. Your environment shifts pretty quickly. Now there are scores of people shouting from the rooftops that America did this to you-that they did this to you because they hate your god-because they hate everything you stand for.

That boy has no viable independent media or easy access to unbiased books. Who is there to tell him that America was just trying to “make the world safe for democracy”? and if anyone told him that, would it change the fact that America just wrecked his life? Can we really be surprised if that boy makes his new life with a welcoming community of extremists who tell him that the only good American is a dead one? Can we really be surprised if that boy straps dynamite to his chest for his parents-for his country-for all that he has known?

Now, I hope you’ll excuse the fact that this is a decidedly sensational tale that I’ve merely conjured up, but that does not mean that it is not a particularly poignant and realistic story. I tell it in an attempt to illustrate a point: Only a profoundly vehement hate can drive terrorists to commit atrocities. Terrorists aren’t born terrorists. They aren’t born wanting to hurt people. Even those who harbor a general animosity towards the United States won’t be driven to extremism unless somehow triggered. I don’t want it thought for a second that I’m justifying their actions-just trying to understand them-understand that there are reasons why terrorists do what they do.

So, how do we best deal with terrorism? How do we reconcile the fact that terrorists have proven themselves capable of committing massive atrocities with the fact that terrorists are individual people who don’t all act for the same irrational reasons? I’d like to say that I had a solution-that anyone had an acceptable solution-that any solution could ever be acceptable. I’d like to be able to say that we hade some way to eradicate every person who has committed or conspired to commit terrorist acts without harming the innocent. But I can’t say that. No one can say that.

I can say that the best way remains to minimize factors that lead to terrorism-to never validate-to keep a wary eye-to gather intelligence and to act on that intelligence covertly. I can say that launching massive preemptive wars for questionable reasons doesn’t minimize factors that lead to terrorism. I can say that the victims of collateral damage have mothers and fathers; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters; who will likely not excuse the country who did this to them for any reason. I can say that at best any justice we seek to impose will be imperfect and at worst it will only serve to exacerbate the problem.

Dr. King said, “Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness.” It is a cycle that ends only when one party, in what would otherwise be a never ending conflagration, takes the high road and says “Not anymore.” The high road is seldom the easy one, but who, in a conflict between the United States and the forces of terror, will take that higher road? It has got to be us. We must once again stand as an example of civility and understanding to a world that constantly challenges those ideas. We must for goodness’s sake.

{ 2 comments }

They say you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If this is true, and I believe it to be so, then the contents of this essay will likely leave me with very few flies indeed. But quite frankly flies aren’t something I particularly desire.

My policy has generally been not to publicly breach the topic of religion unless it is first breached by another. Throughout my daily life religion has been a very present undertone. Therefore my mind is clear of any guilt from discussing the subject. So now I’m writing this.

I, as some might know, am an atheist, and a proud one at that. I’ve been an atheist since fourth grade. Growing up in an America that not only didn’t share my views but actively sought to change them as if they were some disease that needed to be remedied was challenging. I do not say this to evoke sympathy, but rather to help those, who might be inclined to get upset, understand where I’m coming from.

I have, since my earliest recollection, had some notion of a god. However, the idea of a god was not some inherent idea that I had held deep inside of me since my birth. It was an idea that society had introduced to me, for I held equal stock in the idea that I could control wind with my mind or cast spells. But then around fourth grade I realized I couldn’t cast spells or control the elements through my mental ability. So, I began questioning things including the existence of god. “Do you believe in god?” I asked my mother, who, with her encyclopedic knowledge of the world, I was sure would be able to answer me as she had always done. But to my surprise she responded “I don’t know.”

So, I figured that there was no more reason to believe in god than in witchcraft and decided to become an atheist or at least not to care about seeking answers that couldn’t be, or haven’t yet been, scientifically found. Whenever one of me classmates would talk about church, or something of the nature, and ask me in his or her youthful ignorance what type of Christian I was, I would respond, “None actually. I don’t believe in god.” They would react in shocked outrage berating my beliefs. “What?! How do you think all this was created?” and so on. So, to those who share their outrage and questions, I would have you allow me to briefly explain in a logical manner why it is I have come to the conclusions I have.

The question I most often get when people discover that my views are not in congruency with theirs and the one I first asked myself is: How do you think everything was created? I don’t know. I couldn’t really say. I’ve got some ideas but none of them are definitive. But I find the idea of a “creator”, some omnipotent all powerful being, a trifle irrational-in fact inherently illogical. Now, bare with me here: If a creator created all of existence, who created the creator? Some may say “Just accept that there was a creator who created himself or that the creator has always been there.” If we can accept that, why then can we not accept that existence created itself or that existence has always been there? Why is necessary to have “god” as a middle man? Are we so attached to the idea that a humanlike being is responsible for existence? I simply reject the idea that some sentient, humanlike being begat all that there is.

The more concerning question I intend to address is this: How can there be a clear good and evil if not for god? One of the reasons people find it necessary to conceive of some godlike being, is that we like the idea that there is some sort of ultimate justice-that the good will be rewarded with eternal goodness and the bad with eternal badness-that god ordains what is good and evil. I don’t believe that good and evil are absolute things. For instance I don’t think working on Sundays or that gays practicing sodomy are evil things. I think historically the lines of good and evil have been forever shifting, and have been determined only in a general sense by the society of the time on how we as humans can best coexist. How can I best serve my own interests while respecting others? That’s how I try to live and feel that I have good values.

I don’t say these things just to ruffle feathers, though I do enjoy the occasional feather ruffling. I think it’s good to be religious-spiritual I should say. People’s spiritualities have been responsible for fantastically wonderful things. I just find the presumption that someone who doesn’t believe in god cannot have good values insulting and irrational. So don’t write a brother off, huh?

{ 0 comments }