Monday, February 24, 2014

Beating Up Girls

What do police officers and rapists have in common?

They both say "stop resisting."

Here is a hottie jogger kidnapped by fat cops.  The really disgusting part is the Texas men just keep walking as the cops assault the young woman.

Here is what happens if you are not what the cops think is a hottie:

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Friday, February 14, 2014

Anarchist As Victim

I was making a presentation on nonviolence and anarchy when in passing I disdained "worker violence for change" with the idea that employment was voluntary, so why would anyone need to employ violence for change?

Well!  That did not go over well.  The audience asserted that the workers had no choice, no alternatives, so they had to do the work available, and thus violence was the only option.  Anarchist as victim.

Odd that, an anarchist depending on a boss for employment.  Seems to be an internal contradiction.  The anarchist answer to exploitation is migration, but of course we no longer have open borders, or, in other words, we have outlawed freedom.

I don't buy the anarchist as victim idea.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Game On

I've diagrammed a feedback loop in confronting physical aggression, to help me explain certain thinking.  "Game on" refers to the attitude of experiencing any threat as "game on" just as in practice.

Aikido is a martial art, but it is not terribly interested in "winning."  As long as there is an attack coming, the game is on.  When it stops, the game ends.  Reason the game ends:

1. The attacker is satisfied, and stops.

   a. He is uninterested in resistance.

   b. He is pinned and cannot move.

   c. He is unconscious or dead, inadvertently (it was his energy with which he attacked.)

   d. Other.

2.  You are unconscious or dead.

Could happen of course, and if so, well, your number was up.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Pat Tillman

Here more after his death:
And then there is the strange tale of Pat Tillman, the National Football League player who volunteered for the Army after 9/11. Tillman, an Army ranger, was shot dead by his own comrades on a patrol in Afghanistan in April 2004, resulting in an elaborate military cover-up relating to his death. Tillman was apparently an outspoken non-believer and there is some evidence that he also had turned against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Credible speculation by both the Tillman family and also by former General Wesley Clark suggests that he was murdered, three bullet holes in his forehead indicating that he might have been shot by an M-16 at close range. His fellow soldiers also uncharacteristically burned his clothing and his body armor after he died, and Tillman’s personal diary went missing. A criminal investigation was requested but turned down by Army brass. When the family complained, the leading investigating officer Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich commentedthat they were venting because the Tillmans were all non-believers, saying “…if you are an atheist and you don’t believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You are worm dirt.”
Truth commissions are necessary to unlock the crimes against us.  It involves forgiveness, but we need it.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

It Ain't the Hand You Are Dealt...

A desiderata of sorts...

I won't compromise or negotiate with you respecting my integrity.

It is not the hand you are dealt, it is how you play the cards.

You cannot judge another on how they play their cards.

If you are a general, I have no objections, just don't ask me to believe you are defending my freedoms.  It's clearly not true, I don't believe it.

If you are a man who made a vowed a lifelong commitment to his male friend, it's none of my business, but do not ask me to call it "marriage."

If you run a casino and want to call it gaming, fine with me, but don't expect me to ignore the game is every customer loses.

And so on...

I'm no better than you, but don't you dare ask me to be less than you by pretending you are more than you are.  Not only does it deprecate me, it also, for what it is worth, militates against your integrity to have me view you in pretense.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

Die to Defend Democracy

Except the warmakers know that democracy cannot deliver the will of the people.  This is what they learn in school:
Arrow's theorem says that if the decision-making body has at least two members and at least three options to decide among, then it is impossible to design a social welfare function that satisfies all these conditions at once.
This may be why the Catholic Church does not recognize democracy as a legitimate form of government.

Before you sign up to defend democracy, learn what majority rule voting obtains.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Dorothy Day Anarchist

Anarchist Dorothy Day left no corporate structure for the Catholic Worker Movement she founded, all association is voluntary, so it really matters not at all when putative "followers" misrepresent Day for whatever reasons.  Let's hear Day:
Roosevelt will be elected on the platform of Cake and Circuses. During the depression years the relief checks flowed in, and now during the war years the government checks come regularly on the first of every month. The millions who are thus bought and paid for do not want any change. They are afraid of change. Mothers of six children cash their $180 stipend every month and go on a binge of department-store buying, movies, … candies, radio, and even sometimes a car. It’s amazing how much you can get in the way of luxury if you just do without the necessities. [Quoted in an article in the summer 1999 issue of the St. John’s Law Review.]
Ouch! Fairly standard anti-state, pro-freedom anarchist thought. Now let's hear from Tom Cornell, a writer for the Catholic Worker blog today:
No anarchist of sound mind holds either that government does not exist or ought not exist, etymology notwithstanding. Anarchists want more government, if that means the Department of Labor defending the right to organize, the Department of Agriculture helping to initiate producer cooperatives, sponsoring farm support and surplus food distribution programs, and much less government if it means the State Department, and the so-called Defense and Justice departments; more anti-trust legislation and enforcement, more environmental protection, more OSHA; immediate access to federal courts for every labor organizer punished for organizing. 
His blended definition of anarchist is wrong and right, an act of dishonest writing.    So any anarchist, such as Dorothy Day, cannot be of sound mind (unless they accept Cornell's crazy definition.)    Tom Cornell is flexible enough to say words do not mean what they mean (anarchy) and flexible enough to say "an entity with a monopoly on violence is OK as long as its policies reflect my personal preferences."  No wonder the Catholic worker movement has no appeal to people of good will.

There are plenty of people today who benefit personally saying "Well, when Jesus said this, what he really meant was..."

Cornell also has this to say in his essay:
Dorothy Day liked the shock value of the term "anarchist." 
You see, she was just a clown, going for cheap shock value.  A sort of Catholic Lenny Bruce.

I'd love to hear from Tom Cornell, on a particular topic.  Does he presently depend on government checks for his ... no check that, he is unlikely (from reading his writings) to be accurate...  does he receive any monetary compensation from the government?

And this is why we have no anti-war, pro-peace, pro-labor movement.  They've been bought off, just as Day described.

Happily there is no corporate "Catholic Worker Movement" so I am free to state without fear of contradiction that I am the Catholic Worker Movement in the USA, and the people associated with Tom Cornell and his website are not.  If you want real contemporary source of Catholic Worker thought and critique, grounded in the social teachings of the Catholic Church, I am the source.

I wonder if Dorothy Day would disagree with me?

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Sunday, February 9, 2014

Friday, February 7, 2014

Believing Your Own P R

Had a discussion with a fellow who argued that a police officer in a coffee shop is an active threat requiring immediate self-defense.  The only reasonable response to seeing the same would be to kill the police officer.

The argument ran like this:  the state is defined as a monopoly on violence within a given territory.  The police officer is the specific agent of violence.  We do not agree to fund the police, they are a requirement of the legal fiction of the state.  No territory within the state is allowed to function without a police presence.

Given the coercive and violent nature, in other words unvoluntary,  the police officer is wearing stolen clothes, driving a stolen car, has a stolen gun, drinking stolen coffee and is advertising themselves (by their uniform) what they do.  At any point he may (and some do) commit crimes for which there are no punishments.  That threat level, his argument goes, precipitates lethal defensive action as soon as one sees a police officer.

Now my counter argument is violence (definitions are important) is always wrong, and there are no instances in which violence pays off.  In short, we don't end the killing through killing.  Seems rather obvious to me.

As I listened to him, I was thinking "I know cops who would agree with him... up to the killing part."  I know combat soldiers who say the whole thing is a game.  Bankers who are clear on what they are doing.  Sports figures who know it is all rigged.  How can they live with the contradiction?

The attitude is "It ain't the hand you are dealt, it is how you play the cards."  They are playing their cards the best they can given the way the world works right now.  Admirable!  And they do not judge anyone for any way one chooses to play their cards dealt.  Irrefutable!

These people are the most interesting to talk with, seem to live a much fuller life, even as merely a cop or banker or soldier.  Will such cops tolerate any threat from an overwrought nihilist?  No.  But nor would they get agitated if someone criticized them for being a costumed agent of violence.  Just so.

Further, such realists are the least likely to abuse their position for the simple fact they are not emotionally invested in an indefensible delusion, so they are disinclined to go into the downward spiral or anger and disillusionment. They seem to be a bit sad at the human condition, and disinclined to take things too far.  If anything, it is these realists within those groups that keep a check on the crazies inside of their groups.

I think one big sin is to believe one's own public relations (PR) story.  Believe that, and you mindlessly fall into a trap of delusional thinking about how things are.  On the other hand, everyone of these realists stands ready to take up a better occupation when the delusional automatons are no longer the vast majority.

It is not an internal contradiction to be "cop" and "free" since it is all in the mind.  The test is if you believe your own PR.

Here is a wee film about violence and PR, when you have a couple of hours.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

Kashiwaya In Seattle

This is circa 1973 or 1974, 306 South Main in Seattle, a bowling alley converted into a dojo... C T Takahashi Building.

Kashiwaya Sensei was a newly arrived sandan, to join Hirata Sensei and Lau Sensei in building that aikido nation in Seattle...  Kashiwaya sensei ran the childrens class and I was his assistant instructor.

At 56 seconds, Kashiwaya sensei performs ushiro tori kokyu nage, one of the eight basics, for which there is no other video available as far as I know.  It is not taught anymore anywhere (except by me) as far as I know, and I suspect because it is an extremely difficult throw to get right.

I like it because aikido came from kendo, and to get ushiro tori kokyu nage, the move is exactly the same as is necessary to get the first move taught in kendo right, the sho men cut.

The main uke in this is a fellow named Glenn Olson... man those were the days...

Kashiwaya sensei is still at it...

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Wednesday, February 5, 2014


It seems innocent enough, let's vote people into power to handle certain problem for us.

But power is always abused:

1. Giving a person power does not automatically turn him into an angel.

a. People necessarily take care of themselves first.

b. Any policy necessarily has winners and losers.

c. We hate those we harm, the losers in the policy decision.

When "family law" emerged in the 1980s and the opportunity to gain an advantage in a divorce by one spouse accusing the other of "child abuse" rather mundane divorces turned into blood sports.

If such a charge gained credibility, the spouse making the charge was transformed in monstrous ways by the lie.  Having harmed the victim, the liar became hateful and a downward spiral took place.  We can see many cases of this, and it is archetypal.    (And we see the perpetrator is as much a victim as the target.)  Perfectly reasonable people are malformed by the exercise of a terrible power (and made possible only by the venue.)

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Tuesday, February 4, 2014

Poverty Draft

Coming soon to a patrol car near you....
WASHINGTON — More than 800 soldiers are under criminal investigation for gaming a National Guard program that paid hundreds of millions in bonuses to soldiers who persuaded friends to sign up during the darkest years of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, USA TODAY has learned.
The USA was designed with the assumption we would not have a standing army...  Job # 1, get rid of the standing army.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

Sunday, February 2, 2014

A Defense for Stoning Homosexuals - Leviticus 20:13

Assuming you believe homosexuality is defined by a specific act...

I listened to a university philosophy professor argue some ideas are so bad they must be banned.  He alluded to this instance:

Gipson is a Baptist minister and a business lawyer when not serving in the Legislature. He notes in his official state biography that his family are "of the Christian faith, and are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention."
The passage from Leviticus that Gipson first cited reads: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

 In Genesis 22 we see God acquainting Abraham with Himself.  The means are disturbing, God tells Abraham to make a sacrifice of, that is to say kill, his only and beloved son, Isaac.  As God was introducing himself as the One True God among very many different gods, all of which required human sacrifice (just as today), Abraham proved that he believed YWHW was his God, for Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac.  At the moment of truth, God stayed Abraham's hand to demonstrate in one way YWHW was unique among all of the gods, for the One True God wanted no human sacrifice.  Unthinkable! Scandalous!  But what seems to be a barbaric request is in fact liberating.

And lending credibility to the story, Isaac and Abraham do not meet again until Abraham's death.  If you were Isaac having gone through that experience, wouldn't you steer clear of dad?  (From Kass, Beginning of  Wisdom.)

After centuries as a people, Moses is lawgiving to Israel in the desert.  Here again, Israel is surrounding by practices their God abhors, and the law reflects it:

Leviticus 20:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

And the death is by stoning, with the fine point the killers will have no blood on their hands for the killing.

This is called barbaric and all sorts of other negative things, but for the people who are persuaded this is the law of the one true God, it is to be obeyed, just as are the seemingly whimsical circumcision laws.  And if the Author of Life demands certain activities be curbed by stoning to death, then on what basis do condemn those who follow the law of Whom the believe to be the One True God?

Now, a couple more fine points, which will become important later.  The crime is not being homosexual, the crime is a certain homosexual act. To be convicted of an offense, there must be two or three witnesses.  That means other people must see a homosexual act in progress (rather indiscreet).  There must be a trial.  And if convicted, the witnesses must lead the community in the stoning.  It takes quite a bit to get to the point where one would be stoned.

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

Rules reveal our weaknesses, and the extensive rules Moses laid down reflected the problems the community was experiencing.  The laws were the solution.  And the punishment for false witness is the punishment meted out for the crime: to falsely accuse one of blasphemy would get you executed.

The reason given for the punishment is to stop the spread of the activity.

In this homosexual acts joins a long list of other acts that will get you stoned: adultery, blasphemy, etc.  And again, this is a people listening to the One they believe to be the True God.  These are outlier crimes with outlier punishments.  And in an important sense homosexual acts are not singled out, there are plenty of acts that are forbidden, if one wishes to stay within the community.  Anyone is free to go, and join the tribes practicing such things around Israel.  If one believes, ones strives to comply, and all believers are struggling, with one challenge or another.  That's life.

Also, there is much commentary about suffering death as punishment and thus the soul is made acceptable to God (nothing like an execution to clear a man's mind).  Certainly this is taught about martyrs, and perhaps about sinners too.  To the Creator, there are worse things than death.

Contrary to the will of God, Israel does not do well with the law, and in one of the most contumacious acts recorded in scripture, some 400 year later Israel demands and gets a king, in spite of clear warnings (1 Samuel 8).  Now Jews are no longer free, there is the force of political power behind the laws.  Then begins a downward spiral for Israel lasting centuries, in which the will of a few may be imposed on the many, in which only a savior can redeem Israel.

When that Savior came, he fulfilled the law.  He did not change the rules on stoning transgressors to death as some people weaselly suggest.  Jesus simply taught now that we have Jesus as a Savior, compliance with the law is on a much higher order.  If you lust in your heart, you are guilty of adultery. If slapped on one cheek, offer the other.  If pressed a mile, give another.  And in fact in an instance where Jesus was presented a capital case, what do we see?

John 8  King James Version (KJV)
3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

"In the very act." Probably in an alley somewhere.  Jesus did not refute the law and the penalty.  He did ignore the question at law for a moment, for the prosecutors were acting on the law-before-Jesus.  The pause introduces a clear change.  Dramatic.

What was Jesus writing on the ground?  "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?"  "Go and sin no more?"  Jesus neither rejected the punishment nor repealed the prohibition.  Jesus goes much farther, he makes a far higher requirement now that we live under His Kingship. Judge not, lest ye be judged, and at the same time, go and sin no more.  The prohibition of the acts and the punishments are not repealed. Immeasurably higher standards are introduced.  And the ability to follow the law is only in He who fulfilled the law.

Now, what if someone believes all of this?  What if someone, say a Baptist preacher legislator, lived a wicked life bringing misery and unhappiness on all who loved him, and then repented, and found forgiveness and grace in the law of the prophets and Jesus?  Why would anyone expect him to set it aside when he believes it is the most valuable thing he has to offer?

It would be strange for believers, convinced of the truth through their own experience of struggling with their own particular issues, and having against all odds found a happy result, to not share their experience and recommend the action, even desiring the legislation of the law.  It would be foolish to expect otherwise.

The only problem arises when we have a system where people have the power to do so.  Whether it is to write laws to require homosexuals to be stoned, or write laws the allow homosexuals to marry, the problem is giving power to others "to fight our battles for us," something God Almighty expressly rejected, and Jesus seconded as his followers wanted to make Jesus another human King, the only difference is they would be the powers that be, instead of Herod and Caesar.  There is no objective basis for right or wrong in such polities, and for one season it is "stone gays" and another it is "let gays marry" and then back goes the pendulum and the marriage rolls are consulted as to who may be stoned.  C'est la vie.

The criticisms of the Baptist legislator/preacher are lightweight thinking and ignorant.  But the problem lies in giving other people power over ourselves.  Repeal that and the controversies go away.

In the meantime, anyone without sin, within the people of the book, may stone anyone caught in the act.  In other words, it ain't gonna happen, in spite of the provision of the law.  Glad of that, since I've also broken different laws that would get me stoned.  The hard part is "go and sin no more."

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.