The Antichrist Is Such A Nice Guy

So yesterday in California Obama was called the Antichrist. Time for a brief history of religious, nutcase name calling :

Julius Caesar : ANTICHRIST (Really?)

Nero : ANTICHRIST (That's deserved)

Adolf Hitler : ANTICHRIST (That's deserved)

Benito Mussolini : ANTICHRIST (Maybe, not really)

Mikhail Gorbachev : ANTICHRIST (Hmm, I could see that)

Ronald Reagan : ANTICHRIST (Really? REALLY?)

Pope Benedict XVI : ANTICHRIST (Are they even trying anymore?)

And that is not all. In fact, that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the name calling. The religious right-wing is desperate to find to Antichrist, and they are willing to start a lot of childish name calling games to figure it out, and have been for centuries past, and many more to come. Why? Beats me. My best guess is that they want to see the world burn. If humans are going to go extinct (which we will), I guess we want to see everything destroyed. This hypothesis I have addressed in other posts on the apocalypse and our sick need to watch things die.

So now Obama is the Antichrist. Let me say this : until the Rapture, there should be no more name calling. And if the Rapture did occur back in May (as predicted), then no one was saved. But since no one was saved, how do you know it happened? Hmm... Yep, let's just hold off on the name calling.

Plus, I don't think the Antichrist would care if you forgot your coat. That, or the Antichrist is the nicest guy I've known in a long time. He's sooooo Christ-like.

Video of Obama being called Antichrist

The Abyss Stares Into You : Where Evil Resides

I felt compelled to reuse Joe Juhasz's blog post title "Where Evil Resides" (blog no longer available) about the incident at Fort Hood two years ago. This weekend New York City experienced something that should remind us to remember atrocities are not something that take place in a foreign land, or something that happened a long time ago. Evil resides here in the US.

Since September 17th there has been a protest on Wall Street called "Occupy Wall Street", where thousands of protestors have flocked to sit, stand, lay down, whatever, and occupy Wall Street in protest of the bailouts and the irresponsibility of how federal funding is conducted in this nation. On Saturday, what started off as protests as usual, a so-called "riot" broke out. At least, this is what the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, CNN, and Fox News has called it.

I did not learn until this evening that this "riot" was actually several instances of police brutality. You read that correctly : police brutality. I actually didn't believe it at first and had to do some fact checking and watching the full videos myself. There are few cases where I personally cannot tell if the protestors provoked the NYPD to react as violently as they did. But there is a large number of incidents in those videos that clearly show that the police used physical force that was absolutely unprompted and uncalled for.

These protestors were not just a bunch of whack-jobs. They were, for many Americans, our children. They were college kids and young adults. And they peacefully protested, which is their Constitutional right to do, and had to endure brutality that can only remind us of Rodney King or the African American Rights Activists brutality. And what's more is that most of the unprovoked force was carried out by police in white uniforms, which indicates higher ranks, such as Lieutenant or Sergeant.

So what does all this mean? I have no clue. But it certainly gives us a clear picture of what power can do to police officers. Power can turn people evil, just as it did Lucifer. This is what Philip Zimbardo called the Lucifer Effect. Obviously the Rookies, who do not have a lot of power, did exactly as police officers should do during protests : protect citizens from protestors, and protect protestors from citizens, and to do it calmly and politely. But what do protestors do if the police, who are suppose to protect them, start to attack them?

Is all of this brutality suppose to scare Americans away from protesting? It shouldn't. Some people have commented that the US doesn't know how to protest, and that Greece, London, Egypt, and Syria know how to protest, and that Americans just hold signs. No, Americans protest in the best form of protests : peacefully. We protest in a way that has been shown to us since we were in grade school, the way Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. showed us. Will Americans continue to protest? Or will we let fear grip us against expressing our Constitutional rights? Well, that's all up to Americans.

Some of these shocking videos can be accessed here :
"Is this what you're about?"
Use of Mace
Unsure if this was unprovoked
Unprovoked use of force

"He who fights with monsters [police] should might take care lest he thereby become a monster [criminal]. And if you gaze for long into the abyss [the law], the abyss gazes also into you."
~Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil : Aphorism 146

Then There Were Neutrinos... And God Said, "Let There Be Light!"

So yesterday CERN revealed that for the past few months they have been testing the speed of neutrinos, and their findings show that neutrinos apparently go faster than the speed of light.

Now before this goes any further, it must be absolutely understood that all the kinks of these experiments have not been worked out. This could just as easily turn into the situation CERN had with the Higgs boson particle a couple of months ago, in which they thought they found it, but it turned out to be little more than an error in their data. There are several areas for error in the data with neutrinos that need to be investigated and crosschecked. No one at CERN is saying with absolute certainty that neutrinos travel fast than light. That said, I digress.

Last night, when the news about this came on CNN, I about cried at how little some of us care to understand about modern science. I don't know everything, nor do I care to be a physicist, but I do like to keep up with science. What floored me was the host on CNN said that E=MC² is wrong, and that all of Einstein's theories on Relativity are wrong. *Facepalm*

First of all, E=MC² may be wrong, but only slightly and some new equations are going to be needed to make it correct. Second, this does not mean Relativity is wrong (for the most part, since E=MC² was developed from Relativity). And even if Relativity ends up being wrong, many principles from it can still be used for application. Much of Newton's works were proved wrong, but it's applicable, even today. The only thing about Relativity that would have to be reworked is what makes it happen, not the mechanics of it (which is was the case with Newton). If a particle could go faster than light in the first place and it affected Relativity, then we would have known Relativity was really wrong many years ago. If that was a factor, then your GPS would be much farther off than it is now. And it's not that GPS systems are inaccurate, it's that the GPS you have in your car or phone is not the best we have, otherwise you would be paying about $1000 for a GPS. In fact, the GPS system they use at CERN is so accurate that they used it to test the speed of neutrinos. Fathom that.

E=MC² being incorrect (or needs slight altering) means we have to reconsider the difference between mass (M) and energy (E) and how it is effected by a constant cosmic speed (C, which is currently the speed of light).

My biggest concern about this matter at CERN is the reactions from people like CNN and the general public, in that they think science is some sort of religion. That scientists believe in their theories as much as Christians or Muslims believe in their holy books. Some people are thinking this means science is debunk, and Einstein, the prophet of science, was wrong. (By the way, there is already a book that has been in circulation for a few years called What Einstein Got Wrong, so it's not even that big of a deal he got some stuff wrong. In fact, he had to have known it was coming).

On Reddit someone posted : "They're scientists, not Creationists." And this is exactly the point. Science holds the theories that best explains data we currently have, and if a better theory comes along, then it is generally adopted. Global warming may not be the best theory, but it is the best we have now, and if something better comes along, then we will adopt it. It doesn't matter if Einstein was incorrect. He would be thrilled to find out something goes faster than light, and that we have data to prove it. That's how science works.

The problem isn't science or religion. The problem is the general public. There are a lot of interesting things going on in modern science on brain research, physics, biology, chemistry, geology, cosmology, parapsychology, and so forth, all of which will make your entire high school science education become a total lie. If only some of us would pick up Discover magazine or Scientific America, or just read the Science section of your newspaper. We don't even have to read it, just skim it and many of us will be updated on a good chunk of current knowledge.

Wired Science Link

It doesn't disprove science, it disproves Genesis 1 : 3. It need to be rewritten as : "Then there were neutrinos, and God said, 'Let there be light!'"

I Love This Country and I'm not a Republican

Why do Conservatives think they're the only ones who love this country? Why do they think they're the only ones who are actual Americans, and everyone else who is not a white, Christian, native born American can just go die (literally)? More interesting, the questions that should be asked reflect a sense of contradiction between the right-wing Americans and traditional American ideology.

American is one of (if not the only) country ever founded on reason. And as a basic right we were given, by governmental law, the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The only condition to this Constitutional right is that your pursuit of happiness cannot impede on anyone else's pursuit of happiness. That is a basic right, not privilege; a Constitutional right we were all given when we received our certificate of American citizenship. So if your pursuit of happiness entitled you to wear ass-less chaps in a gay pride parade, then that is your right. Now, does two men marrying, or two women marrying impede on anyone's pursuit of happiness? The only way gay marriage will impede on someone's pursuit of happiness is if they go out of their way to let it upset them.

There's too much liberal propaganda in circulation for me to make a real point here, so let me get a little bit dirty in getting this point across. Let's say the KKK wanted to hold a White Power rally on the Washington Mall. Does that impede on anyone's pursuit of happiness? Only if they let it. They don't have to go to the rally if they don't like racist propaganda. Just stay home and watch MSNBC like I would. If you go to the rally and become offend, then, well, that's your fault (unless you are there to pursue your happiness by protesting against them). Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions in this country, no matter how hateful and discriminatory those beliefs are. You're entitled to rally your opinion of God, but you are not entitled to ring my doorbell at 7 AM to tell me about your idea of God.

But the right-wing Americans think that Atheists, homosexuals, immigrants, liberals, non-Caucasians, Muslims, et cetera somehow do not love this country. And to make a point of how much Conservatives love this country more than anyone else they parade a patriotic facade. They have to enforce and repetitively reenforce an image of what an American patriot is, so that that model fits them, and only them. Essentially, they are in patriotic drag.

I have to beg the question : are Republicans even American in their ideology? Are they even patriotic? Or are they just anti-Americans sporting in American drag? Are they just men in women's clothes?

Glen Beck went off on the new Levi commercial with its theme of revolution and to be "original" (whatever that means). He condemned it as anti-American. Is it? Scott Sworts, in his Cult of the Dead Birds blog, discusses how this country was founded on revolution. So is "revolution" anti-American? Or is revolution a thing of America's past? Neither is anti-American. If fact, it is absolutely American.

The Declaration of Independence says :

"...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

By gods (I have to be fair to everyone's god), revolution is in the very foundation of American Independence. I'm sure if Thomas Jefferson were alive today (or any Found Father), he would just go crawl in a corner and cry about the absolutely unpatriotic, anti-American ideologies the GOP sports around as the only way to be American. I think I'm going to go crawl in a corner and cry.

And let's not forget how un-Christ-like these "patriots" are.

Choice : The New Best Thing

Many of us have noticed, and often feel a bit of disgust toward right-wing nutcases protesting abortion in front of schools and clinics. They boycott, pester, insult, assault, and act out violently towards clinics, women who have had abortions, and anyone who has had any association with abortions (even companies that deliver office supplies to clinics). It's really quite gut-wrenching to hear about these events and absolutely uncalled for actions. These protestors will go so far as to list names, phone numbers, and emails of individuals associated with abortion clinic in order to entice others to call and email these people to voice a complaint.

On the Rachael Maddow Show this evening a victim of these right-winged extremists was on the show with a bit on what he started to counteract these annoyances. Tom Stave is a business man who rents a property he owns to an abortion clinic, and had his name and number presented at a protest. Following numerous calls and emails he got a few friends to help him with a project. That project is called the Voice of Choice.

The Voice of Choice is a volunteer campaign that, so far, 5000 people globally have joined. These people exchange through their networks the names, numbers, and email addresses of any individuals who have called or emailed people, companies, clinics, communities, and families with an association to abortions. Then they call and email them constantly to voice their opinion about the option of choice (peacefully and politely).

This makes me so happy. Like, really happy. I can barely contain my excitement. Not so we can continue killing babies (let's admit it, we're killing babies), but because now we can start to have the choice again of having a child or not, without the fear of being victimized by these nutcases. It's okay for them to have the opinion of Pro-Life, but do they have to harass people for it? Do they really want women to bring back the coat hanger abortions? ("Alleyway" abortions were one of the highest causes of female deaths in the US before Roe vs. Wade). Many of these Pro-Lifers are asking to be taken off the call and email lists, but don't know that the list is viral and can't be stopped.

Not only that, but we can use their scare tactics against them. It's kind of like those Atheists who went around a predominantly Jehovah's Witness neighborhood at 7 AM to tell them about why there is no God. It's the Golden Rule turned on its head : do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Apparently Pro-Life activists follow that rule (which Jesus taught them), that is up until it is actually done back to them.

This is all really a matter of choice. It is something fundamental to the happiness we all search for in our lives. To have any choice taken from us is an impediment on our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which is precisely why it is in our Constitution. (Of course, too many choices can impede our ability to make choices, but for that stuff you can just read Barry Schwartz's Paradox of Choice). Roe vs. Wade illustrated to us that it was absolutely inhumane to force a woman who cannot support herself, much less a child, and doesn't want a child, living in a poor, African American neighborhood surrounded by violence and drugs. Thus, abortion became legal (and consequently, 20 years later, crime levels plummeted; read Super Freakonomics).

Now we just need to find a way to fight against the abolishment of Social Security, end wars, fight terrorism, and many other silly things using the same tactics they use, but against them. To fight fire with fire, because it seems to be working for Stave and the Voice of Choice.

Voice of Choice, can be accessed here :
http://www.vochoice.org/

Life is sacred, until that life exits the vaginal canal.

Congratulations! You're Born! Now You Can Die

I'm still reflecting on the 30 year old man who died at the GOP debates. I discussed this in my last post, but I want to explore the further implications of the right live and die in this country. Obviously, the Republicans feel that a 30 year old man of good health, should he come down with a life-threatening illness and has no health insurance, should die. Of course, if you don't have health insurance (regardless of your position in life), then you can just go die. You deserve it.

Hold it now, wait a minute... if you're not born yet, then you aren't allowed to die. The anti-abortion movement (largely represented by Conservatives) leans on the idea of "life is sacred", that is unless you have been born and don't have health insurance.

But wait! There's more! If you can't make a decision yourself to end your life, then you have to live. Consider Terri Schiavo, who was forced to be kept alive on feeding tubes with numerous, expensive, life-prolonging measures undertaken to keep her alive in a vegetative state. She had no conscious choice whether she wanted to live or die as a vegetable. In fact, a law was enacted to keep her alive, while the husband has to continue paying for expensive care and treatment for his brain-dead wife (her parents think she's conscious).

So, the lesson to be learned is : if you are a fetus or a vegetable, then you are forced to live. If you aren't a fetus or a vegetable, and don't have insurance, you are going to die whether you like it or not.

Why the contradiction on the proponents of life and death and the right to either? It doesn't seem to make any logical sense that you aren't allowed to die if you haven't exited the vaginal canal, because life is sacred; but you aren't allowed to live if you don't have insurance, because... well, I don't know why. I can't say I actually have an answer to this. Maybe it is just an example of how the Conservative mind works.

A recent study has shown (not exclusively, but has some strong evidence) that Conservatives have a more active amygdala (a part of the brain associated with emotions), while Liberals use more of their anterior cingulate cortex (which is associated with logic). Perhaps this can shed some light on the blatant contradictions of the Republican Party, and why they act the way they do (i.e. like a bunch of nutcases).

When does life begin :
Catholic : At the moment of conception.
Baptist : When one is baptized and born in the light of Jesus!
Jew : When the kids move out and the dog finally dies.

Jesus Was a Socialist

Conservatives in this nation have a really poor understanding of two things that they consider to the foundation of their views : Jesus and socialism. The former is a so-called "role model", and the latter is what they strive against as if it was the devil himself. The GOP is constantly asserting Obama is proposing and enacting (when he can) socialist policies, when, in fact, the GOP probably has a very limited understanding of what socialism is.

Take this example : about a year ago in an architecture discussion a fellow peer started the whole sustainable society advocacy (following the lines of James Kunstler's ideology). He claimed that we, as a society, need to be less concerned about ourselves, and more concerned about the community. While a great idea, I told him to pick up a copy of the Communist Manifesto, because he was advocating communism. He snapped back at me that it's not communism, because "communism is bad". Communism, which is derived from "commune" or "community" is an a social / political system that is driven towards the idea of equality amongst individuals and groups, where the community is stronger than the individual. It's not that he was stupid, which is not the case. The point is we are brought up in a society where certain things are "bad", and we don't question why they are "bad", regardless if they are bad or not. He didn't know he was advocating communism, and because of his ignorance to subject, all he knew about communism is that it is "bad".

The same goes for Conservatives and socialism. And while Jesus is their role model, they  most certainly are not Christ-like. Not just because they are some of the most hateful, spiteful, greedy, lustful (and all the seven deadly sins) people I have ever known, it's because they advocate capitalism and despise socialism. What they don't realize is that Jesus was a socialist. If we look at Jesus' message, we can gather this very quickly.

Towards the end of the GOP Candidatial Debate just a few days ago, there was a huge deal over healthcare in this nation (i.e Obamacare). When candidate Ron Paul was asked if a man didn't have health insurance and became ill, should the government help him? And what did the crowd of "Christians" do? They shouted NO! They would let him die (but of course all fetuses have to live!). So, now, I have to ask : what would Jesus do? Well, here is what Jesus did do :

That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed. The whole town gathered at the door, and Jesus healed many who had various diseases. He also drove out many demons, but he would not let the demons speak because they knew who he was.
Mark 1 : 32 - 34

While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along who was covered with leprosy. When he saw Jesus, he fell with his face to the ground and begged him, "Lord, if you are willing, you can make be clean."
Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man, "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!" And immediately the leprosy left him.
Luke 5 : 12 - 13

Now did any of these people have health insurance? Let me be as blunt as possible : fuck no. They were sick, poor, lonely beggars who were absolutely hopeless. Did Jesus ask for their insurance information? Did he ask them for money? Did he ask why he should even bother? No, because he was Jesus, and he was far better of a person than any Christian today, by a very long shot. (Let me point out that I do know a few actually good Christians, and I can count them all on one hand if I was missing two fingers and a thumb).

And if healthcare for everyone (regardless of who they are, regardless of age, race, gender, current health condition, et cetera) is socialist, then at the very least, it is Christ-like. I'm certain Jesus would cry in shame that his followers 2000 years after him have embraced the very antithesis of what he preached. And I cry in shame because of it as well.

And let's not even get started on welfare, corporation despotism, unregulated businesses, education, governance, and economics.

"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
~Mahatma Gandhi

The Differences of Skin and Culture

I come from a part of the Country that is predominantly racist, that is the South. I grew up around a considerable amount of racism (implicit and explicit) for about 22 years of my life. I myself, for many years had racial tendencies which propagated inside of my being from living in such a culture for so long. It wasn't until I came to the realization that whites, blacks, yellows, reds, whatever... all of our blood is the same color, so why should we care if our skins are different colors? I literally had to take my Southern heritage into a darkened alley and stab it to death in order to save what is left of my soul, then flee to New England.

When I arrived in New England I expected to not have to deal with racism so badly. I figured it would exist in some ways, but nothing as overt as what exists in the South. I encountered something equally as bad : mentioning race is taboo. At one time I came home and mentioned to my roommates something an African American girl I worked with had done, in which I described her as "black". They gasped in horror and asked in a snarky manner, "What does being black have to do with it?" It's descriptive, not name calling. There's a difference. And the avoidance of racial descriptions are practically ubiquitous with most of my experience in New England, that is until a crime has been committed, and even then it is attempted to avoid.

Not wanting to mention race is equally as bad as unconditionally judging persons of another race. Not being allowed to even describe someone of as being "African American" or "Hispanic" makes the whole topic of racial issues in this country completely closed to discourse. How are we ever expected to overcome our racial, religious, political, social, gender, sexual orientation, and cultural differences if we can't even talk about it? (Thank goodness I moved to Colorado, where these discussions can actually occur and no one get upset, so long as one refrains from derogatory phrasing).

I think this is one of the primary problems with the GOP and the politics in America today. I'm convinced that most of the Republican Party hates Obama because he's a black man in the Oval Office. But, of course, they have to say, "I don't care if he's black. I just don't like his politics." Well then, what about his politics do you not like? Obamacare? Okay then, what about Obamacare don't you like? Still thinking? Do you even know enough about how it works in order to not like it?

If the GOP would just admit they don't like a black man in the office, then we could actually discuss the issues, rather than battling racial wars with American taxpayers' dollars via political issues. And while I'm on the level of controversy I am at right now, let me ask : does anyone else think that the only reason the GOP nominated Cain was so they won't look like a bunch of racists? Or is that just me?

Racial issues are one of those critical issues in America that needs to be talked about. We will never get past any of this unconditional hate of the Other unless we talk about it.

The critical thing here to learn about race is not about epidermal melatonin, but about culture. Latino is not a race. Latinos can be dark color of skin, mocha, tan, or full-out white. Latino is a culture. The same goes for African Americans, Asian American, Creole, Native American, et cetera. These issues should have absolutely nothing to do with skin color, but about the cultures that define these people. And because of our ignorance we either avoid the issue for seeming racist if we broach the problem, or we just be racist. And what a sad bifurcation that is.

"You belong to the people who taught you the world. And my heart, my heart is Mexican."
~A Day Without A Mexican

 

Whoa, Man, Like The Movie Inception Will Totally Twist Your Idea of Reality...

I must have been one of very few people who responded to the twisted nature of Christopher Nolan's Inception in a way that did not have anything to do with the concept of reality. When I was first told to watch it, I was told that "It will totally twist your idea of reality". Is that right? Sorry, buddy, but my idea of reality is far stranger than that. In fact, it's concept of reality is not all that twisted. And let me settle the debate : he never woke up from the dream. Like Bach's Little Harmonic Labyrinth, Dom never goes back through all the layers of dreams, and neither did Saito. And whose to say he was ever awake to begin with? What if the layer we call "reality" was nothing more than REM sleep? But I don't wish dwell on this.

The truly twisted aspect of Inception that is completely ignored is the concept of concepts. What are ideas? Where do they come from? Are they parthenogenic? That is, can they spawn themselves from nothing? Ex nobo? The movie presents two points of view : Arthur claims that the source of any idea can be traced, even subconsciously; Dom claims it is possible to place an idea into someone's mind and that they think it was their own (i.e. parthenogenesis). If Arthur is correct, then we have to ask the question : where do ideas come from in the first place? If we get ideas from other sources, then what is the mother of all ideas? What is the matrix concept? There had to be a point where there were no ideas (i.e. before the occurrence of life on this planet), so some ideas had to arise autonomously. Dom illustrates that the source is probably hidden, but someone else is planting it there to seem autonomously spawned; a sort of Jacobian control in Abram's Lost. This is the idea that the mother source of ideas has given you an idea, as if it was your own. Dom's point of view is the very same idea the Greeks had of the Muses, or what the Romans called the genius.

What is of more concern in this concept of parthenogenic ideas is that they do spawn autonomous. And one does not even need to be dreaming for it to occur, or someone to plant it there, or for someone to say "Don't think about elephants" (in which we will think about elephants). Our minds spawn ideas ex nobo constantly in our waking life. It's called intrusive thoughts. I have talked about this before, because it is of grave concern to me.

Like Dom says, ideas are like a virus that can spread and infect everything, and eventually change an entire human being. Intrusive thoughts do this to us in our wake hours. An autonomously spawned thought will flutter through the brain and set off a chain of thoughts that completely change how we function and perceive the world. A married woman may be working at her computer and suddenly a thought of her having sex with another man flutters by. Immediately she may question why she had this thought. She may think this means she has a desire to sleep with someone else (and that she should, for some reason). Then that turns into her believing she's dissatisfied with her husband. Next she's thinking she's unhappy in her marriage. Next she's contemplating divorce, and pretty soon she's divorced. (Thanks Scott for the example). All of this because she had a thought that she had no control over. A thought that completely spawned itself, which spread like an infectious disease, and caused so much change in her life (that and probably some serious misunderstanding of Freud's theories in her high school psychology class).

One can only imagine how infectious intrusive thoughts can be. Especial when we consider persons with low confidence, depression, anorexia, unhappy marriages, persons thinking they are latent serial killers, fathers walking out on their families for no reason, cheating husbands and wives, suicidal bosses, homophobic TV preachers, et cetera.

Want to contemplate twisted things based on Inception? Just consider how your own brain, acting like a second mind (bicamerality) can change your very constitution of being by a parthenogenic, intrusive thought. And then question how much more different your life would be had you ignored it (i.e. rejecting an autonomous inception). Talk about paradox : an autonomous implanting of an idea into your mind that is not of your conscious control, but planted there by your very own mind itself. Now that right there itches my brain for the next few hours.

"I get weirder things than you in my breakfast cereal."
~Hal Sparks

September 11 : The Story of an Arab Neighborhood

One thing that heavily bothers me to this day about how Americans reacted to 9/11 is that most most Americans don't know that the site of the World Trade Centers used to be Little Syria, a thriving, predominantly Arab neighborhood. (I will hesitate to use the term "Muslim" here, simply because most of the immigrants to this area were Arab Christian, and only about 5% were Muslim). It was essentially the Arab equivalent of Little Italy and Chinatown. In the 1940's the area around the Brooklyn Bridge was evicted by Eminent Domain to make way for the bridge. In the 1960's the rest of Little Syria was evicted by Eminent Domain to make way for the World Trade Centers.

This is actually one of the primary reasons for the September 11 attacks on the WTC. Not only were the Twin Towers a symbol for American Capitalism and free enterprise (therefore, an attack on our way of life), but they were the cause of displacing an entire immigrant culture throughout the city. Of course, none of this justifies the actions of Al Qaeda, but it certainly sheds some light on their reasons for targeting these towers (even though most of Little Syria was Christian, but the Muslims did occupy the north side of the WTC site).

If they wanted death an destruction while strictly targeting Capitalism, they could have just as easily targeted the CitiCorp tower. The CitiCorp tower had a structural issue back in late 1970's shortly after its completion. With its peculiar column arrangement, the building was threatened to be blown over by a heavy wind. The building endured major strengthening while NYC prepared to the worst case scenario. Considering CitiCorp is a major banking enterprise, its in one of the densest areas of Midtown, and its still probably fairly easy to knock over, then it is obvious the WTC was target more a more retaliative purpose : for those displaced.

9/11 taught Americans many thing. It taught us to get along, work together, stay strong, be proud of being an American, and that these kind of horrors can happen to us. But the most important lesson of 9/11 goes unnoticed, simply because we hide the fact Little Syria existed there before. That lesson is : we must be conscious of our actions, no matter how great they may seem to us. Razing Little Syria was an abomination in the eyes of Al Qaeda, and further contributed to their hatred for Americans. While, on the other hand, Americans thought it was a great idea. We figured since the Arabs weren't integrating well into our culture, and that was prime real estate, we should just evict them so we can build some awesomely huge buildings. Because of these actions, great horrors befell us. (May I stress again, none of this is justified, on Al Qaeda's side nor America's side).

We need to be conscious of our actions, no matter how benign they seem us (who knows who we can piss off). We have learned from experience that failure to do so can have consequences of the greatest horrors and atrocities the human race is capable of.

For all those who died ten years ago.

Intrusive First World Thought Problems

For the longest time I thought I was just some sick, sadistic, evil individual. Anyone who knows me personally might have heard me comment every once and a while that I must be evil. This was mostly related to the fact that I would have disturbing scenes and images go through my head of killing people or hurting animals. It wasn't that I wanted to do those things, it was just that these things went through my head. I thought there was something wrong with me. Then I found out these are called "intrusive thoughts", and I'm not the only one with this problem.

Since intrusive thoughts are related to OCD, and since a large portion of the population has OCD (whether mild or intense), then a good chuck of the population has intrusive thoughts. Recent statistics show that about 78% of people with OCD have intrusive thoughts. This could mean that as much as 60% of the general population could have intrusive thoughts. Some psychologists think that as many has 95% of the population could have intrusive thoughts (once PTSD, postnatal depression, clinical depression, and anxiety are factored in). It could be that everyone has them, it's just than very few people will admit to it. So we are not evil, especially if we constitute the majority.

And it's not so much that intrusive thoughts are evil, it just one of those many odd things that the brain does. It may be related to hormones, either hormones out of balance or just hormone circulation in general. It may simply be human nature. If this is the case, then the question of evil goes out the window. From an ethics viewpoint, if one never acts on it, then there is no evil in it.

The problem is the morals viewpoint (if I may use Aristotle's definition, morals involve God, while ethics do not). The Catholic faith (and even most of the the Christian faith) leave us to believe that if we think it, then we have sinned. If one thinks about homosexual behavior, then you have sinned, regardless of acting on it. (This is ignoring the fact that most Christians I know say, "You can think it, but don't act on it", even though if you tell them you thought about it, then you will go to Hell). This sort of mentality is set up for failure with intrusive thoughts. Consider Fred Phelps : at some point in his life he may have had a homosexual intrusive thought, leading to the "God Hates Fags" picketing. And let's not forget Ted Haggard, though he was probably a homosexual already. In fact, this sort of mentality may be the root of many first world problems.

But more so than religious hatred, one has to consider some people, such as anorexics. Though they may have been completely healthy, with a healthy body fat level, they may have had an intrusive thought along the lines of: "I know I'm skinny, but is this little pooch of a belly fat? OMG!" People are starving in Africa and we are worried about a pooch of a belly. One must only look at teenager (first world) problems to see the full extent of hormonal related OCD intrusive thoughts. The problem isn't whiny wealthy people with first world problems. The problem is a lack of understanding our basic human nature.

As humans we are opportunistic, taking advantage of everything. We are warring, murderous, sexually explicit, xenophobic, and exploit anything we can. Though many of us choose not to engage in these actions, our human nature occasionally brings them to the forefront of thought, leaving many of us distraught.

Understanding that these thoughts are not in our control may be the key to living mentally healthier lives. Ever since I have found out what intrusive thoughts were I have been able to live a little freer, and they rarely visit me much these days.

"Get thee behind me, Satan. Thou art an offense unto to me."
~Matthew 16 : 23

The Vitruvian Three Points in a Transitional Culture

Anyone who has had at least two semesters of architecture school knows Vitruvius. Vitruvius wrote the oldest treatise on architecture we know of today (c. 50 BCE). He describes how temples, civic building and houses should be built, their proportions, their construction; as well, he discusses technology, history, and theory. Anyone who is familiar with Vitruvius knows what is called his "Three Points", which are : firmitas, utilitas, and venustas, or firm (i.e. structurally stable), utility (i.e. convenience or functional), and beauty.

In architectural discourse the first two are fairly straight forward; it is the latter that itches the mind of so many architectural theorists. While the discussion of beauty has long been the primary discussion in architectural theory, no one can ever seem to come to a conclusion of what a subject term such as "beauty" is suppose to mean (apparently architects don't know what is beautiful).

While I could certainly entertain what others have thought on the subject of "what is beauty?" I don't care to. Beauty is subjective... get over it. But what is interesting about the Vitruvian three points is how they apply to the architecture of today, and, most importantly, how architecture survives.

Consider this : if a wealthy CEO of some large corporation or another wants to build a new skyscraper, but there is a building already on the site this CEO likes, would the possibility of saving this structure be entertained? Would it matter if it was razed to the ground so they have a tableau raza to work with? If the existing building was structurally unsafe, then it would mean more money to save it (as well as creating obstacles in design and construction). DEMO! If the building was a circulation nightmare, or a solid concrete structure that would not allow for changing the placement of walls and is absolutely static, then it would be too much of a hassle to refit the building for new uses. DEMO! Or if it was absolutely the most godawful thing to look at, then why would anyone want to save an ugly building? DEMO!

The Vitruvian three points has little to do with defining architecture today. Rather architecture is something that a building has to grow into. One no longer erects a building and then the world cries, "It's architecture!" No, what makes a building architecture is that it has survived a period of being unloved. All buildings go through periods of being unloved. The Square Colosseum in the EUR of Rome is a fine example of an unloved building. Since the fall of Mussolini the building has stood barren and gated off. But the Italian people probably recognize that it is a fairly nice building and very iconic, but they want it's Fascist significance to die before they begin to reuse it. So it remains unloved, but looks like it might survive this lonely period of its life. Surviving that is what will define the Square Colosseum as architecture, not because historians of architecture say it is, but because it survives due to the three points. It's stable, convenient, and quite beautiful. Why demolish it?

That is how our temporary, mobile, transitional society will define its architecture. We can no longer build Architecture (with a capital A). The building just has to become architecture over time, so long as it survives our need to constantly change our environs at extraordinary rates.

"Nobody loves me." ~Square Colosseum

Fear and Loathing in the South (without Drugs)

So what is culture? This is a question my fellow classmates and I get consistently in our architectural theory class. There are many interpretations, and the debate seems to be more loose and open with the increasing potency of the American melting pot and with globalization. The definition I would like to use here comes from Geertz, in which culture may be defined as a system of beliefs, traditions, and practices that become naturalized within a group of people. Essentially, a group of people live a systems of beliefs and rituals to the point that it becomes natural to them. They do not question it. It becomes absolute, and it is absolute truth.

That's not to say that it can never be questioned, but given that these beliefs and rituals become so primary in how people live and function in a give group of people, there is no way one can question these practices. Therefore, it becomes naturalized.

But with the floodgates opened across the world allowing for more intercultural environs, we all have our "culture", our unquestioned beliefs, open to question. It may not be entirely that each one of us asks if our God is the right God? Or is their family values better than ours? But it is open to question. This is a terrifying moment for many people, simply because their way of life is suddenly not absolute. Beliefs are addicting. If you don't belief that, then try quiting one of your beliefs. They're hard to let go of.

This is where I think a lot of Americans shut down. An intrusive thought may have a fleeting moment in the foreground of consciousness, something like, "What if I'm wrong and God is a superstition?" At that moment they shut the door on everything. Or a man gets a stray erection when his male superior pats him on the back. Then they shut down and become a right-wing, Evangelical, homophobic nutcase. Whether or not they are actually homosexual, because of a stray erection they shut down and go try and destroy something that is entirely accidental. (No one has control over intrusive thoughts. That's why they're called "intrusive").

But now with the emergence of interracial marriages, gay marriages, intercultural sharing of values, persons of one cultural identity switching to another, et cetera the problem becomes an absolutist fear of the Other. This is something I find very strong in the Southeastern United States. Because of the presences of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, and so forth, their cultural beliefs of God are now up for question. There are other ways to think about God and that scares the living hell out of them. (I'm from South Carolina, so I would know).

But if their idea of "deity" is brought up to question, then they shut down, and pull the trump-all-card : "That's just what I believe!" Even saying "that's what I believe" signifies that the question has been opened up. Now it is no longer a "culture", it's just a "drag show". One no longer lives and identity, but wears and identity. They have to assert this identity, or that identity, and wear it. And it's not just wearing it, it's flaunting it!

One is not heterosexual anymore, they go "drag" in a heterosexual identity. One is no longer Christian, they go "drag" in a Christian outfit. And the same goes for homosexuals, Pagans, nerds, Americans, liberals, Republicans, yuppies, and so forth. The only difference is some people, such as homosexuals and liberals, aren't afraid of the fact they are in drag of an identity they created. It's what the Greeks called the persona (literally "mask"), and we all wear them. Some people are just more afraid of the fact they wear a mask. And that contributes to why so many Southerns are some of the most miserable people I have ever met. This, I'm convinced, is the source of Southerns' fear and loathing of the Other.

"Justifying violence. Citing from the Holy book. Preaching hatred in the Name of God."
~Dream Theater.