Damnesty - The Ruminator's Digest
Time 2021-10-29 08:08:00Web Name: Damnesty - The Ruminator's Digest
WebSite: http://damnesty.blogspot.com
ID:214632
Keywords:
The,Damnesty,Digest,Ruminator,Description:
keywords: description: Damnesty - The Ruminator's DigestSavour my intellectual garbage, packed in short op-ed pieces on anything of political, ethical, or sexual interest.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006 Court rules: Lesbian rape doesn't quite c(o)unt Yesterday Sarah Singley, a 28-year-old substitute teacher pleaded guilty, on the count of reckless endangerment, to having a sexual relationship with a female student she met at school. "A charge of corruption of minors was dropped as part of the plea deal, records say.""Singley met the 16-year-old girl while working as a substitute teacher at her school in October 2003, records say. The school where Singley met was not specified, but the charges were filed by Bethlehem Township police.In January 2004, Singley and the girl began a romantic relationship and had sex several times at parks in Bethlehem Township and at motels around the area, records say. The girl contacted police in March 2005, records say."
It's intriguing to see that when a decent lesbian teacher seduces a student of hers, who is in an asymmetrical power relationship with her, she receives a plea deal after the victim approaches the police. If this would have been a man, statutory rape charges would have been raised even without the victim's report. Why this hypocricy favouring same-sex rape over heterosexual rape?
The judge seems to assume that the girl may have been impressionable but that she was not "corrupted". We can only speculate on the nature of their sexual relationship, but why would cunnilingus be less "corrupting" than heterosexual penetration? Is "corruption" measured in the physical penetration as volume filled? Is a big black guy in a romantic relationship with an Asian of petite frame more corrupting than a small asian guy romancing a big-booty black chic? What about sweet, attentive, flowery sex that treats the victim like a delicate rose versus rough, athletic, acts of psychological abreaction?
Or perhaps there actually was penetration but it is considered more consensual since both parties are of the fairer sex, hence there is less of a power differential. Then again, a lot of guys who get jailed for statutory rape go for teenage girls precisely because they are too small in build and lacking in confidence to engage women their own age. I've seen some butch dykes that are pretty intimidating to the average man, let alone to a sixteen year old girl. If they were to use their tongues, hands, or feet, ...I imagine..., it could feel rather intrusive to an untouched archetype of innocence. And a lot of toys on the market, like a cold, 12-inch steel cylinder, must corrupt a young vixen more than a natural penis.
And what about the things that the sixteen year old girl was lured into performing for the teacher? Going down on her is definitely more corrupting, forcing her face into a replica of her own sexuality, than giving a guy a handjob. And what if she was merely acquiescing to same-sex relations because of the asymmetry in power? Her relationships towards men and women might be screwed up for the rest of her life. This could be some kind of early lesbian recruitment method: get them before the men do, indoctrinate them with feminist critique, pop postmodernism and post-colonial theory, and their birkenstocks will never want to step foot in a straight place again. They'll go organic for the rest of their lives. And those aren't the kinds of lesbians we like. They are only cool if we men can live under the impression that they could be converted by the right guy, or, minimally, that we could join the action of two twin-style blondes.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 7:00 PM0 comments Thursday, December 08, 2005 A reflection on: Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions asserts a view that many would argue is the prevalent theme of modern times. Kuhn’s depiction of the structure of scientific revolution revolves around the belief that older paradigms are replaced in whole or in part by a new one which is different and incompatible. The book allots a hefty portion of its length to description of a paradigm’s components, how it comes to be, how it relates to “normal science,” why such developments are considered crises in the field, and what implications they have on adherents to previous views in light of new, challenging discoveries. In this mere reflection I have chosen to avoid reiteration, and rather react to what are considered Kuhn’s applications of the theory. While reading I came across instances of comparison by Kuhn, to political as well as academic revolutions.
What surprised me was his suggestion that historically, those who achieve innovative paradigms have generally been very young in age or simply new to the field whose paradigm they changed. This statement is quite crucial, as Kuhn argued that these transitions to new paradigms are, in fact, scientific revolutions in essence. After contemplating this it began to make sense—if the social dynamic within the scientific community is characterized by adherence to norms, and therefore careers are commonly dropped due to intimidation, then it would require a young, fairly unprejudiced, fresh mind to fearlessly propose a contradicting theory. Likewise, the same deed would be contributed by a newcomer to a field. Young or new to the field translates to a lack of restrictions. Such a situation provides channels for creative, innovative paradigms to take place.
The otherwise reluctance to diverge from the common paradigm when a new one topples the old in a time of “tension and crisis,” is apparently reflected in many instances. One of which includes Kuhn’s apparent frustration with academic textbooks and their supposed characterization as normal science; which is "…research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice"(10). Kuhn argues that textbooks report new innovations and give credit to the research’s predecessors as having worked on the data, which in his view, creates the common belief that the innovation has been pieced together through time and the innovation was arrived at through a process of building up. Kuhn argues that this disguises scientific revolution as a function and misleads everyone. This concept is regarded as crucial and disturbing because of the tendency for textbooks to serve as the authoritative sources on scientific history. This reminded me of Feyerabe’s work that we read in class. His argument against traditional forms of science as it is taught in schools seems somewhat similar to Kuhn’s argument regarding textbooks. Feyerabe argued that we are restricted according to the norms imposed by our curriculums. Although he was a proponent of introducing wizardry and mystical science into the classroom (and nonetheless had a grudge against scientists who are “overpaid” and given unwarranted sex appeal), he still rung a bell while reading Kuhn. They both are unhappy with current textbook content and like Kuhn proposed emphasis on scientific revolution as a function, Feyerabe proposed new forms of science be introduced and given more credit—and perhaps this in his view would give way to other scientific revolutions in time to come.
Another application of Kuhn’s theory which sounded interesting was his interpretation of political revolution as very similar to scientific revolution. He asserts that political revolutions begin when people loose confidence in the existing institutions and their ability of such institutions to face the problems posed by society. He adds that these innovative institutions begin to challenge the old ones and during the time of actual revolution, at the peak of the crisis, there is a sense of uncertainty towards any governing institution (in any form) and all is momentarily stagnant. In such a situation the population (actually a small segment of it) is pressed to form a new proposal for government and functioning of society. Soon after, a new form of government—a new paradigm—has been created and essentially, a political revolution has occurred. Perhaps more interesting is his application of the scientific revolution to the political revolution’s struggle to reach this new paradigm. Like scientists, parties form in polarization where one represents the old way and one represents the new. Eventually the new paradigm will have to substitute for the old one. The debate is fierce and requires persuasion and logic, as previous paradigms cannot be used because they rely on paradigms that have been challenged and rendered non-existent.
An interesting branch of this thought that came to mind, and seems hard to tackle, is the application of this to modern times. It was mentioned that Kuhn’s views were not well received then (1950s and 1960s), but have come to be now—assumingly they are more valid. However, in the post 9/11 world this might not be the case. In other words, his claim that scientific revolution is similar, if not reflective of political revolutions is not so clear cut. It is well understood that historically religion often contradicted science and vice-versa. This was exemplified by the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. Today the world faces the challenge of theocracies. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq are cases where the structure of scientific revolution, in my opinion, cannot apply. A big question looms as to whether or not democracy is compatible with a Muslim theocracy. It does not seem as though people unsatisfied with the institutions of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq will be able to even come close to the point of “momentary stagnation,” where no institutions rules for a period of time. Islamic government does not, to my knowledge, allow for new paradigms as do scientific institutions. Science is debatable, ever-changing, and open to complete contemplation and replacement. Religion on the other hand is not according to proponents of theocracy with a clear agenda. The spoken word of the divine and the ancient texts passed down are non-debatable. The only instance of paradigm collision among the three countries which I mentioned is Iraq—and that situation was created not by the people, but by an outside force. And regardless, the period of stagnation or the pinnacle peak has occurred and remained for over a year now. As for Iran, it was not always a theocracy and true a revolution did in fact occur, producing its current status. But was the revolution process democratic and representative as Kuhn asserts that scientific revolutions are? It is in this sense that I do not think Kuhn’s comparison of the structure of scientific revolution to political science is valid today across the board. Regardless, this part of Kuhn’s work is still quite applicable as a foundation for which to study political science. It provides a clear framework to describe scientific revolution in the classical sense but need to be cross-checked for external validity when applied in such a broad sense.
Read more! # posted by jdawg @ 5:01 PM0 comments Wednesday, December 07, 2005 Capitalism, the globalization of technology, and their role in the spread of democratic principles within oppressive regimes
While watching a CNN Special Report on <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />
In order to utilize the scientific method in unraveling this social/political phenomenon underlying the situation, the proposed research project will aim to test a specific theory, that “Democratic-Capitalist societies, with their continuous globalization of information and technologies, have inherently spread their ideas and principles to oppressed peoples who are victims of outdated and authoritarian regimes.” In essence, this theory under critical evaluation will possibly uncover whether or not technology is actually playing a role in the growing dissension, and in what ways technology has seeped into the ‘wrong’ hands in the seemingly impermeable North Korean territory.
As the theory seeks to evaluate the depth of technology’s role in any fermenting attempts at revolution, a review of contemporary scholarship regarding the issue is necessary. In a TIME Magazine article titled, “Who Mattered and Why,” Walter Isaacson discusses the most influential people, events, and developments as the millennium approached. In one section he refers to the last century as encompassed by specifically one of three main themes: “The explosion of scientific and technical knowledge that unveiled the mysteries of the universe and helped secure the triumph of freedom by unleashing the power of free minds and free markets” (Isaacson, 48). He explains that free minds and free markets triumphed over fascism and communism, and that the globalization of technologies made possibilities of distribution of information infinite and nearly unrestricted. Isaacson used the historical examples of the printing press’ debut and its direct involvement in the Reformation, as well as the Renaissance, with the permitted flow of ideas from one place to another, to highlight the human trend of a slow but continuous struggle for freedom. Isaacson refers to several recent examples of technology’s role in the advancement of the cause of freedom:
<?xml:namespace prefix = o />
In 1989 workers in
Portraying the globalization of technology as the “surest foe of totalitarianism in this century,” Isaacson’s studies reflect some promise for people under oppressive rule throughout the world.
In an article in Dialogue ">Wojtek Lamentowicz predicts that “increasing pressure from without of the nation-state may curtail the state
monopoly of control within the borders of its territory” (Lamentowicz, 5). The writer, addressing ‘rationalism of post-modernity,’ argues that in general, the developing limitations of sovereignty, accountability, and legitimacy of political systems could contribute to a feeling that the civil society and national government are weak—a negative result in the eyes of the author. Yet, the application of this thought to the North Korean narrative could produce the dissidents’ desired results. Nonetheless, he states that “Globalization perceived as an open market offers a bait and switch,” which presumably could mean an outlet for opposition—and perhaps this it has become (Lamentowicz, 75). Similar to Isaacson, Lamentowicz theorizes that the inherent, positive results of globalized technology are linked with pro-market reforms in authoritarian countries, and are motivating such leaders to eventually democratize. This clearly is not the case with Kim Jong-Il, but seems to be the case with the citizens under his rule, taking matters into their own hands. It is also notable that for the outsiders looking into
The idea that technology is also helping outsiders look into these countries with concern offers ‘progressive uses’ of the internet and other communication mediums in terms of discussing infinite topics and the influence it could have on implementing change. In an article in Third World Quarterly, Jason Abbott describes the internet as providing the dissemination of documents, availability of audio and video sources, petitions, software, and as a “medium for organizing more traditional forms of protest” (Abbott, 99). This implies that the web and its globalized access, provides a global forum for political groups and sympathetic audiences to gain momentum in traditional ways but at an accelerated pace. The implications of this snowball effect are summarized in the statement that “New information technologies threaten sovereigns that depend on maximum political, economic, and cultural control over their peoples,” which could suggest in this case that regimes such as Kim Jong-Il’s will eventually cease to ensure their own control by controlling newspapers, radio and television broadcasts (Abbott, 99). Simply put, this is because a global forum reaching endless depths of civilization is naturally out of any one’s control and therefore manipulation becomes unattainable.
Previous literature revolving around or linked to the theory at hand show several examples of interest in the subject. Much hypothesizing, prediction and analyses have been made regarding the issue; the question now is the methodological evaluation of the theory in reality. If implemented, this research project will hopefully test the links, if any, between globalization of technology and the spread of liberal, democratic ideals. If true, then a precedent of acknowledgment will be set that democratic, capitalist societies, through their liberal and naturally open trade are actually making it easier for oppressed people’s opposition to gain momentum. In the case of
This research project could quite possibly shed positive light on what seems to be the inescapable, modern phenomenon of globalization. It will determine whether or not its main thrusts, capitalism and democracy, are influencing pro-freedom movements within
This project has already gained a vast supply of necessary support of several interested partners. We have many pro-democracy advocate groups who are willing to donate money and technicalities to our team: The Democracy Center (http://www.democracyctr.org/), The Center for Digital Democracy (http://www.democraticmedia.org/), Reporters Without Borders (http://www.rsf.org/content.php3), as well as CNN, which has offered to grant us communication with those who participated in their documentary.
The research design itself will utilize the aforementioned sponsors to the best of our ability. Understanding that sampling and sample designs are directly related to the concept of research validity, and that one needs valid samples for valid studies; we intend to infer validity for our study by approaching the characteristics of the population—the North Korean people. For statistical purposes, our sample size will have to be more than 36 people, yet depending on financial circumstances we will aim to include many more. Our parameters will include persons throughout the population, while our sample subset will have to be a select few who are willing to participate. At this point our sample population will be finite, as we will have a set sampling frame of individual units. Given this type of probability sampling, it will thus be difficult to avoid biased samples as those willing to participate will likely have a specific agenda. Yet if we can secretly approach random civilians, we will limit the appearance of skewed results.
Many refugees living outside of
The project will involve face to face interviews with North Korean dissidents in private, formal settings. In a formal setting we can interview and question accordingly to get a feel for whether or not people are growing in resistance to Kim Jong Il, and whether or not technology has helped them. If the interviews take place in an informal setting, we would simply observe how much dissent is being practiced—yet this would be impossible considering limitations of access. The actual data collection will thus utilize both survey research and Secondary Data Analysis. Survey research will allow us to personally ask refugees and escapees how much of the dissent they saw as spawned by technological advances, what role technology played, and whether or not they noticed an acceleration of opposition in recent times.
The personal interviews conducted over a period of time will be recorded by sound (as most people will fear having their face on camera). Voices and images will be digitally altered. Questions will be asked that require both little inference and a lot of inference, reflecting the utilization of a mixed form of face-to-face interview. The only aspects requiring more inference will be when people describe their respective stories and examples of using/witnessing people use technology to oppose the leadership. Our team will use a controlled, observational method in order to structure the interviews so that the same information is requested from each participant. Yet, questions will also be posed in a way that will allow an open-ended response from them if necessary.
The actual form of research the team will use is known as the practice of triangulation; the use of two or more methods of observation and data collection, in order to test the same hypothesis. It is agreed that this method will help to reach more accurate statistics. As each method represents its own lens or viewpoint, the more used, the more sound the results. It is acknowledged that the personal interviews to be conducted, which mix various structures and contain non-directive strategies, grant potential for bias, yet we feel that this way we will be able to get the highest response rate, have full control over the environment, and implement greater flexibility with our diverse participants. The second side of our triangulate method will utilize structured surveys. To avoid fallacies commonly attributed to these we will further implement less controlled, direct observation. This will allow our team to note body language, spatial behavior, language and word content, as well as extra-linguistic behavior—emotion through voice. The third side of our method includes Secondary Analysis in order to review what few cases of dissent have been recorded/punished for, in N. Korea, and yield accurate interpretations of the means they used to oppose. The three-sided approach will provide alternative forms of data inputs which can fill in blanks left by the other approaches.
“Democratic-Capitalist societies, with their continuous globalization of information and technologies, have inherently spread their ideas and principles to oppressed peoples who are victims of outdates and authoritarian regimes.” – The various methods used to test this theory will provide an answer, creating a win-win situation regardless of the outcome. Whether it will provide a new means for oppressed people to take control themselves, provide an official report on what the North Korean people feel, judge the enthusiasm for reform, or provide insight for institutions while gauging their options, this project will contribute to the growing quest for democratization and liberalization of endangered societies around the world.
Read more! # posted by jdawg @ 8:07 AM0 comments Thursday, November 17, 2005 The Ivory Tower
Dr. Geoffrey Feldberg’s heart was pounding as he followed the men in suits down the familiar corridor, turning his head once more to check that the cartoonish finger of the clock pinned to his door was pointing to the correct section. The little black and white clock-shaped notice board would have been identical to all of its cousins hanging on the cream-coloured doors next to his if it weren’t marked by the human touch of his individuality. He had covered one of the generic statements with white masking tape, already coiling at its edges, and written a daily reminder of purpose. The six fields that used to display “in”, “be right back”, “out for lunch”, “in a lecture”, and “in a meeting”, now concluded with “in the ivory tower” instead of “busy”. Geoffrey had, in fact, forgotten to switch the dial, leaving it at the only position that differentiated him from the numbers of academics, who were as nameless to the public as they were faceless to the readers of esoteric peer-reviewed journals. He realised that his minor amendment, scribbled with a blue pen whose ink had become blurred and dispersed with humidity and time, had probably constituted the ridiculed centrepiece of more than a few staff lunch meetings. At that moment though, barely jerking his shoulders, he took back-room chatter with sedated equanimity.
Blindly following the suited men slightly his major, he noticed the bare, off-white walls, not affording the comfort of wallpaper, rushing by him as if he were running, only to be interrupted by creamy doors just a tone too yellowish to produce aesthetic hygiene. And on each door hung the same dial with an identical inscription. Geoffrey imagined their backsides reading consecutive manufacturing numbers, as they swept past.
The two men abruptly stopped in front him. They had reached the elevator. The suited men, now turning around, revealed faces hidden behind black hats and sunglasses. He seemed at ease with their pathetic Blues Brothers disguises. Adrenaline suppressed awkwardness. All he could feel was a shiver periodically moving up and down his body, clinging onto his spine, and slowly embracing his scalp, enveloping him like a foil, puncturing his head with a thousand infinitesimal needles. Just a moment ago, feeling as though he had succumbed to sleep for a mere second, he had been awoken by the Blues Brothers men suddenly materialising in his room. He had been about to mindlessly remind them of the dates and times of his office hours, when he was invited to join them.
The threesome stepped inside the elevator. Geoffrey’s heart raced, yet his family history of cardiac arrest had surpassed his mental event horizon as the all-important moment drew to a close. One man reached into his pocket, extracted a key, embellished with an ivory leaf, and inserted it into the “emergency use only” hole. The key smoothly turned and snapped into place. Geoffrey Feldberg felt the increasing force of gravity as the elevator began to push his weight upwards. The screen centred on top of the doors was erratically switching numbers. He stood perfectly motionless in inward anticipation of reaching the 20th, and final, floor. As the screen displayed “20”, the elevator came to a stuttering halt. The perceived stop lasted perhaps the blink of an eye. The elevator gradually resumed its upward journey, stopping at its final destination. A script too long for the electronic display scrolled from right to left. It spelled “Ivory Tower”.
Dr. Feldberg’s otherwise confirmedly lucid mind was suddenly swamped by thoughts beyond his direction. He was perplexed, almost petrified, by the excitement of his dream, the stuff of his unvoiced conspirational fancies, emerging to be true. The ivory tower is material, he verified. The swamp was caused by a confluence of this epiphany with a strand of thought, a mode of thinking, unnatural to him: he questioned the term “ivory tower”, its origin, its meaning. Geoffrey recalled the part of the Odyssey that claimed something approximating to “those that come through the gate of ivory are fatuous, but those from the gate of horn mean something to those that see them”. It was displeasing. He had always thought of the ivory tower as a place of unworldliness, a haven removed from the exigencies of daily life. But his ponderings about the connotations of “fatuous” fell short of conclusion as he noticed that the elevator doors stood ajar.
There was no off-white corridor in sight, and neither were disharmoniously painted doors nor cheaply manufactured announcement dials. Geoffrey saw an open, refreshingly spacious and colourful, expanse unravel outside. The noise of converging conversations was baffling in a building marked by soft voices from the fourth floor upwards. A bar was positioned at centre stage, squarely placed with equidistance to each corner. The barmen were bustling, pouring drinks from expensive bottles and keeping the seated audience in high spirits. The expanse had the feel of an atrium floating on air, endowed as it was with outsized sky lights in the ceiling and an uninterrupted view over half of the metropolis. Scattered low tables and luxurious sofas lining the walls underlined a Roman, otherworldly ambiance. People were engaged in serious, yet civilised, discourse, dispensing their Ancient Greek and Latin phrases liberally as they regrouped into different constellations. Jurgen Habermas was managing the bar, occasionally reading a paper or jotting down notes, but allegedly only relinquishing his rightful place to rest. He was an unmoved mammoth, having watched Adorno and Horkheimer, Foucault and Derrida, Rawls and Nozick, occupy and abandon their bar stools.
Geoffrey had lost sight of the disguised clowns. Two familiar faces he had never set sight on before momentarily surrounded him. At second glance, while shaking hands, he recognized Richard Rorty and Peter Singer from their photos. He supposed that their faces looked more stern but their breath smelled less alcoholic on laminated paper. Geoffrey Feldman received a synchronised “welcome to the ivory tower” greeting. Unleashed to explore the 21st floor unfettered of his daily professional obligations, his selfish genes proceeded to enlist the company of Richard Dawkins. Richard had been a regular in the ivory tower since 1976 and had acquired the honour of being the most familiar with its history since the passing of Jacque (Derrida) – the late, undisputed exile from the world of trivialities. Richard gave a tour of the “the Hollywood Boulevard of minds”, the workplaces of influential intellectuals, culminating in the room in which Samuel P. Huntington supposedly wrote his infamous “Clash of Civilisations”. Sam had, of course, long been disenfranchised from this privileged group. His former computer screen still bore the outline of the crooked chalk line with which he had delineated the border between Islam and the West, as his image-editing software failed him in a moment of drunken stupor. The workstation had been left unused since, for fear of cerebral contagion. Or so the legend went.
Sam’s legend was perhaps only surpassed by that of Noam Chomsky. Noam’s musings on innate linguistic meanings had entertained the motley conglomerate of renegades from society raised on Wittgenstein for several years until, suddenly, he had suffered from an irreversible personality disorder. Geoffrey was astonished to see a public intellectual of high statute blemished in this manner. Richard told the episode when “Dr. Chomsky” transformed into “Mr. Noam”. Noam had an apparent amnesia when one day he took the elevator onto the 21st floor and claimed to be a historian. Eric Hobsbawm felt mocked as the abstract MIT linguist posed as another agnostic, Jewish, Marxist, historian. As everyone reacted to Noam with incredulous irony, he threw an unwarranted temper tantrum climaxing in anti-Semitism. Noam was forcefully and permanently evicted from the ivory tower, to expend his life among oblivious activists and, hopefully, less oblivious psychologists. At least that was Richard’s account of the legendary events.
Geoffrey’s mind had been filled with impressions. He inquired why he was permitted into this select group, aloof from concerns of the earth below. Richard explicated that Geoffrey’s book on international relations had apparently reached the height of metaphysical abstraction, which placed it beyond any debate relevant to the world of the trivial beneath. Geoffrey Feldberg had elevated the discourse to a point where any member of the ivory tower could engage with it, where it was amenable to the type of philosophising only available to those removed from pragmatism.
Geoffrey experienced a déjà vu as his mind was inexplicably sent back to the moment that he reached the 21st floor in the elevator. Richard had vanished but he now understood: only those from the gate of horn mean something to those that see them because the spectators are unsighted to those they cannot comprehend. Hence those from the ivory tower are fatuous only in their elusiveness. A university security guard stepped inside the elevator, staring at Dr. Feldberg – curled into his elbow-padded jacket in fetal position – in blank incomprehension. He turned the key to resume regular operation and asked whether Dr. Feldberg had been trapped inside there all night.
Geoffrey blinked twice to adjust to the brightness of daylight, remembered to finish his book on international relations, and resolved to fix the dissolving masking tape on the black-and-white dial outside his cream-coloured door.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 1:15 PM0 comments Tuesday, November 08, 2005 Moral Realism + Infinite Spacetime = Moral Nihilism? Disclaimer: This article includes no nudity or profanity but entails technical philosophical issues.
In line with yesterday's lay scientific musings on our concerns of global warming in a cooling universe, I would like to introduce some moral questions that arise from the recent consensus that both space and time are inifinite in our universe. One of the more mind-boggling ideas in this realm was pioneered in 2003 by almost famous philosopher Quentin Smith. He claims that he believes in objective moral values but the fact that moral values can be aggregated combined with the notion of infinity leads to the conclusion that he (and anyone else who believes in global moral realism) needs to accept moral nihilism. Simply, the realization of infinity of space and time leads to an automatic trade-in of moral realism for moral nihilism, sans Nietzsche or Sartre. Why should you care? Because the notion that the acceptance of a scientific discovery can turn your moral stance 180 degrees should be unsettling.
His essay "MORAL REALISM AND INFINITE SPACETIME IMPLY MORAL NIHILISM", while highly recommended, is already misleading in its title. He advocates a rather idiosyncratic system of morality which he names global moral realism, not any brand of moral realism. Moral realism merely means that true and false moral statements exists and that some actions are truly said to be moral while others are not. However, his global moral realism means that " all organisms, inanimate mass and energy, and space and time, and states of these entities, have value nondependently upon whether conscious organisms believe they have value". Moore's Open Question Argument is disregarded alongside Hume's "is" to "ought" gap laid out in his Treatise Concerning Human Nature. Basically, for Smith toilet paper has moral worth regardless of human acknowledgment. If we chose to reject that toilet paper has any value apart from its utility to us, then his argument falls flat.
Another assumption, enjoying widespread usage in economics, is that values can be aggregated in some ways to represent a meaningful approximation of the aggregate value. He simplifies aggregative value theory this an additive theory, in which values are simply added. Hence, if toilet paper has the value 2 and tooth paste has the value 4, then 2 rolls and one tube are worth 8. Don't be concerned if 8 appears meaningless: it does not allege to be valuable to you but even in the absence of humanity.
Lastly, time and space are infinite. Space at a given time t can be conceptualized as divided into an infinite number of cubes which can all be assigned a value. One would assume that if we received the aggregate value at time t and then look at the difference in value between time t and t+1, we would be able to judge which action would be morally right in terms of consequences. Quentin says no: firstly, because there are infinite cubes to aggregate so both will add up to infinity. Secondly, even if there were finite time-space cubes to aggregate between time t and t+1, when projected into infinity, the difference of scenario would not matter. For every good action there are any number of valuable things in the infinite future which, even if they have very little value (like Helium or a supernova), add up to a higher aggregate value over time than any good action could provide.
It is important to note also that if moral realism were correct, then the only consequence would be an obligation to follow the moral duty discerned.
Hence his argument can be recapitulated as:
1. Particulars possess value independent of whether anyone believes they have value.
2. Units of value can be summed.
3. Nothing has value if actions don't affect values.
4. A person is morally obligated to perform some action if the consequence of that action increases positive value or prevents the decrease of positive value.
5. If the time is infinite, then any net impact on a value is zero.
------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing has value in an infinite universe.
There are a number of issues with Quentin Smith's rendition of moral realism in an infinite universe. Firstly, the fact that the third premise contradicts the first premise (commonly referred to as value intrincicism) is rather silly for a philosopher of Quentin Smith's statue. Either things are instrinsically valuable or they are only valuable in conjunction with the notions of agency and action.
But there are also some unstated premises necessary for his argument to work. Infinite spacetime needs to be divisible. According to his usage, it must be doubly divisible: (i) space must be metaphysically discrete in order to be divided into cubes at a given time t and (ii) space must be divisible from time itself, hence not exist on an inseparable time-space continuum. Both assumptions run contrary to the scientific consensus.
The most shocking part, however, is his disregard for the concept of infinity itself. He explains that performing action A, though ostensibly good, would not matter in an infinite universe because all values tend to infinity anyway: "now it follows that I cannot increase the value of the universe at time t1 by performing action A, since aleph-zero + 2 = aleph-zero". Without ever learning calculus, it is easy to see that Quentin Smith commits a logical error. Even if two functions tend towards infinity in mathematics, they are not equivalent. Any function n+2 is greater than n even if they both tend towards infinity. Let's say that the described action A will have a positive effect on the universe from time t1 onwards, without ever incurring any negative effect. Hence, if Smith thinks that time can be stopped and cubes of space analyzed, then at any given moment past time t1, the universe in which action A took place will have a higher value than the one in which action A was omitted. Two parallel slopes tending towards infinity are simply not mathematically congruent.
Lastly, there lingers the problem of valuation. In most moral philosophies, humans are more valuable than plants and plants are more valuable than a grain of sand. Even if we accept that sand has some kind of value in itself, this does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the existence of one grain of sand over infinity has a greater value than a human life expended over a life time. It is firstly questionable whether time can be aggregated in the same manner as integers. But more objectionable is the assumption that values can be assigned to various life forms and matters on the same scale. What if we claim that coscious life forms have priority A, sentient life forms priority B, and inert matter has priority C. Given that intert matter is a prerequisite for A and B, it may only enjoy a higher priority if it serves some future higher priority. Hence, it is impossible to equate a 1000 toilet paper rolls (or liters of lithium) over a million years to a single human life. Nor is it reasonable to assume that an infinite number of toilet rolls (C) are more valuable than all of human kind (A) today. If there is no acceptable manner of accounting for various priorities with individual numbers attached to them, then the task is impossible. The objects of global moral realism may very well be incommensurable, so that the functions of the argument are not executable. Moreover, if a finite number of higher priority values can be said to exist (i.e. 6 billion humans and other remote intelligent life forms) at a given period of time and/or for a finite amount of time, then the infinity of the universe containing lower priority values becomes irrelevant to the equation.
The concept of infinity can be overwhelming for the human brain but it should not lead to the acceptance of moral nihilism by conceptualising that the infinity of good and bad actions will all lead to the same result of a mathematically infinite value. Nor should we blindly accept that the existence of a lot of helium out there over an infinite period of time is necessarily commensurable with life. While Quentin Smith's paper is thought-provoking, his thoughts ought to be contextualised as a broadly valid deduction rather than a sound moral framework.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 7:38 AM0 comments Monday, November 07, 2005 Always look at the bright side of Global Warming Global warming is the buzzword of the year, and quite possibly of the decade. Global warming is depicted as the Jew of the 21st century, with the list of grievances attributed to it constantly growing. The Tsunami, the oddly-christened female hurricanes, the poverty of Bangladesh, the submerging islands, and the carcinogenic sunburn caught comatose on an Aussie holiday drinking binge are all somehow deduced to the unprecedented rate of increase in temperature. These events all provide a strong footing for the anarchistic Friends of the Earth, the pet-lovers of the World Wildlife Fund whose contribution to humanity takes place annually at LiveAid, and the hooligans from the World Social Forum to all join hands with the high-sea pirates from Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior to reprise the mainstream public for its shortsightedness...
The high-pace, low-cost, high-intensity, low-budget lifestyle is under threat. It is beyond doubt that the justified introduction of a carbon-emissions tax would make Ryanair and easyjet weekend getaways considerably more expensive than a return railroad ticket across the country. The comfortable low-budget holiday could be as short-lived of a novelty as gay culture without AIDS. Then again, we are all glad that the days of Boy George and the New Romantics movement - "Am I buysexual? I guess, I have to buy sex, so yeah, hehehe" - of the 80s were counted and the advent of AIDS did carry the progression of 90s music in its trail. But kerosene jets are simply not as environmentally efficient as modern train engines. Perhaps people may also reinvent the joy of exploring the possibilities of their home base - virtually endless in London - or come to understand that Europe's holiday destinations are not limited to Prague, Marbella, and Amsterdam or circumscribed by the availability of a cheap rural airfield. These rather abstruse sociological issues are not, however, at the core of the Environmentalists' concern. Their issue-specific finger pointing seamlessly turns into a holistic critique of the throes of postmodern culture in the West, culminating in a self-congratulatory "You didn't listen" or "I told you so" as if the crew manning the Rainbow Warrior had just saved civilization from demise.
The argument turns into a battle of incommensurable short-term and long-term benefits: the livelihood of millions of Brazilians pitted against the preservation of insect species, the industrialisation of developing nations contrasted to a submerging island paradise, affordable global travel and transport counted against body bags in Louisiana. Environmentalists firmly clasping onto their prerogative on foresight in this discourse, however, refuse to widen their vision beyond of the confines of our planet. Their vision remains steadily myopic. It is a truism to claim that biologists and chemists sporting their Birkenstocks don't mix with physicists and cosmologists designing wasteful machines to accelerate subatomic articles or measure the heat emitted by atmospheric gas light years away.
The former rarely ask how a warming earth ties into our galaxy, let alone our universe. How could they? Their worldview depends on a microscopic interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics (namely that entropy constantly increases), which can actually show the decrease of entropy in a closed system over a given period of time. Macroscopic thermodynamics, of course, makes singular exceptions irrelevant. Their view is atomistic, reducing everything to atoms and disregarding the rest. Interestingly, they not only dismiss the macroscopic view showing changes in Volume, Energy, Density, etc. in a given environment, but they disregard the vast majority of matter in our universe. Only 0.03% of the universe exists of higher-level matter, such as atoms and Birkenstocks, whereas 23% consists of "dark matter" - the stuff that mysteriously emits heat and has the force to expand the boundaries of the universe and overcome the force of gravity within it. The difference between the environmentalist blinded by biology and the cosmologist is significant in so far as the earth does not heat in a vacuum, even if the falsehood that nothing exists between planets is still commonplace.
The earth is situated in the Milky Way galaxy that is constantly undergoing change, like the rest of the universe. The second law claims that entropy will always increase and never decrease; supposedly until the maximum possible entropy level is reached. At that point we will experience a thermal equilibrium. Sounds like Hawaii? Not really. The thermal equilibrium implies that the temperatures throughout the universe are uniform and if that is the case, then all motion - and with it all life - will cease due to the inability of heat to travel from one point to another, which is a necessary precondition for the occurrence of any process. This is commonly referred to as the "heat death", describing the death of heat rather than overheating. Any process can only develop heat or increase entropy but no excessive heat would be produced due to the inability of any process to take place. This appears to be the fate of our world, as presciently and brilliantly chronicled in Isaac Asimov's 1956 classic short story Last Question. Perhaps environmentalists should embrace the science fiction genre.
Moreover, it is most tantalizing to consider that while entropy increases (and increases exponentially), we also know from Hubble's discovery that the universe is constantly and exponentially growing. Thinking about it, the constant growth in entropy may lead to an asymptotic increase towards thermal equilibrium but, as is the nature of the asymptote, never reach the final state. Furthermore, as the universe expands it also cools down. It started off as a hot and dense infinitely small mass of matter and expanded and cooled over the past 13.7 billion years and will continue to cool, maybe forever. And as it cools, the planets that were long thought to be untouched by their hallow surroundings, pitched in black apparent nothingness, will interact with it. They will generally cool down and emit heat or increase disorder. The major patterns of these interactions often take thousands or millions of years to clearly discern.
It does not seem likely that the earth will become uninhabitable over the next centuries, even if Americans continue to drive more wasteful cars than the rest of the world and even if China will continue to use the cheapest carbon filter technology available. But in the long term, the warmer our planet becomes, the more likely it is to overcome its own temperature cycles and the more likely it is to resist a cooling, dying, surrounding and to continue to warm its own proximate environment, including Mars. To what degree the sudden heating of Mars, which may eventually become inhabitable, and other planets in our vicinity has already affected temperatures in the Mexican Gulf is beyond current scientific knowledge. Yet the thought that in the very long term, human life may be preserved for longer due to free market recklessness is somehow comforting. By flying to Spain, by keeping your TV on standby, by washing your clothes at 60 degrees, you are helping to dress the earth for a long, cold winter ahead - far ahead. That's what I call foresight.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 2:59 AM0 comments Sunday, November 06, 2005 Attn: UPD Officer
To whom it may concern:
On Thursday, October 6th I returned to The Aston by myself, to go to my girlfriend's room. It must have been between 1:30am and 2am. A UPD jeep was parked out front. As the officer came to the door he noticed I did
not have a key to that particular dorm and mumbled half-heartedly: "You ain't gonna piggy-back off me are ya?" - I immediately figured he was
joking considering there was a CLLC employee working at the front desk,
from where I always have, always will, and had naturally planned on
signing in. However, as I walked in the first set of doors behind the
officer, and as I approached the second set of doors, he turned around
in my face and said sarcastically: "what do you think you're doing? what
you didn't hear me?" - A bit confused I smiled thinking he couldn't
possibly be serious--especially given his nonchalant dimenor. I calmy
said "I thought you meant..." --He interrupted, stepped closer to me
with a more serious look on his face he pointed his finger outside and
over my shoulder in a militaristic position. He then said in a more audible, serious tone: "I told you you ain't gonna piggy back off me"- I began to say "um...ok (startled
and confused) but was cut-off. The officer raised his voice and
threatened to bar me from campus--FOR LIFE: "If you want to cop an attitude I can
simply bar you from campus right now" --he was angry for some unknown
reason. Perhaps childhood aggression. But I don't know. I attempted to answer and say "ok" as I began backing out of the
door but was bombarded once again with the threat of being immediately barred from
"ANY" GWU establishment. I maintained a calm composure and put my hands
up in the air in peace and backed out and let the officer go into the
building without further diologue. I wasn't about to be a victim of an
authority's difficulty in supressing his anger. A young lady and her boyfriend
on the bench adjacent to me witnessed the situation and began laughing
and were shocked. They asked, "what was his deal?". I agree UPD serves
a meaningful purpose on this campus and I appreciate and respect the
work they do--yet I do not pay $40,000 a year, to provide compensation
for UPD officers who embarass and threaten me at their will. There was
no reason for me to be threatened with being barred for life, for simply
following an officer into the lobby to sign in, as students are expected to do. I am sure there was another
way to handle it on his part. I however do not know how I could have
handled it differently myself.
Read more! # posted by J @ 10:23 PM1 comments Friday, November 04, 2005 The Naturalness of Homosexuality? Sexuality has often been described as either primitive, to emphasize the superiority of mind over matter, or as natural, to underscore its freedom or disconnection from forms of socialized behaviour that are considered inherently restrictive. In the case of pro-gay activism, it has always embraced the latter connotation: a return to nature, a departure from the Christian slave morality (Nietzsche) or an escape from civilization (Freud), is liberating. "Break through the wooden bonds of the closet, return to green pastures of our true nature!", the motto echoes. But how natural is the type of homosexuality espoused by the gay marriage lobby?
The discoveries of the scientific community, demonstrating the widespread practice of homosexuality in any number of species, have irreversibly transformed the debate about the naturalness of being gay. Some authors have gone so far as to proclaim that “it occurs in every type of animal that has been carefully studied”, yet without giving any proof. Homosexuality is, however, documented in over 450 different species, including a number of primates, among sheep, cows, dolphins, giraffes, insects, elephants, and arguably among certain species of fish.
I do not question the frequency of homosexuality among non-human species. However, it is questionable whether the naturalness of a certain phenomenon, meaning its empirical commonness, provides any compelling indicator for humans to accept or to promote that practice. Certain male spiders get decapitated after sex or, if lucky, their intestines are merely sucked out of their bodies by the outsized female during copulation. Lions are known to kill and eat the babies of a lioness if they are not the fathers, or sometimes even if they do not recognize their young or view them as a threat. Practices combining nutrition and copulation, which prevail throughout species of insects and spiders, may still seem revolting by human standards. Atlantic bottle-nosed dolphins are known to copulate with anything that swims, including eels, yet this barely normalizes some well-documented practices of lonely Welshmen. Likewise, it is wrong (and illegal) to kill the babies of your wife if you suspect that you may not be their biological father (or even if a DNA test confirms it). If we chose to reject that view, then infanticide must be categorically accepted along with homosexuality. Empirical frequency in the realm of nature, as such, offers little justification for any human action.
Moreover, occurrences in nature are often explained by way of their evolutionary utility. The propensity of bonobos to engage in homosexual activity is largely explained in social terms. They stimulate each other before meals in order to diffuse tension over food or even use their sexuality to calm the aggression between clans (that are initially always hostile). Perhaps humans are gay for some reason undiscovered? Perhaps not. The behaviour of bottle-nosed dolphins, for instance, is inexplicable in terms of evolutionary value. Any explanation for their indiscriminate sexuality is like explaining why Catherine the Great copulated with horses (presumably to breed the Russian version of a minotaur to fight the French?). Not all oddities of nature are reducible to evolutionary utility.
While this discourse of evolutionary oddities is widely represented throughout the scientific field, another angle on the naturalness of homosexuality has been roundly neglected, namely the correlation between homosexuality and monogamy. Monogamy, like homosexuality, between humans has been justified inter alia by its presence in the animal kingdom. The question arises whether homosexuality in nature can be explicable in terms of evolutionary utility, non-rational and useless lust, or as a sexual orientation. Firstly, it is interesting to consider that the rates of homosexuality as well as sexual behaviour are very uniform within species while immense disparities exist between species (between 90%-below 1%).
It is noteworthy that only a handful of mammals have been defined as monotonous, pardon, monogamous, while over 92% of bird species have been given this classification. Among mammals, most have been disclosed as not being completely faithful to their partners. The sanctity of the lifelong bond of otters, bats, and certain foxes has been called into question while gorillas have been exposed as adulterers. While some primates, such as tamarins and gibbons, are actually monogamous, most only commit to a single partner as long as the novelty effect of fresh flesh lasts. Among the non-monogamous, they range between the long-term relationships of gorillas to the unyielding promiscuity of chimpanzees. Interestingly, the more frequent the change of partner, the more common is homosexuality.
Among the 1000s species of birds, the vast majority are actually only socially monogamous. They tend to stay with one partner throughout several mating seasons or for their entire lives while occasionally copulating with other birds. The female typically enjoys the security of having a nest while diversifying her offspring’s gene pool while the male considers the cost effectiveness of having his offspring reared without paying alimony. Birds even divorce. According to National Geographic, the house martins and greater flamingos are the Elizabeth Taylors of the world, with 100% divorce rates. There are also 130 species of birds (of at least 9700) that are documented as engaging in homosexual activity. While I have been unable to acquire data showing a direct correlation between fidelity and homosexuality, bird species that seek lifelong partners and never sidestep (including geese, albatrosses, and swans) are exclusively heterosexual.
There has been a single case of homosexual couples forming but not performing sexual acts among penguins in the Bremerhaven Zoo, despite the presence of females. Firstly, Penguins chose long-term, but not lifelong, partners. Secondly, the occurrence is significant precisely because it is singular and unkown in penguin wildlife.
While homosexuality is widespread, it occurs mostly and most frequently among the most promiscuous species. On the other hand, gay marriage is nowhere present in nature. Upon closer inspection, it is difficult to understand why the promoters of gay marriage and the advocates of the naturalness of forming close homosexual bonds would point towards the animal kingdom to underpin their claims. If anything, nature shows that homosexuality is generally coupled with more promiscuous and liberal sexual practices than Western societies tend to promote and that the possibility of lifelong loyalty is foreclosed to same-sex partners.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 3:37 AM0 comments Sunday, October 23, 2005 Dennis Prager: Good Jew, Bad Jew Dennis Prager, a Jewish conservative radio host and popular author offers us a glimpse of his highly acclaimed wisdom in his latest article "Why Young Jews major in Anti-semitism". His previous books include "Why the Jews", "Think a Second Time", and "Why Happiness is a Serious Problem", which will surely be available in a profoundly moving single volume: "Happiness is a Serious Problem: Why The Jews Think a Second Time."
Prager argues that the temples of higher education cause Jewish students to become anti-Semitic due to the currency of Israel-bashing on campus. "Universities have become society's primary breeding ground for hatred of Israel. This hatred is often so intense that the college campus has become a haven for people who use anti-Zionism to mask their anti-Semitism." So Prager claims that the leading research institutions this side of the milkyway have been transformed into a modern-day Munich Hofbrauhaus, into the type of platform for the uninformed discourse that lend itself to the original anti-semites of 1920. Why the same universities that championed civil liberties, political protest, and non-discrimination in the late 60s and early 70s would turn into the soap boxes of hatemongers remains unexplained. Interestingly, however, the same campuses were also anti-Israel, though largely Muslim-free, back then. As Prager acknowledges, fans of Israel today reap the benefit of an enlarged (chiefly Evangelical) conservative presence in support.
Prager seems to be closely aligned with Alan Dershowitz in his view that anti-Zionism equivalates to anti-Semitism, even when practiced by Jews. Dershowitz, in his Case for Israel, relates this back to some psychological explanation of neurotic self-hatred, as arguably present in Noam Chomsky. True, Chomsky appears to be as misplaced as a brilliant linguist narrating historical accounts only bearable for relentless postmodernists as he is as a self-hating Jew. Whereas Alan Dershowitz's explanation at least finds some resonance with the Woody Allen support base, Dennis Prager's reasoning is rather puzzling.
"Why? Because anti-Zionism is not simply criticism of Israel, which is as legitimate as criticism of any country. Anti-Zionism means that Israel as a Jewish state has no right to exist. And when a person argues that only one country in the world is unworthy of existence — and that happens to be the one Jewish country in the world — one is engaged in anti-Semitism, whether personally anti-Semitic or not."
A number of unnecessary assumptions are accepted from the outset. Who defined anti-Zionism as the call for the destruction of the State of Israel? I know many people opposed to Zionism who do not propose the actual destruction of the state today. At most they question its historical legitimation or adumbrate arguments against the existence in its current form. Anti-Zionism, for lack of a more appropriate vocabulary, need not exceed the ideas connected to Anti-Americanism, for Prager defines Zionism not as the immigration of Jews to a homeland but as the promotion of a country. Critics who challenge the activities of Jews in Palestine, often for good reasons, up to the creation of the state do not claim that it is unworthy of its current existence. And some radicals who would like to see Jews floating somewhere between Tel Aviv and Nicosia would perhaps also question the worthiness of other countries (like the U.S, Lebanon, or the Persian Gulf states) to exist independently.
Anti-Zionism, like Anti-Imperialism and Anti-Americanism, can provide the mask of respectability for critics of a more extremist strand as witnessed by the surge in acrimonious branding behind closed doors in meetings of the Attac or the World Social Forum. The composition of their membership, ranging from the various branches of Marxism to Neo-Nazis and Muslim fundamentalists, already indicates a second-order agenda. But the fequent lapse of reasoning committed by Jewish conservatives which sets a reasoned, informed critique of Israel on par with Anti-Zionism (which inherently harbors Anti-Semitism) does little to improve the standing of Jewish public intellectuals or of Jews on campus.
The question remains why Jews, for whom education is elevated to religious status according to Prager, will turn into anti-Semites under peer pressure rather than consolidate in their Hillel abodes. Prager claims that liberalism is the root of all evil. "Jews for whom liberalism has become a surrogate religion — and who therefore do not wish to acknowledge a god that failed — will not acknowledge the moral failure of the university." He does not specify what he means by liberalism, yet this shortcoming is ubiquitous in our age of contextualization.
If he means classical liberalism, as it is still understood in discourse worldwide, then it must be that current of political though which strives to maximize individual liberty within a pluralistically democratic framework, governed by a system of rights under law, in which a society characterized by free action may flourish. If anything, classical liberalism would encourage Israel's democratic record compared to its neighbors and disregard the moral legitimacy of a state's creation in favor of its legal status acquired through customary international law.
If Prager sees American, or modern, liberalism as the scourge of anti-Semitism then his essay requires an even longer explanation. American liberalism is, in its international affairs connected with Woodrow Wilson and his hopes for international cooperation rather than coercion (and support for the Jewish homeland in Palestine) and domestically attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" that entailed the creation of instituions that promote social and economic equity in favor of the laissez faire economics that had been viewed to be one of the underlying causes of the Great Depression.
Prager must refer to some abboration of liberalism that is neither pluralistic nor holds the entitlements and freedom of people everywhere at its value core. Perhaps he means the liberalism of Amnesty International or Attac. But if that is the case, then Jewish studemts cannot see liberalism as their "surrogate religion" since they would be expected to follow its main doctrine, lest Prager views them as sectarian Jews who have joined a fringe cult on the outskirts of mainstream political thought. The step from a second-level politics, from a meta-framework in which religion and political discourse of all strands are accomodated, to the embrace of a singular dogma remains incoherent. Liberal secular Jews and non-Jews alike would not like to "acknowledge that god failed" if god were liberalism, but this conclusion seems unwarranted too. Firstly, secular liberals do not equate whatever ideology or current of political thought they happen to support most closely at a time as timeless and infallible. At the heart of liberalism stands the need for constant discourse and peaceful change through ever-transforming ideas. Most secularists would otherwise not be discouraged from pronouncing the failure, or even the death, of God.
Prager deduces that if lip-service "liberalism" has produced anti-Semitism, then this proves the "moral failure of the university". There exists a moral failure when there are race riots but hardly when an atmosphere is created in which youngsters (and the vast majority of unnuanced activists are undergraduates) become irrationally passionate for causes which they will deem overstated only years later. That's a part of life and, if anything, that should stimulate the education of young Jews.
The moral to be drawn from Prager's essay is, at its essence, that higher education in the U.S. is bad for Jews. They should be Good Jews and adhere to their traditional religous values and not be turned into anti-Semites by the liberals, whoever they may be. In this Good Jew/Bad Jew dichotomy, I am obliged to announce Prager belonging to the latter.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 11:20 PM0 comments Friday, September 09, 2005 Someone get those udders off me! Sitting under an aircondition, having reached more humane environs than the humid late-summer heat, as I was holding my liter mug of beer after a long day of contemplation to little effect, I noticed my nipples stiffen. I began to muse why Mother Nature had equipped me with nipples.
I could feel no pleasure, no satisfaction, no indicator of sexual arousal. According to some nipple-fetish websites, 1 out of 5 men can be aroused by nipple stimulation. Splendid, they say 1 out of 10 is gay but those can't be congruent although a relationship between these statistics cannot be a priori discarded. The notion of a man's Squirmin' Herman, his One-Eyed German turning skyward due to nipple stimulation makes me feel less than comfortable. There is a portion of perverse eccentricity, some element offensive to my sense of manliness and my innate virility, a feminity unfit for self-respecting males in sharing the same pleasure facilities as the fairer sex. It's somewhere between having your prostate licked by a sorority girl and getting fucked in the ass by Bubba, the truck-driving redneck fag in denial.
My nipples are generally lifeless blobs, sensitive only to the type of pain you feel when the dentist's assistant casually gets her ass squeezed, twitches and scrapes your dental gum with one of her 5000rpm power tools. They are two sloppy mistakes of nature, two evolutionary dead-ends, two cynical stabs at Darwin's corpse to tease him about the imperfections of his endeavour to immortalize himself, stuck as he was in the evolutionary chain of his own conceptualization. Why did we keep them? As a sign of our inferiority to males of other species? Or as a display of our ability to be in touch with our feminine side without actually practicing ass-ramming? Not in my name! The mighty stallion produces sufficient testorone in the first weeks of gestation to prevent the development of nipples. But even the pesky sewer rat, living in my bathroom, exemplar of the lower species, pours salt into my wounds by resisting that telling resemblance to his female counterpart.
Sure, those pink udders could simply be one of the useless annexes that God - blessed be his sense of humor - has bestowed upon us to weed out the weak, the slow, the unperceptive, and the Africans; the tonsils and the appendix always make for a hoot and a holla when the next emergency room is on the other side of the equator. But they are politically correct, non-discriminatory, post-gender. That appendix is gonna burst regardless of you hosting a cabbage field or sporting a corndog. But the nipples work consistenly as pleasure points and S(quirt)-spots for females only.
My nipples are essentially wasted flesh. Like my tonsils and my appendix, they will find their way into a hospital garbage dumpster - sooner or later. Then I will finally feel 100% manly. Or so I claim.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 9:02 PM15 comments Thursday, August 11, 2005 The Anne Frank Redux: Jessica Lynch vs Bethany Hamilton The elderly are known to moan about the state of our world, wanting, as it is, the steadfastness of yore, divested of timeless ideals, bereft of genuine heroes and heroines. Yet perhaps the true answer lies not in the depravation of our society, the degeneration of each passing generation, or the warranted pessimism about social progress but in the greatness of the past. During the 80s, Reagan and Thatcher replaced the idols of the past for those mourners of heroism; during the roaring 90s, Bill Gates and his countless imitators and shareholders - overnight millionaires - were too busy trying to follow the upward pace of their bleeping bloomberg screens to notice a lack of idealism.
The 80s and the 90s simply buried the every day heroes, the poor revolutionary idealist placed next to the self-contained, roaming cowboy of modernity. Their offspring were the hard-nosed investment banker and the urban socialite with political leverage. But our generation is not bleakly out of luck. The beginning of the 21st century, injected and infuriarated with the vigor of September 11th, traumatized by the inescapable permanence of actual and media terror, disillusioned by the lingering fiasco in Iraq, marks the rebirth of the everyday hero.
The war in Iraq, like any war, is bound to wash up, on a gloomy tide of despondency, some rejuvenating, inspiring, story of touching individuality; the Remarque or Anne Frank of our times. And over the past two years, we, as members of the drama-hypersensitized CNN generation, have gotten two top candidates for individual inspiration: Jessica Lynch and Bethany Hamilton. I pre-nominate both for the heroines of our time.
Individual tastes may vary widely on those two types of heroines but before the US military disengages from Iraq, one of these two contenders will be crowned triumphant by a storm of media appraisal. Jessica Lynch, declared a heroine in 2003, evidently took an early lead. She was the ordinary girl next door, drafted to go to Iraq, ambushed by some fedayeen fighters who killed the other 9 members of her convoy. She was then brought to a hospital, had her road traffic accident injuries treated by Iraqi doctors, the fedayeen fighters withdrew from the hospital, and the US military stormed the civilian hospital a la Black Hawk Down. Like a Jerry Bruckheimer film, it involved poor camera work and lengthy editing to little effect. Most mainstream media omitted the fact that her doctor tried to drive her to the next army base in an ambulance but had to turn around under heavy American fire. Instead, they included initial rumors of bullet and knife injuries as well as sexual abuse (which all turned out to be falacious). Jessica Lynch was a POW for a couple of days and, with the overwhelming assistance of former NY Times journalist Rick Bragg, decided to publish a book called "I am soldier, too". Sounds like something my cat could have written. In short, she emanates the aura of Athena with the intellect of Sylvester Stallone.
Bethany Hamilton, contender #2, is - to further the analogy - the "beautifully-cheeked" sea nymph goddess named Keto, derived from the greek sea-monster Ketea. She was not only as ripe and perky as that 15-year old beach-babe from Hawaii but also the guardian of whales and large sharks, one of which bit off little Bethany's left arm. Like Jessica's story, Bethany's claim to fame is based on a tale of an immense will not only to survive but to continue living, interwoven with religious and supernatural allusions... Her story is brief. She is 15 years old and aspires to be a professional surfer. Last january she paddled out into the "tunnels", a quite dangerous shark-infested area off Kauai, where some of the biggest waves in the world are to be found. While paddling on her surfboard, a shark bit off almost her entire left arm. Her friend helped her paddle ashore and brought her to a clinic. She was operated and able to stand on a surf board a month later. Then she got a campaign manager who made her into a national hero.
But what makes her the Anne Frank of our age? It was incredible that she survived a shark attack but others have done so before. What qualifies her to go on a motivational tour to inspire the troops in Iraq? Shouldn't she be campaigning in favor of shark nets or more warning signs along the "tunnels"? What could she have told the troops? "I got my arm bitten off by a 14-foot tiger shark and kept on surfing, so when you step on a landmine, private, keep on fighting"?
For Bethany and her family, it's a story about a divine miracle that somehow managed to save her but not Anne Frank. Years ago, she started writing scriptures on her board to ask for God's help. Her first one was "'I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.'" Her mother explains her first reaction after hearing of the shark attack: "I called our church and had them start the prayer team. Then, I called The 700 Club and asked them to pray. It was like I just knew that I knew that she was 100 percent God's." Don't forgett 911 next time.
In any case, Bethany's story was spun from a careless surfing accident into a tale of divine intervention and personal perserverance. She would have never been a hero without that shark. The next person to outdo Bethany's heroism will have to have her legs amputated by a hunchback whale and then continue wheelchair-surfing.
Jessica Lynch was, likewise, idolized due to a fortune not of her own making. She was, in some macabre sense, extremely lucky to be on that convoy, not killed, and then rescued. It appears then that these modern heroines are more passive than the Greek goddesses or our active heroes of the past. To be a hero in the 21st century entails neither the activism of Ghandi nor the fervour of Che Guevara. It merely entails being a survivor or a victim of a tragedy. In this race of passive heroism, the stakes are high and the contenders close and I, for one, am curious to see who wins.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 2:38 PM3 comments Sunday, July 03, 2005 Fighting For Peace is Like Fucking for Virginity "Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity" is one of those commonplace prosaisms that has taken the otherwise promiscuous left by storm. Our parents used to fuck for peace, regardless of the actual connection between dropping acid, playing guitar, putting out like a paedophile on a playground, and world peace. Whats wrong with it now?
People think that this saying is so witty, pointing to the intrinsic paradox in fighting for peace. It really is pathetic, not witty, when your objections to Iraq sneak into your neglected sexual vocabulary. I don't take exception with the analogy but with the assumption that fucking for virginity doesn't work. What are the similarities between fighting and fucking? Well, they are both fun and phallocentric. Kinda like me.
Fighting and fucking are a part of the same type of lifestyle, a male point of view, that includes specious paradoxes unveiled as actually compatible after further contemplation. We booze for sobriety. Sure, Mother Theresa would call that bigotry. But I am more reasonable (and humble) after a couple of beers than she ever was. What is so rewarding about both fighting for peace and fucking for virginity? It works and it provides head relief.
Madonna had been boned more often than your average back-alley labrador bitch by the time she released "Like A Virgin". Hypocrisy? Only to the narrow-minded, close-legged, puritan female. Perhaps Madonna's hymen did not, in fact, rupture - though there may have been some blood - but it felt like she was getting railed for the very first time. This ability for renewal lies at the beautiful core of the human condition.
The left wing has sunk into an insufferable swamp of Quaker-type pacifism, which decries fighting as well as fucking, promotes the prohibition of worldly pleasure and pleasuring. It is possible to abstain, to do the diametrical opposite of what the wisdom of my infallible penis - immensinly refined over 1000s of years of evolution, adaptation, mutation, and selection - unequivocally indicates, but, frankly, I place my trust in the wisdom of age. Irreverence for the lessons of time is not innovation but the folly of arrogance.
Sure, we could try to conscientiously object for war and abstain for sex, but it just doesn't seem like the life that befits a man. Fucking for virginity works. Every time I get busy in the parking lot, it seems like nature is granting me an opportunity to relive a little fraction of the intensity of the first time, the exhilarating nervosity, the pacing heart-beat, the racing, twistedly lewd, flickering thoughts, wondering when the date-rape pill will kick in, trying to get an extra glimpse down her thong to ensure that there's grass on the pitch and its not the flood period.
I fuck for virginity. It is a more logical endeavor than to abstain for future sex. Some guys think that by abstaining they will actually appear like a friendlier, more committed, more serious sex partner and that they will be rewarded by a sex goddess whose tube will be constantly moist by the amount of respect she has for the sacrifices of his past. But really, if you are waiting or "saving" yourself, you should reconsider. When that sex goddess comes along, you would be better off having practiced your positions every Sunday. You can always still pretend you are a natural talent. Sex goddesses, in my experience, lack the acumen to realize that you've been secretly practicing. So she will still be wet with respect and you will know how to use contraception. Lingering around with your own bag of chips, a widescreen TV, and a comfortable sofa won't get you laid. Not even long-term. Well, unless you are Hugh Hefner. The rest of us have to keep fucking for virginity and fighting for peace. And, no doubt, Iraqis are even more frigid and less gullible than sex goddesses.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 10:15 AM2 comments Thursday, June 16, 2005 Boycotting: What Bored Hippies Do. Everyone has been bored at one point or another in their life. Some people go grocery shopping in the hope of finding a mini-skirted lady who is in dire need for some strong hands to help her fit a suitcase into the tight space in the middle of her trunk. Others boycott. They are called hippies. They smell bad. They listen to music that pisses people off and creates repercussions like Ozzy Osbourne. They have smoked so much weed that nothing is funny except trying to sink ships on the high seas to prevent them from carrying out nuclear tests. Drowning "little Eichmanns", that hits their funny bone like vandalizing Starbucks on acid.
They join the Socialist Workers Party though they've never worked in their lives. They are like poor people. They tend to live in clusters. They do something called unionizing - getting together with a bunch of like-minded hippies to form some organisation that acts as the hippie megaphone of discontent. They don't unionize to earn minimum wage. Remember, they don't work. So what happens when the last tunes of Yellow Submarine subside, their last weed is consumed including stems and seeds, and nobody knows what day it is? Hippies boycott.
The logic is irresistibly compelling. Hippies know that other people actually do stuff. They loathe the world they live in and have ceased to find anything amusing or worthwhile - except boycotting. Since they hate the world, they hate most of the stuff other people do that comprises this world. Most of us hate some things that other people do. Like not swallowing or terrorist attacks. Hippies are embittered and hide their lack of sprightliness behind a facade of flower power, drum circles, and finger painting. We were all once like that, back in the kindergarten playground. Hippies are basically like four year olds who lost their innocence. So they decide to boycott. They are like toddlers who have learned the word "no" and don't say anything else until they learn a cuss word, like conservative.
The last major display of hippie boredom just ended. Hippies hate success since it reminds them of their own shortcomings. Hippies have hated Israel since it became a successful state following the Six Day War in 1967 and occupied a bunch of poor people called Palestinians. There are hippies in all walks of life but walking with crooked other hippies turns them into a limping horde. There are hippies in academia. They don't actually write many books or publish articles or lecture students. In Britain, they join their own special union called The Association of University Teachers, which has about 50% membership. If you want to make it in academia, you stay away from the AUT. There are barely any professors in this union. Most unionists actually just unionize.
In May, they decided once again (last time was 2002) to boycott Israel. They didn't boycott goods produced in the Occupied Territories. Such a move would have been too moderate, too accomodating, too dull to stir their smoked-out brains, too complicit in the machinery of the evil system. Instead, the AUT proposed to boycott Jewish Israeli academics working in Britain, Israeli universities (Haifa and Bar-Ilan in particular) and to ban any Jewish Israeli from publishing anything in British journals. Apparently the boycott was sparked by Haifa university allegedly persecuting Ilan Pappe, a crazed left-wing Jewish Israeli who claims that ethnic cleansing has been Israel's historical policy all along, equating it with fascism. It turns out that actually this never quite occurred in the alleged way and the AUT faced a libel trial in England from Haifa University. But the hippies were going to have to pay an estimated 1 million pounds, which they calculated to be worth thousands of joints and bean bags. So they backed down.
Since when do hippies love censorship? The leader of the campaign, Sue Blackwell of Birmingham University, a renknown professional activist who has never published a single article in any respectable peer-reviewed journal in her life, is an advocate of Palestinian Lesbian rights. The oppression of Palestinian carpet-munchers in the public sphere does not appear to be the most pressing issue in the Middle East but that is not the point at hand. Why would she defend free speech for the most obscure groups on anyone's radar, and silence the voice of Jewish Israeli academics, most of whom are leftist and outspoken critics of Israel? Well, Hippies get bored and boycotting was the first thing that popped into her devestated mind after the shroom trip wore off.
Funnily, one of the first universities to protest the boycott was al-Qud university, the most prestigious Palestinian university, claiming that Palestine is aided by the internal criticsm practiced by Jewish Israeli academics. Also, its mission is not to silence Israelis but to win more over to their side in an open dialogue. The AUT hippies were displeased with the sell-out Palestinians. Little Eichmanns.
Finally after a month the boycott has ended but, then again, hippies never endure for long and always return like flies to shit.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 9:22 AM4 comments Wednesday, June 15, 2005 The Prowling Porter En route from my house to the supermarket I had the most bizarre encounter. Leisurely strolling up the street, emitting an air at once carefree and careless, I noticed a woman looking at me. She was trying to fit some suitcases into her car and, while bending down as her activity fortunately necessitated - showing a little more skin than the designer of her mini-skirt intended -, stopped to take a step towards me. She asked "Are you hiding a cobra in your pants or are you just happy to see me?". I countered "A little bit of both. It's a one-eyed cobra that has taking a liking to you". No, she didn't ask that. Instead she proceeded to say "excuse me, may I borrow your prowl?". Confounded by the expression, I replied "Sorry, I didn't catch that." She explained, "You see, I need your strength..."
Rather flattered by the situation, a young man radiating power and energy approached by a vulnerable woman in a mini-skirt requiring his services, I agreed that she was in fact in need of my strong hands. Following my quick appraisal of the situation, she asked once again, this time in a more gentle, endearing voice, "so may I borrow your prowl?". Even though I immediately recognized that she was in good humor and not intending to belittle a stranger, I was not prowling. I had a sense of purpose and direction and was by no means loitering. So perhaps I misunderstood a local idiom, but in any case the manner of her approach left a palatable aftertaste.
Can you borrow someone's prowl? She was asking to borrow my time and make use of my strength and apparently she perceived that something about me gave the impression of prowling. Or, possibly, it was a sort of irony as I was evidently well kempt, sporting khaki shorts, a white polo, and a sweater with my sleeves rolled up. Otherwise, it may have been the London equivalent of asking for a tour of my house or asking me to give her pipes a cleaning or,simply, to fix the cable. In any event, it was less trite than asking me to trim her bushes.
The odd expression injected a greater sense of mystery, sparking an instantaneous curiosity. Putting on my best Sean Connery-on-viagra voice, I replied "you can say that again." And she was compliant, putting on her best Paris Hilton-on-an-ecstasy-overdose voice and repeating the question once more. "Any time" I said, strictly adhering to my part. She gently ran her fingernails over my forearm as she proceeded to softly explain that the suitcase is very heavy. "It needs to fit into that tight space in the middle of the trunk" she explicated the state of affairs.
A deep, calming utterance of the monosyllable "sure" was the last of our words exchanged before I got to work and fit the heavy suitcase, which must have been about 35 kilos, into the tight space in the middle of her trunk. While the space was not unusually tight, the enormous size of the suitcase made some bumping against the rear inevitable,culminating in a perfect fit. After the job was done to her satisfaction, she thanked me and I replied "any time".
"Prowling" really takes off the edge.
Damn, I should work as a porter.
PS: Sorry for the blog burnout over the past days, but I have been busy.
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 6:41 PM2 comments Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Free Stress Test Having finished my last university exams and having put most dipsomaniacs to shame by the adjacent ten-hour drinking binge, I decided to recover over the past days by jogging along Regent Canal. While taking a walk with my girlfriend today, we were approached by an advertiser offering “free stress tests.” With all conscious sources of stress dispelled from our lives, we decided to volunteer as human control variables. I was given two aluminium rods connected to a machine that looked like an East-German voltmeter from the 50s:
Frenchman: “Hi, please get comfortable, my name is Orwellian”
Me: “Orwellian? Sorry, I didn’t catch that”
Frenchman: “It’s a French name, Orwellian”
Me: “I thought that was a literary or cinematographic genre”
Frenchman: “No, it’s a name. So just hold these rods comfortably and rest your hands in your lap. Let’s start by talking about what kind of stress you are experiencing. Do you worry about work?”
Me: “I’m a student. I professionally avoid work.”
Frenchman: “So you worry about your exams?”
Me: “I just finished my last exams and I did fine.”
Frenchman: “Do you worry about the future? This summer? What are you going to do after being a student?”
Me: “I never worry about the summer. Who does? I only completed my undergraduate degree. I am starting my masters degree afterwards and I see this as the point of departure for my succeeding student career.”
Frenchman: “So what would you say you worry about?” [followed by silence]
Me: “I am not sure. Work with me here.”
Frenchman: “See, after I asked you the question, the pointer went up. You were stressed about something.”
Me: “I had to concentrate in order to answer the question. I must have increased the pressure on the rods.”
Frenchman: “So you were worried about something!”
Me: “Yes, about finding an appropriate answer to the question of what I was worried about. But this is a good start. They say that the question-begging approach can actually be therapeutic.”
Frenchman: “Do you worry about your relationship? Are you in a relationship? Are you trying to find a relationship? Are you worried about it?
Me: “I am not worried about it. I am perfectly happy with my relationship. No erectile malfunctions!”
Frenchman: “See, you were calm about your relationship. The pointer remained low.”Me: “I think I figured out your voltmeter. I just applied a constant light pressure to the rods to disguise any potential subconscious relationship anxieties.”
Frenchman: “So, this book, Dianetics, will help you overcome all stress. It’s only £6.99.”
Me: “Really, that’s more than a Penguin classic. What is it about?”Frenchman: “Here you go, just read the back-cover.”
Me: “All right, finished.”Frenchman: “Did you really read it?”Me: “Yes. Why do you ask, did your voltmeter measure the potential difference in tension between my hands? Is this thing even earthed?”
Frenchman: “No, but did you see that John Travolta endorses it?”Me: “There was a quote on the back-cover, thanks. But how does it work? I understand that the reactive mind is basically the memory bank of all types of suppressed feelings and negative sentiments that are stored subconsciously. The aim of this book is to help me get rid of it. But why would I want to erase my subconscious desires?
Frenchman: “Because it will relieve all the stress.”Me: “But Orwellian, wouldn’t I walk around like Winston after an express therapy in Room 101?”
Frenchman: “No, it’s really good. Over 20 million copies have been sold.”
Me: “My grandma could sell 20 million copies of her autobiography - and that’s after a regrettable stroke and a heart attack - with this type of advertising campaign.”Frenchman: “Yes, but they have already been sold. [Opening the book] Look at how many famous people endorse it, even nurses.”Me: “Well, it’s funny you mention nurses. If I erase my reactive mind, as you call it, then I will lose my subconscious desire to sexually assault a nurse in forensic pathology. That can’t be healthy. And in any case, Madonna practices kabbalah and I don’t see how admiring Like a Virgin will lead to me accepting that the reverse constellation of my birthday multiplied by the numerical value of Maria Magdalena will predict my fate of irreversibly falling in love with a hopeless nymphomaniac. How is this different?”
Frenchman: “He has sold over 20 million copies.”Me: “So has Stephen King. Personally, he is not among my favourite authors. Do you buy his books for the same reason?”
Frenchman: “No, I don’t like Stephen King.”
Me: “So you are absolutely convinced that erasing your subconscious mind has no negative repercussions?”
Frenchman: “Yes, it has no negative effects. Here is a map and ticket to our local bookstore.”Me: “Hmm. It’s on Tottenham Court Road next to the Church of Scientology.”Frenchman: “No, it’s the Church of Scientology.”
Me: “Wow. Now I know why this all seemed like a pseudoscience. Have a good day.”Frenchman: “Pseudoscience? No it’s based on facts. Well, good-bye. Next.”
Read more! # posted by Prospective Despot @ 9:45 AM2 comments
Review My Site (if your Karma can overcome your Dogma)
Poll of the Week ContributorsProspective DespotNeo-Post-Conservative HippiegurvitzrRaphael's #1 fanThe Obscure RegularJjdawg Links AVN White Trash Rant Gays Plan Their Exodus! archives April 2005May 2005June 2005July 2005August 2005September 2005October 2005November 2005December 2005February 2006
TAGS:The Damnesty Digest Ruminator
<<< Thank you for your visit >>>
Websites to related : L'universo ed i suoi eventi - Ho
keywords:PierpaoloRicci, Pierpaolo Ricci, Pier Paolo Ricci, RicciPierpaolo, Ricci Pierpaolo, Ricci Pier Paolo, astronomia, astronomico, almanacco, alm
Magazine dactualités news franc keywords:
description:Magazine d'actualités news france et monde, histoire de couple famille divorce formations divers, test et avis clients Prim
keywords:Агроном Тимирязевской Академии, Профессиональные услуги по садоводству, пло
TRANSIT-Stroke keywords:
description:
Info und Kontakt
contact@transit-stroke.de
Diensthabender Konsilarzt: 0171-2240830
Aktuell: Schlaganfallsy
keywords:
description:European Plant Science Organisation official website. EPSO is an independent academic organisation that represents more than 220
keywords:Bowling 200, bowl, Earon Vollmar, ohio, 900 series, Jason Sterner, tournaments, Jake Washington, video,instruction, handicap, scratch, pro, s
GDELUXE.COM keywords:
description:
HomeAppleiPhoneiPhone 12iPhone 11iPhone SE 2ReviewsFoxconn's Hell FactoryGDELUXE.COMCurrent Retail Prices for iPhone including
keywords:
description:
Siccas Beauty BlogKosmetik für fettige, feuchtigkeitsarme, unreine HautSeitenStartseiteÜber michKontaktSchnäppcheneckeImpres
keywords:Bexley, Bexley uk, Bexley hotels, restaurants in Bexley, Bexley jobs, Bexley cars, Bexley property, Bexley restaurants, jobs in Bexley, hotel
Today's Workplace keywords:
description:
skip to main contentWorkplace FairnessMenuYour Workplace RightsHiring right:0;top:20px}.gsc-control-cse{background:0 0;border:n
Hot Websites