|Digital List Price:||$0.99 What’s this?|
|Kindle Purchase Price:||$0.99|
|Prime Members:||$0.00 (borrow for free from your Kindle) Prime Eligible|
This text postulates that perhaps we, as homo sapiens, have evolved thinking, or thought, to the point of detriment. We have lost and forgotten the very instincts that once kept us alive, and that still keep far less advanced organisms alive. Quite simply, our common sense has been lost to too much thought.
Read this – it’s really quite unique, incredibly thought provoking, and absolutely sensical.
With 5% of the world’s population, the budget of the United States Military and Defense represents 100% of the absolute dollar value of the 13 largest countries of the world and 47% of the budget of the entire 190 nations of the world Military.
It is no mistake these numbers are statistically significant and the consequences of such armament, similarly predictable.
In the last 50 years, United States has been responsible for the most incidences, in number and cost, of war. In the last 50 years, the United States, directly or through our armaments and munitions has been responsible for the greatest cost of lives and treasure and the United States has armed virtually all of the indirect conflicts, in whole or part, whether our involvement, clandestine or a result of a formal declaration of war.
Acknowledging there are no mistakes in our collective behaviors, these instance of cultural war or human hand gun homicide are no more or less than the artifacts of our own idiosyncratic, conscious or unconscious, intent. We must admit, therefore beyond the pain and hardship of war obvious to all, there has to be something reinforcing, some benefit in this for some one, few or many of us.
Whether the pride of the soldier, the plans of the bureaucrat or the wealth of the plutocrat arising from the production of waste and expensive expendable military hardware, we only do, historically and prospectively what feels good, makes sense or creates profit or gain which if not universally known is recognized by one or another of the special interests group which speaks the loudest or makes the largest campaign contributions to the various members of congress or the relevant governing body.
In social scientists speak, the only difference between ontogenetic and phylogenetic behavior is the exponential differential recognized of a whole population acting in accord versus the one individual, acting alone.
We can take a Cat-scan of the Crips and Bloods, the culture of Chicago with 500 individual gun deaths in a year, or the battlefield of Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and from 30,000 ft, the behavior of the latter is not, manifestly much different than the acts originated by or upon housemates, family members or strangers in the gun violence which plagues our cities, elementary schools, theatres and population at large.
It is true the founders, in our 2nd amendment establishment of rights clearly articulated the appropriate constitutionality of civil disobedience, a hard-won lesson learned from our English forbears and the tyranny of the Crown, however it is also true they never imagined nor could they today reasoning which would allow civilian armaments, assault weapons, cannon, armed battleships, weapons of mass destruction as a right and entitlement of any and all, military and non military, in a largely and purposefully unregulated society devoted to both individual and communal rights.
The question any student of social science or human behavior must ask, simply, is why?
What is the strand of DNA, the original or proximate cause of the extent of the aberrance of our behavior and or what is the original behavior from which the secondary autonomy devolved as does a mutant strain of metastasized cancer. The answer here, whatever it may be and beyond any moral ethic or dilemma will inform the discussion and solution, should we want one, for its alteration or cessation.
The United States suffers 3000 deaths by handguns monthly, roughly equivalent to our 9/11, which annualized is 30,000 per year.
It is not possible, given our reaction to the Newtown Elementary School slayings or the horror of 9/11 that these events both arise from and reoccur because of our utter indifference, yet they do reoccur and we seem, nationally to be trying to understand why.
In a more natural setting, and Australia is a good example, with a national focus, similar to that which caught Osama Bin Laden or landed a man on the moon, there are examples of countries equally as violent who have made affirmative decisions to change their behavior as a country and we can easily replicate the Australian example, if we so choose.
Critical then and what must be understood to arrive at such a decision is why we do or do not make such a choice; and in this regard, there are two seemingly antithetical forces which appear to nurture each-other and make the apparent resolution of the 3000 lives a day, impossible to reconcile with our’ 2nd amendment rights.
That we have an enormous and profitable gun and rifle industry which can only continue to profit with nearly unregulated sales passing along is not unlike the model of the historical hawkish wing of congress which, in support of and nurtured by the Military Industrial complex came to recognize, especially in times of depression, the benefit of a small war ‘every now and again’.
Unregulated foreign war, much as unregulated sale and distribution of firearms for personal and household use, serves both mistresses of pride and profit.
Whether pride, for one being able to arm themselves from adversity and care for kith and kin, or the reciprocal fear which comes from the uncertainty of one’s manhood or lack of prowess in a modern complex industrialized world, there is a manageable mechanism to salve the need in a fashion which does not put the populace at risk.
Similarly, if we need to assert our collective will, and profit accordingly on the international stage by the promulgation of power and the assertion of indomitable strength, there are countries and cultures who have done this for centuries with humanitarian means which can still project our power and create enormous profits but do not cause the heedless and unnecessary fatality and human misery as does the less complex act of war.
How might knowledge of intent change behavior in a world where action, as Nietzsche says, is largely beyond good and evil.
Assuming then there is no right or wrong to our apparent instinct for violence and the free availability of guns and munitions for homicide or genocide, then to make certain this is a behavior we seek to change we really need only ask, does the political or statutory law reflect, more or less the will of the people.
If this appears true, the second question must be, do we understand what is the ‘will’ of the people, spoken or sub-rosa and does it represent a reflection of a psychological, human, anthropomorphic need which, in the light of day we want to perpetuate and continue to nourish and support.
As it is no mistake a cat purrs when a human clasps it behind the neck and emulates the grasp of its mum, there must be some related behavior or surcease from fear, relief from a moral turpitude or satisfaction of an unstated and perhaps subconscious need which the availability or ownership of guns, or the machines of war, bestow.
If it is fair to assume, as sentient beings there are no mistakes in the manner and way our culture articulates or acts out its wants and needs, then we must reason those who buy guns do so for some reason, benign, malevolent, unwitting, or unnatural. From here it is not a far leap to get to the structure of a society which from the days of our agrarian roots has largely disintegrated, changing so dramatically, there is easily reason, if not explanation for the proliferation of arms and the unintended outcome of 3000 deaths a month from hand guns alone, tens of thousands of deaths from more formal military conflicts and a life of unmitigated terror for any, civilian or military who would fall on the wrong side of the moment when anger, revenge, profit or pride would curtail, in the most horrible way, the most valuable possession of all that is human.
The predatory and nearly prescient behavior of ants in husbanding, protecting, farming and feasting on aphids has been noted in part for some years, but the extent to which both predator and prey benefit, seeking such a symbiotic arrangement, notwithstanding it’s always predictable and fatal outcome, is extraordinary, and in some equally incredible ways underscores the real moral, political or simply behavioral issues related to Gold(m)an Sac(hs)s and other predators recently in the news.
Species of ants who live in the neighborhood of the tiny aphid had recognized long ago their succulence, feeding on fruit as they do, and their sweet and honey laced protein is second, in life, only to a great quantity of these delectable morsels in a single spot and across a close proximity of time.
The ants, eating a hundred times their body weight in a day are, by fractions, the biggest small predator on earth, with a weight to feed ratio ten times a human.
But of all their culinary treats they most adore the honeydew produced by the aphid as waste and excreted in a fashion which the caretaker ants can easily harvest.
To further underscore the wonder and sophistication of the ant, they are not only known to corral the aphid into farms where they are more easily readied for feeding , but too, are disinclined to travel away from the captive ants by virtue of the small scent of poison the ant lays with it’s foot track, at once, slowing down the aphid in its attempted escape and too, making certain they are corralled to a certain segment of the geography which is easily accessible to these arthropodic farmers and their thirsty patrons.
Equally extraordinary for these farmer ants, is the level of sophistication of their practice of animal husbandry.
In their evolutionary success they have mastered not only the significant issue of how to raise the food stocks, feeding themselves in a sustainable fashion, a model the smartest of the Western world modern countries can only hope to emulate, and a feat modern American agriculture has struggled to accomplish, they have also, unlike their two footed geographically proximate human neighbor, developed a non toxic mechanism for keeping their own feed stock and crop from the pestilence of bees, birds, vermin and other critters which, as we have experienced in American Agronomy, has occasioned the need of treatments from DDT to words too long to be clearly elocuted by man, and equally poisonous to the environment, while ants have built into their agronomic model a pure and ecologically sound mechanism to treat and protect their crop of aphids from infiltration and or attack from other predators. Continue reading
© Guy Herman All Rights Reserved
In United States of America v. Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm, a New York Court delivered a guilty verdict against much of Wall Street and many of the largest money center banks regarding their corrupt and illegal practices of bond trading and warehousing public, state, municipal and NGO funds.
In it’s simplest reconstruction, A New York Court found many of the Wall Street banks guilty for price fixing, and bid rigging, a monopolistic practice as illegal and contrary to the ‘rule of law’ as any of the old and still prevalent practices of mobs and the mafia in strong-arming business and labor into paying dirty money for protection, safety and the furtherance of their own contracts or ‘family’ winning bids.
With Wall Street and big banks, as Matt Taibbi reported, rather than labor or garbage contracts, and violence resulting for those who would not ‘pay to play’ the banks, utilizing residual and unconsumed funds from bonds whose related expenses had not yet matured, rigged the bids and accordingly the prices, less than competitively, costing the recipients an estimated $3.7 Trillion dollars in lost revenue from interest bearing balances left, presumably for their benefit, in the Wall Street Mafia’s banks.
In the US criminal system, restitution, short of jail time, has always been a reasonable and universally acceptable tool to allow wrong doers an opportunity to repay their societal mistake.
Apart from the efficacy of all the arguments of those who would jail the bankers and traders for such enormous malfeasance, in the least harsh resolution, all would agree that repatriation of the monies, repayment of the stolen funds would at least go a significant way to right the wrong and make those with losses, whole again. Continue reading
(c) Copyright Guy Herman 4/15/2003-2012
Illustrated by Karen Carey
All rights reserved
Sextant Pocket Press
‘Trace the history of seal hunting and the fur trade to determine the relationship, if any, to the slaughter of the Indian, Buffalo, and other Natives of the America’s.
Determine the extent to which the Canadian government, explicitly or otherwise, furthered such endeavor and the extent, there for to which they are responsible for reparations, if any, which may be due subject Native Americans.
In the cab to the center city, to an old walled fortress where Demian Desault had repaired, he struggled to recollect what was the true meaning of these words, what really was his assignment and the reason for his being here, half a continent away from home.
The formalities of checking in and registering complete, Desault allowed himself to wander into the main ballroom, the chandeliered hallways and around the great hotel to see what was the nature of this place.
In the enclosed courtyard of this elegant and cavernous castle, stood a sleek, perfectly apportioned, black obsidian bear.
Under glass, the animal and it’s recreation appeared as nearly a naturally formed jewel struck from the cauldron of the belly of the earth, as anything man had ever made.
“Forgive me, please,” Demian Desault said, moving towards a podium standing at the entrance to yet another hallway, “I know you may not speak English but I have never seen such an extraordinary place, so magnificent a creature, I mean the bear,” he stuttered, “ or a woman as beautiful as you.”
The young, lovely girl of another country, a beauty, stark and naturally elegant, looked seriously at the stranger. Continue reading