|
|
 3 Dec 2007 @ 22:40, by ming. Legal, Justice
As a sub-theme in an article about Root Irresponsibility for Major World Problems, Tony Judge touches on the strange unit of measure called a "dukkha": The most extensive and insightful methodological approach to the incidence of suffering is that developed through the research of R G H Siu and the International Society for Panetics. They developed the concept of the "dukkha" as a measure of suffering. For the panetics community, the dukkha is a measure of the intensity and duration of pain and anguish adapted from the 9-point hedonic scale used to provide subjective judgements in market research. Dukkha is also a central concept in Buddhism.
According to this approach, one dukkha expresses the amount of suffering endured by one person experiencing one intensity unit for one day (roughly the equivalent to the amount of suffering felt by one person with a moderate toothache for eight hours). A "megadukkha" represents the order of magnitude of suffering sustained by 1,000 persons for about 10 hours a day, for a year, with severe stomach ulcers and without medication. The approach has been explored further by Johan Galtung (Panetics and the Practice of Peace and Development, 1999). Wow. dukkha is of course a traditional Buddhist term, which is probably somewhat mis-translated and mis-understood from its original meaning, but which is typically translated as "suffering". Read more about dukkha as a unit of measure here.
I never heard about dukkhas or megadukkhas before. Of course it would be tricky to measure in any precise way, but just the concept that one could quantify suffering opens a bunch of doors. See, stuff that can't easily be accounted for tends to become somewhat invisible in our kind of society. Particularly if it can't be counted in dollars, but also simply because it is difficult to count, or it isn't counted.
In the many years I've lived in L.A. I've had hundreds of hours to sit in bumper to bumper traffic and ponder the outrageous and unnecessary waste of time and resources that is going on, not to mention the anger and suffering from people sitting in their cars going nowhere. The suffering is relatively minimal if we compare to the hundreds of millions of people in other parts of the world who starve, who're tortured, who's family members are killed, who don't have health care, etc, but if we add it up it wouldn't be all that minimal. But just think about the cost to start with, if it actually were accounted for.
Say I could get to work in downtown L.A. in 15 minutes, if the traffic actually was flowing, but it takes me an hour. That means I spend 1.5 hours per day doing nothing useful, while burning gasoline and sitting being frustrated. If we only looked at the time aspect, then me and the other 2 million people who're doing the same will waste around 3 million hours that day. Multiply that by the $20 or so we get paid by the hour for working, and you have $60 million in a day, or around $18 billion per year. You could buy a hell of a lot of freeway for that. Tripple-decker underground freeways would be perfectly feasible if you accounted for the time and money that would be saved. Or think of it on a daily basis. There's a stalled car in one of the lanes 2 miles further along, and thousands of people suddenly waste thousands of hours when the traffic grinds to a halt. If you account for that cost, even drastic measures would be perfectly economical. You could keep a Sikorski crane helicopter hovering over every section of freeway 24/7 ready to lift any stalled vehicle off the freeway, and the cost would be completely negligable in comparison.
But I'm getting distracted. This was about suffering. Imagine that we could find ways of reducing the overall suffering on the planet. That's what the Institute for Panetics is working on. They propose principles and awareness campaigns for different sectors of society. Law and order, media, health, religion, government, etc. Here are some definitions and objectives: WHAT IS PANETICS?
Panetics is an integrated discipline to study and help reduce the INFLICTION of suffering by humans upon other humans. It was founded upon the conviction that a growing international consensus supports the right of people to be relieved from suffering inflicted by other people when they act through governments, institutions, professions and social groups. To that end, Panetics is an evolving, "pan-ethical" approach to research, policy analysis, decision-making and management."Panetics" is a term coined by Ralph G.H. Siu from "paneti" which means "to inflict" in Pali, the language of the Buddha.
PANETHICS
Combining the Greek word for "all" ("pan") with "ethics", Panethics is an attempt to synthesize thinking from both East and West into a readily understandable and agreed upon system of ethics for a world community. It is based upon the fundamental principle that no one has the right to unjustly inflict distress, pain and anguish on another. The semantic and synergistic relationship between the two terms "panetics" and "panethics" is intentional.
The term "panethics" was first coined by Professor Rudolph Krejci during a lively discussion in April 1986 at the University of Alaskas Geophysical Institute with its director Syun-Ichi Akasofu and the Visiting Lecturer in Panetics, Ralph G.H.Siu.
PANETIC OBJECTIVES
The main aims of Panetics are to analyze the sources of inflicted suffering, develop practical ways to help reduce human suffering inflicted by individuals through governments, institutions, professions, or social groups, and encourage their application.
PANETIC PREMISES
People have a right to be relieved from suffering inflicted by other people. The international community has begun to demonstrate a willingness to support that right. We lack both awareness and the tools required for decision-making and intervention to be sure that such actions actually alleviate, rather than increase, human suffering. To prevent such missteps, we must search for measures to assess potential and actual human consequences of actions with the same attempts at precision that we try to use in economic decision-making. Such panetic analyses can help leaders, professionals and managers evaluate the humane consequences of their actions, lessen the suffering they might otherwise cause, and thereby advance the well-being of humanity. That's a wise and noble endeavor. Of course, making words for it, creating units of measure, outlining principles - it makes it something one can begin to think about. Think with in constructive ways, where one can make better decisions, as opposed to just walking around with a generalized gloomy feeling about the world. You can actually to some degree add it up. Does option A or option B best reduce the amount of suffering in the world?
If consequences can be identified, labeled and accounted for, it is so much more likely they will become part of the decision process. There are consequences like pollution, wasted time, wasted money. If the bill could be sent to those responsible, they just might have to make different decisions. And there's the consequence of pain and suffering. Which isn't just a matter of sending somebody a bill. Suffering sucks. A little suffering once in a while might motivate you to make things better. But a lot of continued suffering just makes life suck a whole lot.
So, I'm all for a global megadukkha reduction act. Down with the dukkhas.
Of course we need a unit for happiness too, then. Just sitting around not suffering doesn't automatically make life great. Let's max out the joy and happiness counters while we're at it. More >
|
|
|
|
 16 Jul 2007 @ 09:28, by jazzolog. Legal, Justice
The great way of the Buddhas is profound, wondrous, inconceivable; how could its practice be easy? Have you not seen how the ancients gave up their bodies and lives, abandoned their countries, cities, and families, looking upon them as like shards of tile? After that they passed eons living alone in the mountains and forests, bodies and minds like dead trees; only then did they unite with the way. Then they could use mountains and rivers for words, raise the wind and rain for a tongue, explain the great void...
---Dogen
When we speak of being highly developed spiritually, this does not mean that we float in the air. In fact, the higher we go, the more we come down to earth.
---Chogyam Trungpa
You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease. When you have a constitutional crisis, the founders are very clear. They said there is a way to deal with this. We don't have to have a war. We don't have to raise an army and go to Washington. We have procedures in place where we can sanction a president appropriately, do what needs to be done up to the point of removing him from office and continue the republic.
---John Nichols on Bill Moyers Journal, 7/13/07
Alessandro Pigna (1883-1903)
Paying Homage To The Emperor
I am not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a lawyer. I might think about citizenship quite a bit, but I may be pretty much an average American. As I understand the Constitution of the United States, that qualifies me to register concern...and to do so with forceful words.
Whatever our history has been and however we managed it, a republic was established so that each citizen could have a fair chance of a voice in the conduct of government which so affects our lives. My understanding of how that works is through a series of representative assemblies from local to state through federal levels.
At the top, in Washington, DC, we have the House of Representatives and the Senate. Between them, they legislate and debate and ultimately create laws and programs that enable us to live better lives...and maybe help people in other countries too. A system of public education was considered vital to maintain an informed electorate.
But at that point the Congress must turn over the created legislation to the Executive, whose job it is to put these examples and results of the will of the people into action. Sometimes, for one reason or another, the President doesn't think he can or should do it...and he tells Congress that. Maybe they can overrule his judgment or perhaps the Supreme Court must decide who is right, according to the Constitution.
Sometimes a great threat materializes and war must be declared. The Congress does this and thus hands to the President the awesome duties of Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the country. When this happens, everyone in the nation is expected to sacrifice aspects of life and liberty to enable the President to expedite the battle quickly. All Americans know this and we have done it.
There have been instances in the histories of all nations when supreme leaders have used occasions of warfare to increase personal and family fortunes. We expect such events in a dictatorship, but it is the worst thing to happen in a republic. Here, there is no question but that the money in the Treasury is ours, kept and spent in trust by freely elected representatives. If those people are stealing our money for themselves, they must be stopped or all fails. More >
|
|
|
|
 6 Jul 2007 @ 23:16, by quinty. Legal, Justice
(The portrait to your right is of Richard Wright, as a “crossword puzzle.” It was painted by my father, Luis Quintanilla. For more portraits of writers as “how they see themselves,” go to “www.lqart.org/portsfold/writports.html”)
Well now it’s here. It’s happened.
A rightwing Supreme Court. More >
|
|
|
|
 4 Jul 2007 @ 10:50, by jazzolog. Legal, Justice
Habit, laziness, and fear conspire to keep us comfortably within the familiar.
---Poet Jane Hirshfield, whose BA from Princeton was received in its first graduating class to include women
For eight straight years George Bush hasn't displayed the slightest interest in anything we care about.
And now that he's after a job that he can't get appointed to, he's like Columbus discovering America. He's found child care. He's found education.
Poor George. He can't help it - he was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
---Texas Governor Ann Richards, who was defeated for re-election mysteriously by George Bush's son, also named George Bush
We went from being a party of confidence and fiscal restraint and individual liberty to being the party that encouraged intervention in Terry Schiavo's case, the disastrous experience in Iraq, Katrina, and an $8.5 trillion debt. It was hogs feeding at the trough from Jack Abramoff to Karl Rove. I'm just sad and angry.
---Author Christopher Buckley, the son of National Review founder and supreme conservative William F. Buckley, Jr.
Before a television set was in every home, American families used to sit out on the front porch after dinner every evening. They'd call greetings to neighbors and watch the world go by. After that, they might set up a card table in the living room and play a game. Sometimes a game might be saved when somebody had to go to bed, and brought out to be continued the next night. Canasta games might go on for a week.
Among the board games there was Monopoly. I always had mixed feelings about that game. There was an edge to it that seemed to encourage the person who was winning to gloat and ridicule and inflict emotional pain on the others. Losing in Monopoly felt like drowning. And so I probably shouldn't have been surprised when one afternoon in 1965 as we were playing the game, my friend from Tyler, Texas, Tony Andretta, reached around to his desk, opened a drawer, took out a loaded six-shooter, and placed it on the table.
I use Tony's real name because, while it is highly unlikely he still is alive, I would love someone who knew him to discover this article and let me know whatever happened to him. We both were in our first teaching jobs at a school in The Bronx. He taught science and I, hired to teach English, ended up chairing the social studies department. He was a bit older than I was and had fought, he said, in Korea. He'd received a wound to his stomach, which for some reason never could heal and he had to change the dressing all the time. It didn't seem to slow him down much though, and he actively pursued a life of women, brawling, smoking and booze.
We were unlikely friends I guess, but somehow our differences made us curious. He came from an oil family and so this teaching stuff was just for the heck of it. Maybe there was temporary friction with his father, something like that. He'd been married a few times and always seemed on the verge of doing it again. About the gun, he told me later that's how they do things in Texas. He said he always had a gun in his glove compartment, because in Texas if a trooper pulls you over you come out shooting. One time we pretended to be federal inspectors in a Woolworth's pet department, concerned about the condition of the creatures in there. Under threat of being shut down, the manager gave us some lizards Tony wanted for his terrarium.
After a couple of years, we went our separate ways and lost track of each other. Tony lived loud and big, and could back it up. He was the first Texas male I'd ever met. In my experience, Texas women tend to be quite different from the men. Not the loud and big part, but in how liberal and democratic they like to be. I wish a couple of them still were around to comment on the Scooter Libby business.
The Bushes may run a lot of Texas but Texans know they aren't really from there. In fact, Ann Richards in that same famous 1988 speech before the Democratic Convention said, "I am delighted to be here with you this evening because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like." [link] But the George Bushes of the world keep trying to be the real deal, faking bravado at the Alamo until finally a Mexican soldier's bullet takes them down. More >
|
|
|
|
 20 Apr 2007 @ 09:57, by jazzolog. Legal, Justice
Religion is a way of walking, not a way of talking.
---Dean William R. Inge
I have realized that the past and the future are real illusions, that they exist only in the present, which is what there is and all there is.
---Alan Watts
A Zen master's life is one continuous mistake.
---Dogen
God, how this White House loves that word! Everything they do is ROBUST. The Surge is robust, the economy is robust, our schools are SO robust, anti-abortionists are getting much more robust, and the Gun Lobby never has been so robust! Rove is just busting with robust. He and Bush are in Ohio all the time because we brim with robust!
I suspect it may have been Rove (or his people) who came up with "robust." It has the first 2 letters of his name so that satisfies egomania, and of course "bust" is in it...so he can think of breasts and milk as well as allegiance to his President. What could be better?
The only thing better would be if all Repubs use it...and they do (even when wearing the pink necktie of apology and surrender). Yesterday Justice Department spokeswoman Cynthia Magnuson used it against critics who say the Executive's legal people have been using federal attorneys to wipe out the opposition. She said the department has "a completely robust record when it comes to enforcing federal voting rights laws." The Justice Department not only is robust, it's COMPLETELY robust. It's like Heaven on earth there!
I love this photograph by Doug Mills for The New York Times this morning. There he is, the Attorney General of the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave. The man used the "can't remember anything" approach to his testimony. At least it's more down-to-earth than the "best-of-my-recollection" song and dance other attorneys general have used. A busy man has to have people on his staff who remember things for him. I understand that. Do you suppose there is someone at Justice who remembers who is supposed to remember the content of meetings? Maybe they can search around.
In the meantime, you might take a look at Greg Gordon's article for the Baltimore Sun yesterday that contains Cynthia's robust remark...and see if you can detect any "legal" strategies in there about crushing free election. And then I guess I have to like best Lara Jakes Jordan's coverage for AP of Gonzales' pathetic appearance yesterday. More >
|
|
|
|
 26 Mar 2007 @ 19:25, by Unknown. Legal, Justice
The Profit is a feature film written and directed by Peter N. Alexander in 2001. Little seen, it is notable primarily because worldwide distribution of the film is prohibited by an American court order, the result of a lawsuit by the Church of Scientology.
The producers of the film have a court hearing today to ask that the injunction on the film's distribution be lifted. More >
|
|
|
|
 7 Jun 2006 @ 17:29, by ming. Legal, Justice
A while ago I mentioned a site that was showing an assortment of variations of the London tube map, using anagrams, and a bunch of other funny things. The original site was taken down, and is still down, because Transport of London's lawyers contacted the owner of the site, and forced him to take it down because the Tube logo and the map is their "intellectual property". Which is rather ridiculous for a public institution like that to spend money on lawyers to threaten people who love the tube, and who spend their time getting creative with its symbols.
Now, as a number of other people who thought it was stupid, I put up a mirror of that site. And, now, 3 months later, the lawyers for Transport of London have contacted me and asked that I take down that site. Their letter is below. They had first written me without saying who they were, asking what the rules were for my site in terms of materials that violate copyright or trademark laws.
Anyway, hm, I'm not sure what to do. It makes little difference to me whether I have a page with silly tube maps or not, but the principle is important. But I'm not sure if it is important enough to put up a fight and let them try to sue me. More >
|
|
|
|
31 Mar 2006 @ 17:10, by gsosbee. Legal, Justice
As I read the daily news reports of the corrupt and criminal fbi agents (as I have documented at www.sosbeevfbi.com), I must ask the nation a very common question ( in the minds of many activists ):
Where have all the true lawyers gone, long time passing ? Where are the JDs, the SJDs, the constitutional law scholars and thinkers in general (those who critically examined and took to heart the meaning of the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitutional safeguards against abusive and murderous government agents)? Then , I respond that these attorneys are busy in and out of court making money (hand over fist in some instances), striking plea bargains for innocent defendants,reaching settlement arrangements (in order to garner fast, easy money), seizing assets to cover legal fees, etc., so that by retirement age these prima donna guns for hire may continue the same comfortable life style that they have grown accustomed to over the years. They are seldom concerned with the destructive impact of corrupt law and policy upon the lives of those targeted for political persecution both under criminal and civil law.
E.G.:
[link]
The problem (in my opinion), aside from the obvious abandonment by these attorneys (including those in the law school and university ivory towers) of their civic responsibilities to their fellow man and to their profession (notwithstanding the puny pro bono records carefully documented for political show) is that the nation meanwhile is become a totalitarian state bent on the for-profit subjugation of all people by the strong arms (and weak minds) of the fbi and the cia (and others). The lawyers in the main have become tools of the emerging fascist state that even they now fear. The supposed defenders of our Rights at a most critical moment in history are in 'the other room ' (one that is soundproof and cut off from the reality of the inhumanity that is become the hallmark of the USA criminal justice system).
Specifically, the fbi for example recently charges a man with the newly discovered offense of:
"traveling in interstate commerce to engage in sexual activity with a minor and traveling in interstate commerce for the purposes of engaging in illicit sexual conduct".
The heart of such cases is the presumption by the fbi thugs that they may, by the use of an hypothetical construct, read the minds of the accused, predict his behavior with pinpoint accuracy, and determine the future course of events not yet clear to the otherwise objective mind, nor to the accused himself; in doing so the fbi predators have captured the supportive attention of the media which is always ready to get on board a moving freight train of decadent and destructive public policy.
* Note that the individual charged in the sex case referenced above has committed no offense, no plaintiff or complaining witness exists, no victim exists, no crime has been committed or reported, no evidence of any crime is extant, and no law has been broken (except for the imaginary one contrived in the perverse and often criminal mind of the fbi, or other accuser) who should himself be charged with false arrest or filing false charges, among other offenses, in connection with the preposterous charges against an innocent man. In essence the fbi and their minion police agencies pretend to safeguard the imagined rights of non-existent persons at the expense and destruction of real life human beings who are as innocent as may legally be conceived in a theoretical sense. See:
[link]
By studying this and similar cases the astute student may gain new and important perspectives from "inside the criminal mind" of the fbi and other accusing parties. For more on this see the links below.
Meanwhile, with regard to police and fbi misconduct, most lawyers are silent (out to lunch), or worse, the lawyers sometimes can be seen on TV also getting on board the popular movement which is profitable for all but the accused, or the targeted.
Alas, I have personally known many attorneys who, while representing drug dealers and other violent and dangerous types (often with real as opposed to imagined victims) in the general society, engage in the consumption of cocaine, marijuana, etc.,while publicly pretending to uphold the values of mainstream society. These same attorneys mostly avoid the truly difficult, complex and unpopular cases brought against the accused by a broken and corrupt regime headed by the fbi, or other incompetent police agency.
Attorneys also generally avoid Civil Rights and Human Rights cases against the fbi because the victim of the fbi criminal campaign has no money, and because the attorneys are fearful of fbi retaliation.[For examples of current violations see:]
[link]
Also see:
[link]
The instance cited above (regarding an imagined sex offense) is a hot potato with most lawyers because they do not want to be seen as apologists or defenders of an accused who may be facing a variety of illicit sexual conduct charges and the parade of horribles associated therewith. These attorneys do not mind representing murderers, drug king pins,or other despicable types; and these barristers boldly proclaim that their law firm does not ever represent defendants in alleged child sex abuse(and related) cases, period, even when no crime has been committed. Neither do many attorneys show any interest in prosecuting a civil case against the fbi or the cia because "there is no financial future in it".
Well, how convenient for these legal practitioners, as they now enjoy the best (from their perspectives) of both worlds: on the one hand they can join the lucrative freight train of popular opinion regarding the condemnation of any person falsely accused of largely imaginary sex related offenses; and on the other hand, these same attorneys can sell out their conscience (with handsome returns)in the representations of some extremely unsavory characters. When the smoke clears, these attorneys are left with one small problem (as I see it): they have allowed the fbi and the prosecutorial freight train to roll over and destroy the guarantees of personal freedoms and individual liberties afforded by the uSA constitution.
For more on imagined offenses and the criminal machinations of those who allege them,see:
[link]
Also see a summary of the crimes committed against a former fbi agent (Sosbee)and note that no attorney will come forward to prosecute the civil case inherent in the terrorists' assaults on Sosbee:
[link]
See:
[link]
Thus , the lawyers, mostly silent on Human Rights issues, slink from their civic duties, abandon their sworn promises to uphold the constitution, and otherwise cower before the menacing shadow of the fbi (and others) who have turned this nation into a virtual prison for all but the torturers and assassins of the ruling class. Indeed, all criminal cases (and many civil cases) today contain Human Rights issues, not just for the supposed victim (if one exist), but for the accused as well; the failure of American Jurisprudence to take this fact into account represents the continuing deterioation of the U.S. judiciary.
The answer to the question posed in the first sentence above is that the lawyers have gone to the black hole of greed, self absorption and pusillanimous retreat. The damage to our nation (and its social fabric) resulting from their incompetence/indifference is incalculable.
The statements above do not represent legal advice.
_____________________________________________________________
* On 4-5-06 the following news item appears:
By MICHELLE SPITZER, Associated Press Writer
MIAMI - A deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Brian J. Doyle, was charged with using a computer to seduce a child after authorities said he struck up sexual conversations with an undercover detective posing as a 14-year-old girl.
See recent article on
press secretary arrested
Sosbee writes:
As suggested above in the context of the phony criminal charges in a different alleged sex abuse case,Brian J. Doyle is obviously innocent.
_____________________________________________________________
See:
[link]
--------------------------------
For more on imagined crimes alleged by the criminals of the United States government see:
[link]
|
|
|
|
7 Feb 2006 @ 23:50, by nemue. Legal, Justice
“Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression, in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.”
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
Wise words indeed, however, what level of tolerance are we expected to show when the freedom to express is taken to an unacceptable level.
The events of recent days with thousands of Muslims around the world protesting (many in the most violent way) in response to the cartoons that were published by the Danish Press (in September last year) really brings home to me in the most graphic fashion the total of lack of acceptance and tolerance of the population at large. For me this is particularly worrying because this is symptomatic of how so many respond now to any number of issues that they do not agree with.
Expressing your opinion and the freedom to express your opinion is the essence of a responsible society. Many of our forebears lost their lives and others faced jail terms fighting for this right. Expressing your opinion and the freedom to express your opinion in a non-violent and responsible manner is not only the expectation of most of us but also the gift that we return to those who have gone before us. What we have witnessed over recent days and what we continue to witness in our everyday lives is not people expressing their opinion in a responsible manner but people rioting, destroying property, threatening death to innocent people, killing others (there have been a number of deaths reported as a result of the current protests) and whipping up hatred. The sight of young children carrying banners with messages such as death to all who insult Allah (and this is in London) are frightening and begs the question what are we teaching the young today.
Frenzy breeds frenzy.
One of the most chilling responses is that of British law enforcement operatives who have openly stated that they will not arrest people for inciting hatred and violence because it will only lead to more violence. They fear for themselves and with some justification. In see similar responses to a number of recent (what turned out to be violent) demonstrations in Sydney. So now we have a situation where radical Muslims can storm the streets whipping up violence and we stand by and do nothing.
“Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression, in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population.”
Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)
The more I think about this the more I am convinced that the ‘law’ firstly has removed the freedom of expression for the majority and has effectively placed the control in the hands of the minority. Death of tolerance…..
The legal system is now impotent when it comes to dealing with unacceptable behaviours of the minority. Trust me if I carried a placard with death to all Muslims and praise be to those who blow them up I would be arrested immediately and jailed for inciting hatred and violence and so I should be. But Muslims do this in the streets of London, and nothing happens. So why doesn’t it work in the reverse? Why would I be arrested and others now? But most importantly our spirit of tolerance and responsible freedom of expression is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
What a sad state of affairs and what a frightening future we have if we can’t stem the tide. More >
|
|
|
|
 13 Dec 2005 @ 02:59, by jmarc. Legal, Justice
I don't like it. I'm against it. People who are for it will often ask,
well, what if you or your family were the victim of a killer? Wouldn't
you be for it then? Probably. But, so far, so good for us, we haven't
been hurt in that way thank God, If something like that happened to my
people, I would be thinking from a very emotional state. The government
should, SHOULD be operating from a rational state though. Shouldn't be in
the revenge business. Should be above that. Because if that is a final
solution for a government then it follows that it may be right for an
individual. Or that's how the thinking could go, followed to it's logical
conclusion. More >
|
|
Page: 1 2 3 Older entries >> |
|
