The Hoax: China’s Education

If the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, as “ddjango” maintains, then there is little in the Chinese university culture that could possibly lead one to believe that there will be, any time soon, an intellectual giant. This is especially so if we add into the mix present behavior. What I have to say is based on personal experience and anecdote and actual occurrences suffered by friends. Nevertheless, it will sound like a hatchet job, much like Jung Chang’s Mao, the unknown story. But I’m going to say it nonetheless–I’ve even written a play about it, a satire that is most cynical and being translated into Chinese for a commissioning agent. It is set in the 13^th century, way out in the northwest where corruption and. . .whatnot were rampant, so it’s safe. Unfortunately for China, it still is corrupt out there, which may be why there’s little to no investment in business in the area. It is a place that is, in terms of employment, off limits to me: they don’t like me out there.

I must admit right up front that I have a slight flaw that seems to have caused me considerable difficulty: corruption seems to fall into my lap, uninvited. It is, to be sure, the reason I came to China to begin with: corruption in Missouri State Vocational Rehabilitation that went all the way to the governor’s office. There was no help for me. My employer, an independent living organization, was bought off. And now there is next to nothing, less than they had before. But Missouri VocRehab is still running under the thumb of Ron Vestal and the approval of the governor and all other state governmental departments that might have a say in the matter.

How unfortunate for me that corruption fell right into my lap upon coming to China. In the far northwest–not as far as Xinjiang, where the corruption is of a different type altogether. This came by way of the director of Foreign Affairs not taking care of business: upkeep of housing. But there was also the keeping of my passport and residency permit. In actual fact, not just mine: all foreigners’. But my discovery that this practice, then fairly widespread in the country at 2^nd or 3^rd tier universities, was (is) illegal brought to light other issues. There is a kind of indentured slavery look to this practice, for without these documents, the foreigner is basically imprisoned. But the problem didn’t stop there: this man, who suffered from the US Senator disease–that is, if a lie is good enough why bother to tell the truth–also withheld my return trip ticket. The logic being that since all Chinese are suspect and crooked (as in, out for themselves alone), all foreigners are too. People being people.

I intended to sell the return portion of my ticket, for there was no reason for me to return to the States (even less reason now). What I found, however, was that I would not be given full price as full price had not been paid: there’d been some kind of specially arranged discount. Nevertheless, the full price was printed on the ticket and the receipts for the tickets were turned in to the bursar’s office for reimbursement to the Foreign Affairs Office (FAO). Standard procedure. But. . .the FAO director was getting full price reimbursement when he actually paid considerably less. . .on every foreigner’s ticket. The school did not know it was being scammed–until I told the VP. The ticket agent in Beijing was in on the deal and got his cut; a man in the Foreign Expert Office of the province was in on the deal and got his cut, as the university turned in their receipts to them for reimbursement.

I have another slight flaw: I try to right wrongs. Injustice gets my bile up, as it were. Perhaps this flaw is not so slight, as I tend to see injustice everywhere. Being demented, I of course believe it is everywhere. A man of my times, eh?

My computer was tampered with, documents were erased–including a 190 pp manuscript on my observations of China (not including any corruption)–and my phone was tapped. A helpful friend was bought off with threats to his business and family. My lawyer was pressured by the school via his uncle, the Dean of Education. And another foreigner, from another area school, was bought as informant (which took me awhile to grasp).

Everything, more or less, lost, I resigned based on the university’s breaking of the contract. At that point, I discovered that penalties for violation of contract only apply to foreigners; the universities simple don’t hold up their end of the bargain. What can a foreigner do? Somehow or other, I came away with about 1/3 of what I was owed. I moved on to a small, no-name college–the difference between college and university is crucial in China–for a three-year stint where I discovered the joy of incompetence.

Several years later, I learned that this same northwestern province university–it was only a college when I was there–had gotten rid of an internal thorn in the side in the Foreign Language School (that only taught English): the Vice-dean, Jin Qiao. A woman. A highly competent, no-nonsense kind of person, very outspoken. She was not liked by the FAO Director, who, at the end of his term, returned to the English faculty. Apparently, they’d been at each other’s throats for years. With the help of the Dean, a weasely man rather fearful of the old FAO Director (who once was the Dean), Jin Qiao was framed and divested of her position, continuing to live on in daily embarrassment and ignominy. The method was nefarious and seemed to me to be a throwback to the Cultural Revolution when any two-bit second-rater could gain fame and fortune by one means or another, both being rather insidious and absent of ethical concerns. That is, inhuman to the draconian.

While she was in Japan gaining further education in teaching methodology, a student was bribed to say that she had paid him to take an English proficiency test. Now, this kind of buying of people to take tests or, even, get the answers, is widely known and rather accepted behavior, at least by students. As I was close to this woman, working on a paper detailing the English mistakes in national testing materials, I knew that her English was quite good. There was no reason for her to take a proficiency test. . .and she couldn’t have while in Japan anyway. Nevertheless, the school administration fired her from her position while she was in Japan: she returned to disrespect and ridicule and no vice-deanship. The last I heard, she was shelving books in the library; by now, she’s retired.

Jin Qiao’s problem was not simply her outspoken temperament and no-nonsense manner of handling herself; her problem was competency. She was intensely competent.

At school #2, I spent a year and a half with the most competent foreign affairs person I’ve dealt with in my 6-7 years here. He simply did the job as he was told to: a characteristic of Chinese teachers. They do what they’re told and they’re put-upon, treated very much like slaves and not paid much better than indentured servants, by the administration and/or their deans. In actual fact, Robert Zhang was not getting paid at all for his work. He understood the foreign position. He worked hard to help us along. He took care of all problems when they arose so that his superiors never bothered and, therefore, never knew there were any. Of course, there was always one or another piddling problem in the apartments. As would be expected. Repairmen always taking care to do a not quite adequate job in the name of job security: they’d be sure to be called back.

The Vice-dean of Foreign Languages was also competent, a real mover and shaker. (This must be taken with a cultural pinch of salt, for in China a mover and shaker gets things done in a much longer, slower, round the block manner than in the West.) I got along well with this woman. Indeed, we were working on revamping the way certain reading courses were built and taught, a project that never saw the light of day, even five years later when the Dean of my present school asked for some curriculum writing.

Alternative methods is talked about without any real knowledge of methodology and then never put into practice. It’s not been done before. Precedence, under the rubric of tradition, being the ruling principle.

Unfortunately, Robert and the vice dean went off for Master’s work. Replacing Wang Lin as Vice-dean was a man of no note, commonly known by staff and students as “gong-gong,” the appellative given to the Eunuchs of the Imperial Court in prior days. A man with decision-making responsibilities, he would make none. True to his nickname, he would take any requests to the Dean, only telling the Dean the necessary information to get the answer he intended to give all along. I got along fairly well with the Dean and one day this came to light; his reversal, though, came too late. But he did nothing to alleviate gong-gong’s problem.

I have another slight flaw: I do not give respect to people who don’t deserve it, no matter their position. I start out giving them the benefit of the doubt and let them erode themselves. I’m not rude, mind you, I simply do not obey simply because they are authority figures. (It’s so hard not to get arrogant here, in discussing this.) This is as true in China as it is in America or Japan.

Gong-gong also side-swiped a study I was conducting, with the Dean’s approval, and begun under the tutelage of the Vice-dean, on the effects of dramatic textual analysis on reading comprehension in literature (drama not being literature). Drama, because there is so much unstated in the text but implicit in the dialogue and situation, and the symbolic-metaphoric nature of literature often show the same qualities. Gong-gong denied my request to copy the post-test. Another one bites the dust. Sometimes a gong-gong’s comprehension is as amiss as his genitalia.

It must be admitted here, though, that at Gong-gong’s appointment, the female members of the staff were quite vocal in their damnation of his appointment, noting there were far more competent women in the department who could have filled the position–and would, it was predicted, do a better job.

For Gong-gong, the only thing a foreigner was good for was teaching oral English. He told me to my face that a Chinese teacher could teach English writing better than a native speaker. That is, in this case, better than a Ph.D. and published writer and editor. Well, this is, after all, China. What do I know?

But the incompetence didn’t stop here. It reared an enticingly ugly head in foreign affairs later on. Although it had been arranged that I take up much of the slack of Robert Zhang’s absence, as I knew foreigner needs and problems in a new culture, it was nevertheless decided that perhaps the most incompetent individual I’ve ever met was put in this position. Most of what I was to do was help in hiring: reading CVs and making decisions, discovering true language ability, etc. I was to be paid for each new hire (I never was). Unfortunately, the real FAO director, the Dean of the College, saw fit to install his protégé, as he might be called, Gao Sen (foreign name Garçon, though he spelled it with an “s”). A little man of no attainment who misunderstood most all of the English that came his way, spoke torturously garbled English at best, got lost on his way home on the train, could not make arrangements for travel and had a rather demeaning, rude manner of questioning everything a foreigner might have to say. To wit:- there was a short in the heater to my shower such that whenever I showered, I was shocked. Sometimes this was quite violent. Garçon came by, looked at the heater, not accepting the word of the foreigner–after all, this is China–and said, “I see no problem.” I demanded it be fixed and, sure enough, it was discovered that water was leaking back into the unit and shorting out the wiring. I got along fine with the repairman: he’d been to the house before. We joked and laughed and he told me the design of the unit was faulty and I was lucky not to be fried to a crisp. But I paid for my insistent safety with a total lack of cooperation, harmony being only the other guy’s (i.e., my) business.

Garçon was far too intellectually ungifted to get into graduate school, so the Dean of the College called in a favor at a Shanghai maritime university, so that Garçon now has a Master’s in English with, to be kind, minimal abilities, perhaps at the level of a 2-3 year old native speaker. This is okay: it is usual in China to pass everyone who manages to get into college/university. No matter what. Once you’re in, you’re out. (More of this later.)

Two to three years later, upon visiting friends and setting up house for the summer in this little city, I discovered that all of the foreigners were beset by problems for which no one in the college would make even the slightest effort to take care of, resulting in the foreigners themselves having to pay for repairs and upkeep. In one instance, a family of four was left without shower/bathroom facilities for a month. As they finally paid for this to be remedied, the FAO, not hearing of any problem, believed there was none. However, the foreigners also deigned to ever complain, having learned–you might say–that this did no good. So, they kind of sank their own boat. . .as they might have if they’d complained: individual complainers are terminated from their jobs.

This school has since had trouble finding and keeping foreign teachers. The contract is full of language that tells the hiree what the school will do to them if they misbehave; nothing for good behavior or addition to the college. And foreigners talk.

Upon leaving the college, I ran up against monetary corruption in learning that the school paid in advance of the work done. That is, payday was on the 10^th of the month for the following month’s work. This meant that I was shorted a month’s salary from hire date. I pointed this out and would not bow down to pressure or authority. The Dean of the college bought off Robert Zhang, whom I blew off (we both realized his predicament) and, in the end, I got my salary. . .a few hundred more than I would have accepted due to a miscalculation on their part. I said nothing.

Authorities in China have a very difficult time with people who do not accept their say-so, their directives, without question; they cannot deal with people who stand up to their shenanigans, their–basically–abuse. The Chinese staff certainly don’t question: job security is not a concept here. And so the settlement was belabored and done in the name of placating someone who was totally out of order and definitely wrong. How magnanimous of them!

It was also at this college (now university) that I discovered the key to college education in China. That is, the “once in, you will graduate” mantra. There is no reason to work. There is no incentive. Even students who do nothing pass. Students who cannot follow directions simply whine to the Dean and their grade is upped. Passing is a mere 60 but, in practice, everything from 54-59 is reassigned the grade of 60 without student input. This is called saving face, numbers being important to funding and status, to hell with proficiency. Even a zero can be commuted. This teaches irresponsibility by abrogating responsible behavior to the trash bin. If you are never held responsible for your behavior, you never learn responsible behavior. . . and incompetence then becomes the mark of reward. That is, the incompetent rise to the top like cream in an old, non-homogenized bottle of milk. (Oh! Do I date myself with this simile!) The few who want to learn something and work hard complain of this–to the foreigner. And then suffer at the egregious hands of their schoolmates. Who wants a hard worker around to show them up–but they all want to go further with their studies!

Incompetence is further supported as higher grades mean better placement and more in the way of minor funding, called scholarships. Thus, cheating is big. There are businesses that supply answers to tests–or even people to take them for you. Students will pay other, more competent students to take their tests for them. Plagiarism is rampant under the aegis of “borrowing” and tradition–all the way through doctoral studies. That it has nothing to do with tradition rests in the scorn heaped on plagiarizers by Liu Xie and Confucius, to name but two honored ancients.

Garçon is the prime example of incompetence rewarded, followed by Gong-gong; but the list is long. At Lanzhou jiaotong daxue, the FAO Director only got anywhere through the old buddy system and connivance. He was fond of saying that he got his Master’s at the St. Andrews University, where the Royal family and other aristocratic British dignitaries go. His English was not so good, to be kind. The Dean of the College at Anyang shifan daxue, Garçon’s mentor, got his position via his father, who was a noted vice president. The Dean of the English School at Zhongshan daxue (aka Sun Yat-sen University), a top ten university, is a do-nothing man who maintains he is an expert in the Bible and an internationally known translator and taught at a school I attended. So frightened of failing, even in the slightest of ways, he does nothing. Everyone else does it for him. Thus, if they fail it is not his fault. Martin Ma Teng at #3 Middle School, Jiayuguan; though it must be admitted he was only incompetent in his position as foreign affairs personage, albeit his English was somewhat wanting. Hu Jia, FAO secretary at Hefei gongye daxue, incompetent to get up in the morning, only in her position due to her mother’s intervention. Deans and others who expect you to produce a new, never-before-designed course in two weeks with no computer.

Another flaw of mine is the inability to not name names. Unlike the Dalai Lama, who shies away from saying much of anything, I am a committed Buddhist, albeit known as a bad Buddhist, for I eat meat, drink alcohol and fornicate at every opportunity (not many, at 62). I spent 10 years as a social-political activist for the disability community–I’m disabled myself–and was quite good at it. Putting my well-being on the line was, as noted before, what led to my emigration to China. People need to know who it is who is lying and cheating and thieving and generally keeping them down. There is little difference now, in China, from that depicted in Shui hu zhuan (Outlaws of the Marsh), a Ming dynasty satire set in the Song dynasty (11-13^th centuries). A few modern writers have had their hand slapped for saying similar things.

I cannot say, at this point, that my achievements have anything to do with my attitude and behavior. After all, I was considered too stupid to graduate from a 4-year college but I’ve got a Ph.D. And my writing and theatre were considered without merit; however, I’m published in two languages and three countries (that I know of), was a journalist, edited a literary journal, owned my own theatre and was the only foreigner ever to study at the National Puppet Theatre of Japan, a nationally protected historical treasure. My mentor, Andrew Tsubaki, is now a National Living Historical Treasure for his work in Noh theatre. This does not mean that I am necessarily any good, so you can see how competence is, then, not a high priority in my life, in my teaching. . .but I tell people anyway that it is.

But incompetence reigns in the lower regions of college-dom, for many teachers of English are near to monolingual. English is taught in Chinese, especially in lower and upper middle school. In the lower level colleges, it’s not much better. And the makers of tests of competence are mistaken in many, many ways–even unto university entrance exams. However, my study of this was rejected by an uppity, arrogant little Indian American academic editor as being no more than my opinion. Oh, surely not! Incompetence is somewhere else than in China!?

There are very nice language labs here but they are locked up except for assigned classes. No one can access them. Chinese teacher do not interact with students at all, so there is no way to gain more understanding, much less knowledge–even on the graduate level. As most of these teachers are kind of deficient in their Enlgish abilities, this is not surprising. However, this holds for every subject: the teachers go into the classroom, lecture and then leave again. All you have to do to pass is memorize a bunch of facts and spit them out at the end of the semester.

So. . .

There is a problem here, a conundrum perhaps, in that the government has sold a college education as the means to a better life, a higher paying job. . .and the people have bought it hook, line and sinker. Much as we Americans bought it in the 1950’s and 1960’s. But the quality of the college graduate remains questionable, all thought of work stopping at the entrance examination point. These exams are meant to fail people, though if you’ve gone to the right high school or gotten some kind of high priced coaching or know somebody, the qualification score is somewhat easier to attain. Grad school exams are even more elimination oriented, often only 1% of applicants being accepted. You can only apply to one top ten school, for if you fail at making the grade at one, none of the others will take you, regardless of your score (it is more difficult to get into Renmin daxue or Beida than it is to matriculate at Zhejiang daxue or Sun Yat-sen University), so that if you fail at Renmin daxue, even if your score is over the required minimum at Sun Yat-sen, you will be refused at the latter, setting you up for less of a good result upon graduation because you didn’t get a degree at a top flight school. Which isn’t saying you know so very much more.

There are three top flight schools–in the top 100–in Hefei, all within spitting distance of each other; I work at the least of the three and my students are comparable to the students I suffered through at Sun Yat-sen University. Some are even as arrogant and disrespectful; most are hard workers, very few at Sun Yat-sen were hard workers. (Caveat: I’m only really familiar with the English School of the Foreign Language College of these universities, though I have taught non-major graduate students.) Hard work pays off, of course, but it’s not necessary, so why do it?

Competition kills. It’s so intense that, though prospective students don’t commit suicide at not making the #1 school as in Japan, cheating is rampant in an attempt to insure they do make it–into any school. Once in a college, a great sigh of relief may be heaved, for the student will be graduated no matter what. Zippity doo-dah, zippity ay, my oh my what a wonderful day. Yeah. Everything going their way. And the marketplace is filled with ill-prepared, incompetent people; the universities are staffed with half- baked teachers. And one wonders why they cut corners?

There are always exceptions and these become my prize students, often questioning life and education, as they should, and thereby growing up. More often than not, they recognize the inadequacy of their education and seek study abroad. It’s difficult to make it on your merits with all of the favors and corruption going on around you. A college degree is supposed to help.

It’s a hoax.

The Making of Wu Youming

As promised, here is the first article about the educational world in China. As you will see, it has nothing to do with education per se; but it does have something to do with the kind of people who work in that bizarre little world: narrow-minded, petty, racist. This is my rendering of a particular vicious incidence of character assassination. It is in film (TV) format, though I also wrote it for theatre.

You will see that the characters are “letters”: there are no names but for the woman who was persecuted and ruined via rumor. Her name is Wu Youming吴有名, which could be read as Nobody Famous or The Famous Nobody (Wu being a family name that is homonomous with “nobody,” and youming meaning “famous”). It is pure and simple revenge on the part of L, M, G and C (though C is just a toady).

The irony is that by running her to ground, these character assassins actually made her famous, she wasn’t important enough to make a big deal over. The play/film was written about a year ago. I spent alot of time writing social satire, first in theatre 40 years ago, then in prose. I love Absurdism. I pull no punches.

Any filmmaker who would like to film this and show it, please do so. Anyone who wants the play script, please ask. So…The Making of Wu Youming.

 The Making of 吴有名 

Blank screen. 

White noise. 

Titles:

The Making of吴有名

Written by: James L. Secor

Directed by:

 

PLACE: A copse of trees. Idyllic. 

TIME: Dusk. 

                 ANGLE: From the side and behind 吴有名. Still camera. 

Silence. 

The only noise is that accompanying the action. 

A dirty street person (woman) shuffles into the scene. This is 吴有名. 

Ruffles her rags. Scratches her ass. 

As she makes her way into the trees. . . 

Voice Over: A formal, serious Master of Ceremonies voice telling the TV audience a secret. If he speaks too loudly, the old woman might hear him. 

                                                 Voice Over

This is 吴有名. That is not her real name. That has long been forgotten. 吴有名 is how she is known. During the bad times, everyone suffered. Perhaps the richer sorts more than the others. My father knew the man who ran the local tavern so I went to work. Workers came here and the out-of-sorts due to the bad times, the better sort and the pretenders. And吴有名. No one really knew who she was. She never said. Always, it was, “I’m just nobody. A figment of your imagination. Don’t even pay attention to me.” But everyone did.

“Hey, look! Nobody’s here!” would be the inevitable shout when 吴 showed up at the door.

Sometimes, she would growl back, “If I’m nobody, how can I be here?”

And everyone laughed.

吴有名 was the local joke. Downing her was a way to make everyone else feel better. The times, they were not good.

吴 never came into the tavern. She would sit on the jamb and call for her wine. It was my job to take her her wine. She had no job that anyone knew of. It was rumored, though, she’d once been a teacher. But she gave that up. No one knew why. Some of the patrons called her “professor” on account of her past life and because she would often talk about things no one understood. When she began, everyone would egg her on and tease her and laugh at her outpourings of gibberish– gibberish to them and to a 13-year old as well. Though I laughed with the others and did not understand much at all of what 吴 said, I nevertheless felt she was somehow–different. Under my skin, I knew she knew something the rest of us didn’t. Her eyes were more intense, less dry. They should have been empty because of her situation. She was more real to me than everybody else. How can I explain that? 

By this time, 吴有名 has disappeared into the woods. 

ANGLE: Hold still-camera and. . .

 IRIS IN TO SEPIA. 

IRIS OUT. 

PLACE: The bedroom of a house. Everything is white. Sparsely furnished. No windows. 

TIME: Mid-day, bright and sunny. 

ANGLE: From above and slightly off centre. 

                                                 Voice Over

This is a bedroom.                        

ANGLE: Camera pans around the room.

Stops at a clothes closet. 

                                                 Voice Over

This is a closet. It is dark in there. A small little room. Confining. It is a place for storing things. Usually clothes. But sometimes people live in closets. 

Suddenly, the closet door flies open. 

ANGLE: Close-up of a multitude of masks crowded together in the closet. 

                                                 Voice Over

And on the inside of the door is written. . . 

ANGLE: Slow pan around to sign on door. Fills TV screen. 

SIGN READS: No Exit. 

Pause. 

       ANGLE: Camera pulls away for a long shot of the closet with open door. 

But now there are only three men crushed into the closet, their masks staring out at the camera. 

ANGLE: Hold. 

                                                 Voice Over

It is a very narrow world in there. But it is all the world they’ve got. Centred on themselves, they like to impose their worldview on everyone outside, anyone who doesn’t fit with their closed belief of how things are. Anyone they think threatens them is ripe for a revaluing. 

The closet door slowly closes and latches itself shut. 

Banging around in the closet. 

SLOW FADE TO SEPIA AS. . . 

                                                 Voice Over

When the door’s closed too long, it begins to smell in there. 

BLACKOUT. 

LIGHTS UP. 

PLACE: An office. Typical office. But the desk is over-sized, as is the other furniture. The room is stark white. The furniture is brown, resembling piles of shit. 

TIME: Late afternoon. 

A short man sits behind the desk. He is almost lost. He wears a mask. The mask is of a well-groomed, debonnaire businessman. It is slightly too big for his head. This is Mr. L. 

Sitting on the sofa is a somewhat less formally dressed man, also in a mask that is too large for his head. He is taller than Mr. L. This man is smoking. When one cigarette is finished, he lights another. This is Mr. M. 

                                                 Mr. L

We have a problem. 

                                                 Mr. M

We do? 

                                                 L

We do. 

                                                 M

What is it? 

                                                 L

One of our staff is misbehaving. 

                                                 M

Oh, no! Not again! 

                                                 L

Different one. 

                                                 M

Oh? Who? 

                                                 L

Miss吴. 

                                                 M

Nice Miss吴? 

                                                 L

A wolf in sheep’s clothing. 

                                                 M

I knew it. I just knew it. 

                                                 L

Me too. 

                                                 M

They’re all really too much alike. 

                                                 L

So! (Stands) We must do something about it. 

Mr. L goes to the chair near the sofa and sits. 

                                                 L

Before things get out of hand. 

Mr. L lights a cigarette. L & M smoke awhile. 

As the scene progresses, the smoke haze grows thicker and thicker. They adjust by raising their voices til they are shouting at each other because they cannot see each other. 

                                                   M

What do you suggest we do? 

                                                   L

Find corroborating evidence.

                                                   M

You mean dig up more dirt? 

                                                   L

No, no. Digging up what’s been left behind. She’s obviously hiding something. 

                                                   M

Or she wouldn’t be here. 

                                                   L

Exactly. If she’s really who she says she is, she wouldn’t be in this backwater. 

                                                   M

Yes. Of course. It’s the way of the world. 

L & M smoke for a bit, contrapuntally. 

                                                   M

Why do they think we are so stupid we won’t see this? 

                                                   L

Racial prejudice. 

                                                   M

Ah. Yes. Always right. 

                                                   L

Superior. 

                                                   M

But we are not so stupid. 

                                                   L

No indeed not. We are very intelligent and insightful. 

                                                   M

We have a long history of intelligence and. . .stuff. Stuff like that. 

                                                   L

And so we find things out. 

Smoking continues. 

                                                   M

How do we do it? 

                                                   L

We’re missing something. 

                                                   M

Yes! We are! 

                                                   L

Let us take another look at her resume.

                                                    M

Yes. Let’s. 

Mr. L retrieves several sheets of paper from his desk, returns to chair, hands one piece of paper to Mr. M. 

They peruse the pages, holding them up against their noses. They grunt like pigs. 

They switch pages and repeat. 

They switch pages several times. 

                                                   M

I find nothing. 

                                                   L

Me neither. 

                                                   M

This must not be all.

                                                    L

Hiding something. 

                                                   M

As you say.

 Although L & M have been lighting up before, it is necessary that they light up now, filling the air with great beginning puffs of smoke. 

                                                   L

Ask for a complete resume.

                                                   M

Isn’t this it?

                                                   L

She’s obviously hiding something. 

                                                   M

Ahhhh. . .yes.

                                                   L

Then we will jump on her. 

                                                   M

How do you know she’ll do it? 

                                                   L

They’re all the same. What do they know about subtlety and cunning? We have a long history of language ambiguity and hiding our minds behind smiling eyes and gentle winning ways. 

                                                   M

Stupid to the point of ridiculousness. Easy pickings.

                                                   L

In the meantime, I’ll investigate her house. 

                                                   M

How will you do that? 

                                                   L

I have connections. 

                                                   M

Oh. Those guys. 

                                                   L

Yes. Those guys. 

                                                   M

We’re bound to find something, then. 

                                                   L

It’s inevitable.

FADE OUT. 

FADE UP. 

PLACE: A different office with the same furniture rearranged.

TIME: Late afternoon. A slant of sunlight slices through the room. 

Mr. G sits at his computer. He is doing nothing. He is about the same age as Mr. M.  

Mr. M appears at the open door and knocks. 

Mr. G turns in his chair. He is wearing a mask. Too big for him. A dapper, superior-looking mask as befits his nattily dressed figure. He is a smooth, controlled talker.

                                                   Mr. G

Yes? Come in. 

                                                   M

I’m Mr. M. 

                                                   G

Ahh! Mr. M. Welcome. Welcome. Come in. Come in. 

Mr. G goes to Mr. M and shakes his hand, guides him to the chair. 

Mr. G stands a moment looking down on Mr. M. Mr. M looks up to Mr. G 

Mr. G sits on sofa, far from Mr. M. 

                                                   G

I’m glad you could come. 

                                                   M

I’ve come about Miss吴. 

                                                   G

Yes. Yes. I remember her well. Caused quite a stir here. Upset the smooth running of everything. Even questioned me, of all people. Can you imagine? 

                                                   M

Yes. She is a problem.

                                                   G

Yes. I mean. . .who does she think she is? I’m the internationally known translator and Bible expert. 

                                                   M

And Dean.                                                    G

Yes, yes. Indeed. I am that. (Pause. Claps hands together) So! What can I do for you? 

                                                   M

It’s Miss吴. 

                                                   G

So you said. 

                                                   M

We want to know if she did anything similar down here to what she’s done up there. With us. 

                                                   G

And what might that be? 

                                                   M

It seems–(Coughs)–she likes little boys. 

                                                   G

Is that so? Well. . .oh, yes! I do recall something like that. Seduced– sexually abused a young boy student. Yes. Very terrible, sad thing. (Pause) Is that the kind of thing you’re looking for? 

                                                   M

Yes. Exactly. 

                                                   G

Glad to be of help. Will there be anything else?

                                                   M

Could we see the boy? 

                                                   G

Ah, no. I’m afraid not. He’s. . .not here, you know. So traumatized we had to send him home. We can’t have you disturbing the poor innocent.

                                                   M

No, no. Of course not. We would like you to come up and talk with Mr. L, my superior. And perhaps sign a statement. 

                                                   G

Ahhh. No. No. I can’t do that. No, no. Too many responsibilities down here. I’m the dean, you know. People rely on me. And there’s a great school event we’re involved in carrying off. Perhaps you saw the banners. . . 

                                                   M

No. I saw no banners. 

                                                   G

Well. . .perhaps they’ve not gotten them up–as they should. (Goes to window and looks out) You know how some workers are. Let me see. . .I’ll just make a note of that. . . (Scribbles on a scrap of paper) Anything else 

                                                   M

We are willing to make it worth your while. 

                                                   G

Well, now. . .let me check my calendar. . . 

Mr. G goes to computer and messes around a bit. 

Turns in chair. 

                                                   G

It looks like I could manage to sneak away for a day or two. I find I’m really not needed right away after all. My secretary can take care of things. Delightfully competent young lady. And quite alluring, too. 

Mr. G rubs his hands together. Licks his lips. 

BLACKOUT. 

                                                   G

(Voice in blackout) I’ll show you to best me! I’ll ruin you! I’ll stomp you into the ground. You. . .you. . . 

LIGHTS UP. 

PLACE: Mr. L’s office. 

TIME: Evening. Full moon visible out the window. 

Mr. L and Mr. M at door, having just seen Mr. G out.  

They look at each other. 

They offer each other a cigarette. 

They shake hands. 

Mr. L. and Mr. M go to sofa and chair and light up. 

                                                   M

Imagine. . .finding the filthy, dirty proof so easily. 

                                                   L

Yes. We are good. But you know. . . 

                                                   M

What?

                                                   L

She is so stupid to leave it lying around for all to see.

                                                   M

They are all so stupid. 

                                                   L

Especially to think that we are so stupid. 

                                                   M

That we would not find it. 

                                                   L

Luckily Mr. G was around and had a story to tell. 

                                                   M

Very convincing story, too.                                                  

                                                   L

Can you imagine even thinking you could get away with something so disgusting. 

                                                   M

I would never think of such a thing. Even with Miss C. 

                                                   L

Oh, yes. She is very. . . 

                                                   M

Delicious. 

                                                   L

Yes. Delicious. 

Phone rings. 

Mr. L goes to desk to answer it. 

                                                   L

Yah? . . . Oh? . . . Right out in the open? . . . How disgusting. . . . Eh? You’re kidding! . . . Oh. Thank you for keeping me posted, Miss C. (Hangs up. To Mr. M) That was Miss C. 

                                                   M

Ah. She is a good spy. 

                                                   L

Yes, she is. And Miss吴 does not know. She tells her everything and Miss C sifts through it for the truth she knows lies hidden in there. 

Mr. L and Mr. M laugh and puff their cigarettes. 

Mr. L returns to his chair, carrying his phone with him. 

                                                   M

What did Miss C say? 

                                                   L

Miss吴 hugs the boys in public. 

                                                   M

Oh. That is disgusting. 

                                                   L

In the school yard where everyone can see. 

                                                   M

I mean! 

                                                   L

She doesn’t even try to hide it. 

                                                   M

Miss C tells me they visit her house often on the weekends. 

                                                   L

Oh? She tells me it is only one boy. 

                                                   M

One boy? 

                                                   L

The public displays of affection are only cover for what happens in her house. Of course. 

                                                   M

How sneaky. 

                                                   L

Devious. 

Mr. L and Mr. M smoke. 

                                                   L

We found spots on the bed clothes. 

                                                   M

Really? Stiff white ones? 

                                                   L

Of course. I don’t think she washes her sheets. 

                                                   M

Likes to revel in the deed 

                                                   L

Yes. Disgusting. 

                                                   M

Who is the boy? 

                                                   L

Little N. 

                                                   M

How interesting. 

                                                   L

Yes. Isn’t it. 

                                                   M

You’d think he would know better. 

                                                   L

Oh, you know. . .boys today. It’s the only thing they think of. She just takes advantage of the situation. 

                                                   M

It must be the only thing she thinks of, too. 

                                                   L

Doubtless. 

                                                   M

Not like our day. 

                                                   L

Certainly not. 

Mr. L and Mr. M smoke. 

The phone rings. 

                                                   L

Yah? . . .Oh. Hi, sweet thing. . . . Hmm? . . .You must go away for another meeting? . . . I was so hoping you’d be around this weekend, I’m feeling particularly randy. . . . Yes, yes. I know. . . . Yes. I can fend for myself. I’m a big boy, you know. . . . Alright. ‘Bye, dear. (To Mr. M) That was my wife. 

                                                   M

Ah. Off on another business trip? 

                                                   L

Yes. So very many. 

                                                   M

There is a nice young girl at the massage parlor. 

                                                   L

Yes? 

                                                   M

Yes. Must be all of 14 or 15. Nice pert little breasts. No stretch marks. 

                                                   L

Yes? 

                                                   M

Yes. Cherry red nipples that stand right up. 

                                                   L

White skin? 

                                                   M

Like milk. 

                                                   L

Hair? 

                                                   M

Shaved. 

                                                   L

Ooh! How nice. 

                                                   M

She’ll do anything you ask. 

                                                   L

Really? 

                                                   M

Yes. And not so very expensive, all things considering. 

                                                   L

Pity she’s not a virgin. 

                                                   M

There are no more of them at that age. 

                                                   L

Not like the old days. 

                                                   M

Not like our wives. 

                                                   L

Yes. . .what has happened to the world? No more purity. 

Phone rings. 

                                                   L

Yah? . . . What?! (Jumps up) What? . . . What? . . . You’re kidding. . . . Damn! . . . Alright. You know who to talk to. (To Mr. M) She’s slipping through the net. 

                                                   M

What? How could she. 

                                                   L

I don’t know. We didn’t do anything to tip her off. 

                                                   M

No, no, no. But she’s so disgusting, it’s hard to talk to her. 

                                                   L

Yes. Or even be pleasant. 

Pause. 

                                                   M

How do you know? 

                                                   L

Miss C’s with her now. At the train depot. 

                                                   M

Damn! 

                                                   L

She was going to leave without telling us. 

                                                   M

That’s breaking the contract. 

                                                   L

She can’t do that. 

                                                   M

We can sue her. 

                                                   L

Yes. . .if we can keep track of her. 

                                                   M

What are you going to do? 

                                                   L

Plan B. 

                                                   M

Plan B? 

                                                   L

Always have a contingency plan, Mr. M. You must keep in mind that things do occasionally go wrong. So. . .Miss C is going to leak the truth to a few key people. We must do the same. 

                                                   M

But she might get away. 

                                                   L

I can take care of that. 

Mr. L and Mr. M stub out their cigarettes. Mr. M immediately lights another. 

Mr. M leaves. 

Mr. L picks up his phone.

SLOW SAD FADE TO BLACK. 

IRIS OUT. 

Sepia of opening shot. 

吴有名’s voice. Over the action. She has a scratchy, alto voice. 

                                                   吴有名

Some people look at life through a pirate’s spy glass and at the other end they see themselves. Their coping mechanism is putting everything into this universe’s orb. Behavior is, after all, what you see. (Snorts) To everything there is a reason. These people construct reasons for whatever disconnected bits and pieces they see and want to see in their spy glass. They commit murder. Kongzi said, Clever talk, a pretentious manner and a reverence that is only of the feet–Tso Ch’iu Ming was incapable of stooping to them, and I too could never stoop to them. (Scratches her ass. Farts) I don’t know. I just don’t know. Not any more. 

IRIS IN TO BLACK 

LIGHTS UP. 

PLACE: Mr. L’s office. 

TIME: Mid-day. Sun streams in through the window. Very, very bright. 

Mr. L is at his desk, on his phone.

                                                  L 

Yes, that’s right. . . . Yes. Well, you know. They are all pretty stupid. . . . Yes. Easy to pull the wool over their eyes. . . . Yes. String her along. . . . That’s right. And then dump her. . . . Yes, I know. It is disgusting. But what can we do, eh? It is our job as citizens to stop crime before it happens. . . . Ah. Yes. Well. How she escaped here is a mystery. But we have her now, yes? . . . What?! . . . She’s making friends with the girls?! . . . How utterly despicable! Boys and girls. . . . Yes. Be nice and keep your distance. . . . Alright. Thank you. (Ends call) Yes! We’ve got her! The foreign devil. 

Knock at door. 

                                                   L

Enter! 

Mr. M comes in holding newspapers. 

                                                   M

We have a problem. 

                                                   L

Solved. 

                                                   M

No. I don’t think so. Take a look at this. 

Mr. M hands papers to Mr. L. 

Mr. L. reads, exasperated. Reads another and another. Exasperation grows. 

                                                   M

She has made herself so public. 

                                                   L

This makes our job more difficult. 

Mr. L and Mr. M sit at sofa and chair and light up. They puff awhile. 

                                                   L

Those kinds of people cannot not leave a trail of slime. And she has the gall to do this! 

                                                   M

You mean like they are hooked? Like on drugs? 

                                                   L

Exactly. 

                                                   M

And when they are high, druggies do wild and crazy things. Everybody knows that. 

Mr. L and Mr. M puff on their cigarettes. 

                                                   L

I have spoken to the people down there. 

                                                   M

You have? 

                                                   L

Yes. Miss吴 is now into girls. 

                                                   M

What?! Oh, that’s horrible! 

                                                   L

Yes. It is. Insatiable filth. 

                                                   M

Does she do both together? 

                                                   L

What a. . .thought! 

Pause. 

                                                   M

Grime and shit. 

                                                   L

Soiled and dingy. 

Mr. L and Mr. M smoke in time with their epithets. 

                                                   M

Musty and messy. 

                                                   L

Sloppy and untidy. 

                                                   M

Foul and mucky. 

                                                   L

Rotten and putrid. 

                                                   M

Smutty and slimy. 

                                                   L

Come and juice! 

                                                   M

Tongues and fingers! 

                                                   L

Front door and back door! 

                                                   M

Sixty-nine! 

                                                   L & M

(Shout) Mouse eats little brother! 

Silence at fever pitch. 

                                                   M

I wouldn’t mind getting her. 

                                                   L

You filthy bastard. 

                                                   M

Wouldn’t you like to get her? 

Mr. L stands. Straightens clothes. 

                                                   M

You know what they say. .  

                                                   L

I’m a man. 

                                                   M

Me too. 

Mr. M lights another cigarette and sucks strongly on it. 

Mr. L goes to bookcases. Rummages around. Comes out with a bottle of champagne. 

                                                   L

I’ve been saving this. 

                                                   M

Good stuff, huh? 

                                                   L

Oh, my, yes. 

Mr. M gets out paper cups. 

Mr. L. goes to chair. 

They stand a moment. 

They take off their masks. 

ANGLE: Close-up of faces. 

Mr. L and Mr. M are truly disgusting looking. Their faces are distorted and almost inhuman-looking and spotted with greenish mold. 

                              ANGLE: Tight frame on Mr. L and Mr. M and champagne. 

Mr. L pops the cork. Foam billows out over bottle neck and hands. They laugh suggestively. 

Mr. L pours two paper cups full. They foam over. Mr. L and Mr. M laugh again. 

                                                   L

Another one bites the dust. 

                                                   M

Another one bites the dust. 

ANGLE: Pull away as Mr. L and Mr. M drink and laugh. 

MUSIC: Queen, “Another One Bites the Dust.” 

SLOW FADE TO SEPIA. 

Run credits.

 THE END

 

Locater Nun

        Locater Nun. AKA the Plainclothes Nun. She was out and about. Again. She wasn’t often still. She had a calling. It was her duty. Her job she sometimes thought. But. She consoled herself. The way was never easy. So. She cultivated perseverance. It was perhaps her most admirable quality. She persisted. No matter what. She did not give up. Stayed the course. Loyal. To herself. To her ideals. To the end.

As I say. Admirable. Perhaps. After all. The message must get out. An inspired message. Divinely inspired. Luckily she had a habit otherwise people would label her insane. But she did not believe in histrionics. Not like those who threw themselves to the floor. Speaking in strange tongues. Eating carpets. Fists and feet flailing. No sir. Not her. Not Locater Nun. No such antics for her. Her agenda was different. Her agenda was open and forthright. Above board.

Locater Nun was after hypocrisy. Sanctimony. She ferreted it out. But. Let us lay this to rest. For the moment. We’ll pick it up later. Like a Puritan it will always be with us.

Now. A little about Locater Nun. Herself. The soul of the woman. Which wasn’t as simple as some said. Simon. Put your mouth where your hands are. Put your feet in your mouth. Heh-heh.

You see. Some say she is of the establishment. That is. She has the corporate mindset. Because. She’s a fine specimen of the Institution of God. Godliness. She succumbs. She knows her place. Has accepted her hooded state. She has been habituated. Even though she’s a plainclothes nun. An undercover agent. As such. The saying goes. She can only think what she’s been programmed to think. A robot for God. And. Of course. It is true. When you are inside the castle you cannot see beyond the walls. And. Again. Those who have been affected by the thought police don’t know they’ve been effected by the thought police. But they think everyone else has been. Oh well. You know. When you’re right you’re right. And if you’re right you’re not left. Behind.

But this is being harsh. There is more to Locater Nun. Though for some there is only one. One thing. One to her.

You see what you want to see. Mirror mirror. Etc. Etc.

No. Locater Nun believed she was the Charioteer of God. She had a good soul. She. Herself. And. She took seriously. Literally. The dictum. “Go forth and stand upon the outside of heaven.” Even here Locator Nun had her detractors. They said. Concrete thinking is a sign of mental instability. There are always naysayers. Let us be kind. Love your enemy. Otherwise how will you know what he or she is thinking?

The Charioteer of God. Locater Nun. Knows true knowledge. Abides there. In colorless formless intangible essence. Visible only to mind. The pilot of the soul. As they say. I am therefore I have thoughts without a thinker which demand a mind to think about them. Yes. Locater Nun was mindful of this. And so it was. That. Being nurtured upon pure knowledge she rejoiced at beholding Reality. Halleluiah! And she gazed upon Truth. And she was replenished. She was glad. Knowledge in absolute. Existence in absolute. Justice and temperance. In absolution. And. Beholding true Existence. She. Locater Nun. Passes down into the interior of heaven and says. Nay. I cannot accept ambrosia and nectar until all reality is saved. That is. All mankind.

What devotion. What dedication. Benevolence. Beneficence. Compassion is the greatest love. Let there be light!

Locater Nun’s avowed job. Her chosen path. Her raison d’etre. Is to save other souls. To bring them enlightenment. By confronting them with reality. With the error of their ways. They are troubled. She believes. By uncontrollable steeds. Unruly Houyhnhnm. This is because these people are not strong enough. And so they are carried round and down. Plunging. Lunging. Treading on each other. Everyone striving to be number one. To be on the top. Falling. Espying. Failing again. Confusion. Perspiration. Extreme effort. They become lamed. Clip-winged fallen angels. Fruitless toil. And. Disillusioned. They imbibe opinion. Even though there is pasturage. Unable to follow. Unable to behold Truth. Ill-happed. They slip and slide into forgetfulness. And vice. Aiya! What to do? What to do!

Enter Locater Nun. Come to show them the error of their ways. Determined, Diligent. Demanding.

None. She vowed. None would escape her revelatory zeal. It was as if she were on a witch hunt. Only as if. You understand.

Hypocrisy. Sanctimony. She came after them.

She kept a little black book. And in that book she noted who was naughty and who was nice. Who got their stockings filled. And who got their blocks of coal.

“There is no profit in a man’s life,” she began, “if his body and mind are in an evil plight. You must rid yourselves of these lurid sex stories from anonymous assistant crudite girls who work on arts and crafts service tables at this or that carnival of animals hoping, hoping for that big break only to uncover nonexistent penumbras of delight to airhead anti-humanists.”

So went Locator Nun’s hysterical anti-humanitarian rants. She traversed the land. In seven league boots even. Maintaining. In appropriate self-righteous tones. After all. She was saved. God’s charioteer. Here to bring the fallen back to the proper way. The enlightened way. Yes. She maintained that the few anti-humanists were perverting the rest of humanity. And they had to be stopped. In their tracks. Before they led the goodly humanists over the abyss. They. The anti-humanists. Were traitors. To all of humanity. Humanism. The people who really cared.

But. Of course. They didn’t know it. The anti-humanists. So. It was time the error of their ways was smashed unceremoniously in their repugnant faces. Locater Nun called them what they were. She called a spade a spade. She wasted no flowery rhetoric. Judgment was coming. Judgment would be swift. And final.

Taking a deep breath Locator Nun lowered her already worldly standards to speak in language that these traitors to humanity and humanism could understand. Traitors needed to have their anti-humanitarian ways thrust unceremoniously into their lurid disgusting pig-eyed little faces. Locator Nun was bringing home the bacon. Plopping it unceremoniously in their back yards.

And so. These are the kinds of things she said. Distilled. You understand. She’d been at this for oh so many years. Spurred on by her sense of mission. Her horses were becoming restless.

“Anti-humanists could never persuade humanists to follow their insane ideas. Infanticide. Sexual perversion. Adoption. Trigger finger tampering. Mixing and matching. Abolishing punishment finalities. Opportunity knocking. And yet. Anti-humanitarians wage a vicious campaign. Of vilification. And. Therefore. Of course. Craven moderately humanist humanists would be expected to follow.”

Yes. She said, “We face moral choices. Between good and evil. Every day. Every day. Day in and day out. Everyman’s everychoice everyday. If we make excuses for evil soon we cease being able to distinguish evil from good at all. With each choice we make. Large or small. We therefore take a step closer to the Devil. And so. Yes. They have made excuses for evil for so long they cannot recognize evil any more. The closest thing to it. Evil. In their vocabulary someone who wears fur. Yet many anti-humanists wear beards!” She would need to take a deep breath here. Sucking back the excess saliva that had accumulated on her rosy lips. Natural. No lipstick. You understand.

“Hiding their true selves. Behind their masks of fur. They are become amoral appeasers and foreign suck-ups whose faces are no stranger to confusion or befuddlement. Look at their beards for the love of God!”

It was all so self-evident. You know.

“God’s charioteer is come to Earth to meet out the punishment they deserve. The anti-humanists. You see. Anti-humanists simply can’t grasp the problem. Their specialty is hysterical overreaction. The truth is not their forte. What is the problem?” Another sage pause. “It is so self-evident! It need not be stated. They. They use words like decent and solid to describe their two-faced weasel hypocrisy.” And here. Locater Nun leaned forward over whatever podium she happened to be standing behind. For emphasis. “You don’t have to enter the No Spin Zone to see the disconnect.”

You’d think this would be enough. But no. There’s more.

“They talk about simulating belief in something. Anti-humanists believe in crazy God crap. They hoodwink others into believing they should believe in the crazy God crap too. It’s part of the casual contempt anti-humanists have for the views of normal people. Righteous people. The yous and mes of the world. Everymans. Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy I tell you. Hypocrisy is the sin that inflames them. And they say the humanists are the hypocrites.”

Take a deep breath. To calm her audience down. To calm herself down. Then begin again. Her diatribe. Hmm. To whom is she talking?

“Inasmuch as anti-humanitarians have no morals they sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards they renounce. It’s an intriguing strategy.”

But Locater Nun. You understand. Has been deferential. She. In the face of this concatenation. Yes. She resisted the persistent. Illiterate urge. By others. You understand. To call anti-humanists traitors. At first. With a great deal of charity. And a willing suspension of disbelief. She conceded that many anti-humanists were merely fatuous fools fomenting at the mouth. Village idiots. But. Alas. The time came. It could not be put off. After all. And Locater Nun did some straight talking. Then. At that time. From then on.

Often in meandering mind-numbing prose. Like. The anti-humanists have turned a savage fascist nation into a peace-loving democracy overnight.

“Totalitarian monsters. Bloody tyrants. Fascists.”

The enlightened often talk in paradoxes.

The ends justify the means. But only if the end is to slander anti-humanists.

“Anti-humanists are fanatical liars. Hobgoblinists. They engage in myth-making. Rewriting history. Blackening reputations. They are on a horrid campaign of horrendous lies and disinformation. Anti-humanists are noise machines.”

They were matched by the canting of one. Locater Nun.

“Anti-humanists are incapable of feeling hate for the enemy. Anti-humanists unabashedly invoke lies in order to shield their ongoing traitorous behavior. They wear masks. Look at their bears for Christ’s sake.”

There was the word. She had sealed fate. Traitorous bastards. Sullying  out-from-unders. Pantywaists. Gutless wonders. Chicken livereds. Self-aggrandizers.

Locater Nun the plethora tongued.

“Anti-humanists become highly histrionically indignant when I question their patriotism. To life. Social terrors. Terrorists. They prattle on and on about the right to dissent being the true mark of humanitarianism when of course they are wrong. It is God.”

And the Papal treasury. Aka the World Bank.

“Those who cannot stay focused on fighting the enemy are objectively pro-terrorist. They too are traitors. The innocent are guilty. Traitors do that to you.”

So. Mind your P’s and Q’s. Or. Locater Nun’s come to get you.

Some said she sounded like a woman quarrelling with her husband. In conceit of her happiness.

Being a self-righteous charioteer of God. Locater Nun obeyed the laws of man. Roman laws. Derivative laws. Empirical because of the empire. Perpetuated down through time. Ad absurdum. The only way to go. And so. It was. Traitors should be shot. Would be shot. Put to death. Finis. It’s the law. Human. Humanitarian. It saves lives. In the end. You just gotta cut it off at the source. Baby. Anyway. No penalty which the law inflicts is designed for evil. Always makes him who suffers either better or not so much more worse. As he would have been. But. If any unmentionable be found guilty let the judge deem him uncurable. Remembering. After receiving such an excellent education and training from youth upward. The rogue has not abstained from the greatest of crimes. Which is being led to godlessness. Insolence. Injustice. Exile and death are too good. They must be disgraced as well. No criminal shall go unpunished.

The law is right. The law is good. Whoever enslaves the laws. Uses violence. Stirs up sedition. Wanting to change the state. This person is the greatest criminal of all. Worse than a god-defier. Already the worst. Yea I say unto you. Even cowards are as bad as traitors.

Kill. Kill. Kill. Clean out the trash. The detritus of humanity. So humanity might live. Amen.

Some said that she should beware. Lest from imitation she become what she imitates.

And so it came to pass. 10,000,000 people. Traitors all. They were put to death. It was the only humane way. Contamination had to be resourced out. When people cannot see the error of their ways. They must be made to see the error of their ways. They must be made to accept responsibility for their actions. So. All 10,000,000 traitors were executed in the humanist fashion of the day. That they might climb aboard the chariot of God. And meet him. And know absolute truth. It is the way of the world.

 Locator Nun sat back. Crossed her legs. Sighed. Took out a cigarette. She puffed and puffed. Lots of smoke. Screening her from the heavens above. Life was not always so sweet. Or clean. But when you have a job to do. A duty. A calling. You must remain loyal. To the cause. Whatever.

But. You know. Now. Locater Nun’s without a job. A duty. A calling. All’s quiet on the Western front.

And she’s misplaced her chariot.

[Locator Nun = anagram of Ann Coulter; metaphors are from Plato]

The old “I’ve got nothing to hide” excuse

I really try to stay away from talking about my family but this item is the height of selective blindness. It is this: my family finds absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that the government is reading their mail, listening to their phone calls, following them on the Internet or has the ability to break into their house and arrest them, take them to jail, not let them have access to an attorney and, basically, disappear. This is cool. It’s part of the two Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act. Those are laws of the land. Nothing wrong with that. Why is it okay with my family? Because, “I’ve got nothing to hide.”
I think this is ignorant. Worse, they are ignorant of their ignorance. I guess they’re waiting for Eve to bite into the apple, which is both the fruit of the tree of life and the fruit of love. Interesting pairing, that.
But let’s put aside my prejudice and look at their excuse: I’ve got nothing to hide.
It is selfish. It is only concerned with them, themselves. As if to say, to hell with anyone else. This is, of course, the ultimate in individualism, as it has been re-interpreted since Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists brought it up. For Emerson and the Transcendentalists, no individual is separate from the community; the community helps define the individual. That is, to be totally, 100% an individual is antithetical to social stability. It is anarchy; that is, everyone doing what they want regardless of the effects it may have on anyone else. Some might say it guts the social contract. It is, indeed, a denial of social responsibility. It is a denial of involvement. It is irresponsible behavior. It is utter chaos. Of course, if you’re part of society, you are part of what society does and the repercussions of those actions. As Karl Jaspers noted in A Question of German Guilt, everyone is guilty. Everyone. He does not exclude himself, even though he ran from the fascist regime.
So, to claim total independence from society via one’s claiming individual choice is irresponsible.
My family, too, believes it is making its own choice, without bias or forethought. They read the conservative Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal and then, I’m told, make up their own minds what to believe. To someone of little brain like myself or Winnie the Pooh, this sounds a little like they’ve made up their minds before they begin. That is, they’ve chosen ahead of time which information outlet to pay attention to, ignoring all the rest, before they “make up their own minds.” Another word for this is “prejudice,” I think. As my family are self-proclaiming Christians, I can see where they get this kind of logic.
But, here, with their professed Christianity, there is another conundrum–dare I say contradiction? Paradox? Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love and respect for your fellow man, even your enemy. Yet, in the “I’ve got nothing to hide” syndrome, there is no love nor no respect or consideration for their fellow men. As long as they are home free, everything’s hunky-dory. It is saying, as God’s chosen are wont to say, I’m good but y’all are sinners. I’m better than you are, na-na-na-na-nah! Wilhelm Reich has pointed out this is fascist thinking, maintaining all religions are this way: my way is right, so yours is wrong. [The Mass Psychology of Fascism] This means, of course, that you, the wrong one, can die because, being wrong, you can’t be saved, you’re not one of us, you’re expendable. Ergo, “I’ve got nothing to hide” means I’m right, you’re wrong and so you deserve what you get.
There is an inherent superiority in this, a kind of hubris. I think the cliché, coming from ancient Greek, is “pride cometh before the fall.” Such a tragedy.
But. . .do they have nothing to hide? Are they sure they have nothing to hide?
To maintain “I’ve got nothing to hide” means that they know, for sure, what the government is looking for. That is, they can read the government’s mind. Like some women can read the minds of all men via “that look in their eyes” and Christians know God’s plan even though God’s ken is way beyond a human’s ability to comprehend. Truly, how sure are they?
In fact, it doesn’t matter whether they’ve got nothing to hide or not. If someone else is nailed and they have a connection with a member of my family, my family is implicated and disappeared. If the other person bears a grudge, of the sort found with Montressor for Fortunato [Edgar Allan Poe, The Cask of Amantillado], then my family’s name will fall off that other person’s lips like drool from a toothing baby’s mouth. Also, their being picked up puts me in dire straits and I’m not even in America. Their “I’ve got nothing to hide” that got them into trouble by someone else’s say-so–commonly called hearsay evidence–screws me. That they feel no guilt over this possibility is frightening, though not out of line with prior behavior: when the ICU wanted my next-of-kin and I sent a friend to contact my family, my family did not respond. How unfortunate for my family that I survived.
But let’s assume, just for kicks, that the person disappeared is someone they do like, someone close to them that they respect. When he’s disappeared, do you think they’ll look into the matter, call up to find out where he is? Run on down to his house to see where he’s gotten to? He’s not been seen for so long. Do you think they’ll stand up for the disappeared and maintain his innocence? Do ya, huh? I don’t. I think they know better than to step out of line and be honest and upright and, as they will be more than likely to say, stick their nose into business that isn’t theirs. After all, who’s important?! This is fear. This is the fear their government wishes to instill in its subjects–er, citizens. This is the fear they’ve snapped up like that fly the frog ate for dinner. This is the fear that makes them forget they’re human and they’ve got friends.
If you can’t trust no one, who can you trust?
So. . .they are inconsiderate, inhumane, innocent, irresponsible and ignorant yet. . . they have nothing to hide. And they have an ethics problem. Stephen Pepper would consider them psychologically diseased, seeing some people as expendable and themselves not. [World Hypotheses]
I may be over-reacting here but I’m frightened of these people. They know not what they do. And. . .they know not what they say. And they don’t give a damn, just as long as they’re left alone. I’m innocent! I’m innocent! I ain’t done nothin’!
Let me see if I can make my family clearer for you. . .”I didn’t know why they were cramming all them Jews into them box cars at machine gun point.” And, “I ain’t never heard o’ no concentration camps. Ain’t that whar ya larn how to thank real hard?”
My family’s about as clever as Br’er Bear:
Well, Brer Fox, he was plenty mad that he’d worked so hard on those peas only to have them eaten by someone else. He suspected that Brer Rabbit was to blame for this, but the rascally rabbit had covered his tracks so well that Brer Fox couldn’t catch him. So Brer Fox came up with a plan. He found a smooth spot in his fence where a cunning rabbit could sneak in, and he set a trap for Brer Rabbit at that spot. He tied a rope to a nearby hickory sapling and bent it nearly double. Then he took the other end of the rope and made a loop knot that he fastened with a trigger right around the hole in the fence. If anybody came through the crack to steal his peas, the knot would tighten around their body, the sapling would spring upright, and they would be left hanging from the tree for everyone to see.
The next morning, Brer Rabbit came a-slipping through the hole in the fence. At once, the trigger sprung, the knot tightened on his forelegs, and the hickory tree snapped upright, quick as you please. Brer Rabbit found himself swung aloft betwixt the heaven and the earth, swinging from the hickory sapling. He couldn’t go up and he couldn’t go down. He just went back and forth.
Brer Rabbit was in a fix, no mistake. He was trying to come up with some glib explanation for Brer Fox when he heard someone a-rumbling and a-bumbling down the road. It was Brer Bear, looking for a bee-tree so he could get him some honey. As soon as Brer Rabbit saw Brer Bear, he came up with a plan to get himself free.
“Howdy, Brer Bear,” he called cheerfully. Brer Bear squinted around here and there, wondering where the voice had come from. Then he looked up and saw Brer Rabbit swinging from the sapling.
“Howdy Brer Rabbit,” he rumbled. “How are you this morning?”
“Middling, Brer Bear,” Rabbit replied. “Just middling.”
Brer Bear was wondering why Brer Rabbit was up in the tree, so he asked him about it. Brer Rabbit grinned and said that he was earning a dollar-a-minute from Brer Fox.
“A dollar-a-minute!” Brer Bear exclaimed. “What for?”
“I’m keeping the crows away from his goober patch,” Brer Rabbit explained, and went on to say that Brer Fox was paying a dollar-a-minute to whomever would act as a scarecrow for him.
Well, Brer Bear liked the sound of that. He had a big family to feed, and he could use the money. When Brer Rabbit asked him if he would like to have the job, Brer Bear agreed. Brer Rabbit showed him how to bend the sapling down and remove the knot from his forepaws. When Brer Rabbit was free, Brer Bear climbed into the knot and soon he was hanging aloft betwixt heaven and earth, swing to and from the sapling and growling at the birds to keep them away from the goober patch. [Bre'r Rabbit Earns A Dollar A Day, Joel Chandler Harris]

Or, maybe, they’re suffering from George Warren’s little canary, Chippie, syndrome:
Once there was a parakeet named Chippie. Chippie loved to sing because he didn’t have a care in the world! Chippie had a wonderful life in his birdcage until one day something happened to bring all of that to an end. It was the day his owner decided to clean the cage floor with her canister vacuum cleaner. She put the nozzle in the cage and started vacuuming the floor of the cage, and at that moment her telephone rang. She turned around to pick it up, and inadvertently pointed the nozzle up into the air–right at Chippie! She sucked poor Chippie into the vacuum cleaner, head first! Well, she panicked and threw down the phone, turned off the vacuum cleaner and quickly opened up the bag. And sure enough, there was Chippie on the inside–dazed and stunned and covered with dust. She quickly grabbed him and raced off to the bathroom and washed all the dust off, but then the tiny bird began shivering, soaking wet. And so, she did what every compassionate bird owner would do. She reached for her hot air drier and turned it on and blasted poor old Chippie with hot air! Well, a few days later, the friend on the phone called to see how Chippie was doing, and I love the woman’s reply. She said, Well, I’m not sure. He doesn’t sing anymore. He just sits here and stares! [When Your World Is Falling Apart, Look Up]

The old “I’ve got nothing to hide” excuse

I really try to stay away from talking about my family but this item is the height of selective blindness. It is this: my family finds absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that the government is reading their mail, listening to their phone calls, following them on the Internet or has the ability to break into their house and arrest them, take them to jail, not let them have access to an attorney and, basically, disappear. This is cool. It’s part of the two Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act. Those are laws of the land. Nothing wrong with that. Why is it okay with my family? Because, “I’ve got nothing to hide.”
I think this is ignorant. Worse, they are ignorant of their ignorance. I guess they’re waiting for Eve to bite into the apple, which is both the fruit of the tree of life and the fruit of love. Interesting pairing, that.
But let’s put aside my prejudice and look at their excuse: I’ve got nothing to hide.
It is selfish. It is only concerned with them, themselves. As if to say, to hell with anyone else. This is, of course, the ultimate in individualism, as it has been re-interpreted since Ralph Waldo Emerson and the Transcendentalists brought it up. For Emerson and the Transcendentalists, no individual is separate from the community; the community helps define the individual. That is, to be totally, 100% an individual is antithetical to social stability. It is anarchy; that is, everyone doing what they want regardless of the effects it may have on anyone else. Some might say it guts the social contract. It is, indeed, a denial of social responsibility. It is a denial of involvement. It is irresponsible behavior. It is utter chaos. Of course, if you’re part of society, you are part of what society does and the repercussions of those actions. As Karl Jaspers noted in A Question of German Guilt, everyone is guilty. Everyone. He does not exclude himself, even though he ran from the fascist regime.
So, to claim total independence from society via one’s claiming individual choice is irresponsible.
My family, too, believes it is making its own choice, without bias or forethought. They read the conservative Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal and then, I’m told, make up their own minds what to believe. To someone of little brain like myself or Winnie the Pooh, this sounds a little like they’ve made up their minds before they begin. That is, they’ve chosen ahead of time which information outlet to pay attention to, ignoring all the rest, before they “make up their own minds.” Another word for this is “prejudice,” I think. As my family are self-proclaiming Christians, I can see where they get this kind of logic.
But, here, with their professed Christianity, there is another conundrum–dare I say contradiction? Paradox? Christianity is supposed to be a religion of love and respect for your fellow man, even your enemy. Yet, in the “I’ve got nothing to hide” syndrome, there is no love nor no respect or consideration for their fellow men. As long as they are home free, everything’s hunky-dory. It is saying, as God’s chosen are wont to say, I’m good but y’all are sinners. I’m better than you are, na-na-na-na-nah! Wilhelm Reich has pointed out this is fascist thinking, maintaining all religions are this way: my way is right, so yours is wrong. [The Mass Psychology of Fascism] This means, of course, that you, the wrong one, can die because, being wrong, you can’t be saved, you’re not one of us, you’re expendable. Ergo, “I’ve got nothing to hide” means I’m right, you’re wrong and so you deserve what you get.
There is an inherent superiority in this, a kind of hubris. I think the cliché, coming from ancient Greek, is “pride cometh before the fall.” Such a tragedy.
But. . .do they have nothing to hide? Are they sure they have nothing to hide?
To maintain “I’ve got nothing to hide” means that they know, for sure, what the government is looking for. That is, they can read the government’s mind. Like some women can read the minds of all men via “that look in their eyes” and Christians know God’s plan even though God’s ken is way beyond a human’s ability to comprehend. Truly, how sure are they?
In fact, it doesn’t matter whether they’ve got nothing to hide or not. If someone else is nailed and they have a connection with a member of my family, my family is implicated and disappeared. If the other person bears a grudge, of the sort found with Montressor for Fortunato [Edgar Allan Poe, The Cask of Amantillado], then my family’s name will fall off that other person’s lips like drool from a toothing baby’s mouth. Also, their being picked up puts me in dire straits and I’m not even in America. Their “I’ve got nothing to hide” that got them into trouble by someone else’s say-so–commonly called hearsay evidence–screws me. That they feel no guilt over this possibility is frightening, though not out of line with prior behavior: when the ICU wanted my next-of-kin and I sent a friend to contact my family, my family did not respond. How unfortunate for my family that I survived.
But let’s assume, just for kicks, that the person disappeared is someone they do like, someone close to them that they respect. When he’s disappeared, do you think they’ll look into the matter, call up to find out where he is? Run on down to his house to see where he’s gotten to? He’s not been seen for so long. Do you think they’ll stand up for the disappeared and maintain his innocence? Do ya, huh? I don’t. I think they know better than to step out of line and be honest and upright and, as they will be more than likely to say, stick their nose into business that isn’t theirs. After all, who’s important?! This is fear. This is the fear their government wishes to instill in its subjects–er, citizens. This is the fear they’ve snapped up like that fly the frog ate for dinner. This is the fear that makes them forget they’re human and they’ve got friends.
If you can’t trust no one, who can you trust?
So. . .they are inconsiderate, inhumane, innocent, irresponsible and ignorant yet. . . they have nothing to hide. And they have an ethics problem. Stephen Pepper would consider them psychologically diseased, seeing some people as expendable and themselves not. [World Hypotheses]
I may be over-reacting here but I’m frightened of these people. They know not what they do. And. . .they know not what they say. And they don’t give a damn, just as long as they’re left alone. I’m innocent! I’m innocent! I ain’t done nothin’!
Let me see if I can make my family clearer for you. . .”I didn’t know why they were cramming all them Jews into them box cars at machine gun point.” And, “I ain’t never heard o’ no concentration camps. Ain’t that whar ya larn how to thank real hard?”
My family’s about as clever as Br’er Bear:
Well, Brer Fox, he was plenty mad that he’d worked so hard on those peas only to have them eaten by someone else. He suspected that Brer Rabbit was to blame for this, but the rascally rabbit had covered his tracks so well that Brer Fox couldn’t catch him. So Brer Fox came up with a plan. He found a smooth spot in his fence where a cunning rabbit could sneak in, and he set a trap for Brer Rabbit at that spot. He tied a rope to a nearby hickory sapling and bent it nearly double. Then he took the other end of the rope and made a loop knot that he fastened with a trigger right around the hole in the fence. If anybody came through the crack to steal his peas, the knot would tighten around their body, the sapling would spring upright, and they would be left hanging from the tree for everyone to see.
The next morning, Brer Rabbit came a-slipping through the hole in the fence. At once, the trigger sprung, the knot tightened on his forelegs, and the hickory tree snapped upright, quick as you please. Brer Rabbit found himself swung aloft betwixt the heaven and the earth, swinging from the hickory sapling. He couldn’t go up and he couldn’t go down. He just went back and forth.
Brer Rabbit was in a fix, no mistake. He was trying to come up with some glib explanation for Brer Fox when he heard someone a-rumbling and a-bumbling down the road. It was Brer Bear, looking for a bee-tree so he could get him some honey. As soon as Brer Rabbit saw Brer Bear, he came up with a plan to get himself free.
“Howdy, Brer Bear,” he called cheerfully. Brer Bear squinted around here and there, wondering where the voice had come from. Then he looked up and saw Brer Rabbit swinging from the sapling.
“Howdy Brer Rabbit,” he rumbled. “How are you this morning?”
“Middling, Brer Bear,” Rabbit replied. “Just middling.”
Brer Bear was wondering why Brer Rabbit was up in the tree, so he asked him about it. Brer Rabbit grinned and said that he was earning a dollar-a-minute from Brer Fox.
“A dollar-a-minute!” Brer Bear exclaimed. “What for?”
“I’m keeping the crows away from his goober patch,” Brer Rabbit explained, and went on to say that Brer Fox was paying a dollar-a-minute to whomever would act as a scarecrow for him.
Well, Brer Bear liked the sound of that. He had a big family to feed, and he could use the money. When Brer Rabbit asked him if he would like to have the job, Brer Bear agreed. Brer Rabbit showed him how to bend the sapling down and remove the knot from his forepaws. When Brer Rabbit was free, Brer Bear climbed into the knot and soon he was hanging aloft betwixt heaven and earth, swing to and from the sapling and growling at the birds to keep them away from the goober patch. [Bre'r Rabbit Earns A Dollar A Day, Joel Chandler Harris]

Or, maybe, they’re suffering from George Warren’s little canary, Chippie, syndrome:
Once there was a parakeet named Chippie. Chippie loved to sing because he didn’t have a care in the world! Chippie had a wonderful life in his birdcage until one day something happened to bring all of that to an end. It was the day his owner decided to clean the cage floor with her canister vacuum cleaner. She put the nozzle in the cage and started vacuuming the floor of the cage, and at that moment her telephone rang. She turned around to pick it up, and inadvertently pointed the nozzle up into the air–right at Chippie! She sucked poor Chippie into the vacuum cleaner, head first! Well, she panicked and threw down the phone, turned off the vacuum cleaner and quickly opened up the bag. And sure enough, there was Chippie on the inside–dazed and stunned and covered with dust. She quickly grabbed him and raced off to the bathroom and washed all the dust off, but then the tiny bird began shivering, soaking wet. And so, she did what every compassionate bird owner would do. She reached for her hot air drier and turned it on and blasted poor old Chippie with hot air! Well, a few days later, the friend on the phone called to see how Chippie was doing, and I love the woman’s reply. She said, Well, I’m not sure. He doesn’t sing anymore. He just sits here and stares! [When Your World Is Falling Apart, Look Up]

Tibet, China and Human Rights

What is happening in Tibet is horrible, though not so bad as in Burma. The media and governments on both sides of the reporting are cooking the books, as it were. Propaganda, after all, must be used; it is often more effective than military might. However, there are some misconceptions and anomalies that are not being addressed.
The Dalai Lama has noted that Tibet is a sovereign nation with a long and illustrious history. This is just not so. The Yellow Hats, his sect of Buddhism in Tibet, only came to power via war and the support of the Ming Dynasty emperors. Since that time and into the 20th century, Tibet paid tribute to the country that made its religious elite all-powerful.
The Dalai Lama has said that he’s no such person to make his monks and the people stop rioting, in other places he has noted that he told his monks to protest, albeit non-violently. However, the Dalai Lama is such a person to control his Tibetan horde. The Dalai Lama is stronger than god but, like god, withholds his power to save his people for some unknown reason. That is, by not helping to put a stop to the violence, he is abetting the deaths of his own people. Great guy, the Dalai Lama. But that’s the way it is in the world, no? Some people are worth saving and some are worth less.
In Burma, the Buddhist monks were non-violent in their protests; not so in Tibet. But, then, remember they came to power by violence. This truly tarnishes the patina of the Buddhists as non-violent people, people who will not support violence. This truly is a wake up call for those who follow the Dalai Lama and Buddhism, at least the Tibetan strain, that the great patriarch found by following a star is talking out of both sides of his mouth, like any politician.
We must remember, too, that the Dalai Lama was, at one time, paid by the CIA. That he’s not now is a question. But spies are ever on-call after retirement.
Tibet is, as the Chinese are handling it, a human rights violation. But the outcry, and the protests, come at an interesting time: right when the US is making a move against the Olympics in Beijing. There has been a spate of China-hate and a call for boycotting of the Olympics because of China’s human rights violations. The US is the only country to have boycotted an Olympics–and the athletes were angry. Many, because the US government does not support its athletes, suffered extra-Olympically. The US is the only country who, when confronted with athletes protesting the rampant racism of the country, sent the athletes home and stripped them of their medals. That is, silenced them. Surely not! Surely not something one is ONLY likely to find behind the Iron Curtain or the SILK SCREEN or in Burma or Pakistan. . .
The US is after creating a problem for China and its Olympics, if not for the sake of embarrassment, then to divert the world’s attention from its plans for the next Middle East debacle. For all of the vicious military involvements in countries by the US, not once has any country called for a boycott of the Olympics when held in the good ole US of A. ONLY the US. Think about it.
And then think about this:

The Information Office of the State Council published a report titled
Human Rights Record of United States in 2007

The State Department of the United States released its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2007 on March 11, 2008. As in previous years, the reports are full of accusations of the human rights situation in more than 190 countries and regions including China but mention nothing of the widespread human rights abuses on its own territory. The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2007 is prepared to help people around the world understand the real situation of human rights in the United States and as a reminder for the United States to reflect upon its own issues.

I. On Life, Property and Personal Security

The increase of violent crimes in the United States poses a serious threat to its people’s lives, liberty and personal security.

According to a FBI report on crime statistics released in September 2007, 1.41 million violent crimes were reported nationwide in 2006. . . . (FBI Release its 2006 Crime Statistics, FBI, www.fbi.gov/pressre1/pressre107/cius092407.htm). Throughout 2006, U.S. residents age 12 or above experienced an estimated 25 million crimes of violence and theft. . . . (Criminal Victimization 2006, U.S. Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). In the United States, one violent crime was committed in every 22.2 seconds, one murder committed in every 30.9 minutes, one rape in every 5.7 minutes, one robbery in every 1.2 minutes and one aggravated assault in every 36.6 seconds (FBI Release its 2006 Crime Statistics, FBI, www.fbi.gov/pressre1/pressre107/cius092407.htm).

A survey by the Police Executive Research Forum in 163 U.S. cities shows that 65%of them reported increases or no changes in homicides during the first half of 2007, 41.9% of cities reported increases or no changes in aggravated assaults, 55.6% reported increases or no changes in robberies (“Survey Shows Shift in Violence,” USA Today, October 12, 2007). . . .

The United States has the largest number of privately-owned guns in the world. Frequent gun violence poses a serious threat to people’s life and property security. There are an estimated 250 million privately-owned firearms in the United States. . . .

In the United States, about 30,000 people die from gun wounds every year (“Update 2-Senate Passes Gun Bill in Response to Rampage,” Reuters, December 19, 2007). The USA Today reported on December 5, 2007 that gun killings have climbed 13% overall since 2002. An estimated 25% of all violent crime incidents were committed by an armed offender. . . . (Criminal Victimization 2006, U.S. Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). . . .

II. On Human Rights Violations by Law Enforcement and Judicial Departments

The abuse of power by law enforcement and judicial departments in the United States has seriously violated the freedom and rights of its citizens.

Cases in which U.S. law enforcement authorities allegedly violated victims’ civil rights increased by 25% from fiscal year 2001 to 2007 over the previous seven years, according to statistics from U.S. Department of Justice (“Police Brutality Cases up 25%; Union Worried Over Dip in Hiring Standards,” USA Today, December 18, 2007). The national average among large police departments for excessive-force complaints was 9.5 per 100 full-time officers (The New York Times, November 14, 2007). But the majority of law enforcement officers accused of brutality were not prosecuted. . . . (Cf. The Chicago Police Department’s Broken System, University of Chicago, www.law.chicago.edu for specific details). . . . On May 1 when Latino immigrants were campaigning for the rights of illegal immigrants at MacArthur Park in downtown Los Angeles, police officers abused their power by clubbing demonstrators and journalists and shooting them with rubber bullets (The Los Angeles Times, October 9, 2007). . . . According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Justice in October 2007, 47 states and the District of Columbia reported 2,002 arrest-related deaths between 2003 and 2005. Among these, 1,095, or 55%, were killed by gunfire of state or local police (Death in Custody Statistical Tables, U.S. Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs).

The United States of America is the world’s largest prison and has the highest inmates/population ratio in the world. A December 5, 2007 report by EFE news agency quoted statistics of U.S. Department of Justice as saying that the number of inmates in U.S. prisons has increased by 500% over the last 30 years. By the end of 2006, there were 2.26 million inmates in U.S. prisons. . . . The U.S. population only accounts for 5% of the world total, but its inmates make up 25% of the world total. There were 751 inmates in every 100,000 U.S. citizens, far higher than the rates in other Western countries (EFE news agency, December 5, 2007). . . .

Abusing inmates is commonplace in U.S. prisons. According to a report released by U.S. Department of Justice in December 2007, an estimated 60,500 inmates. . .experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization. . . (Sexual Victimization in State and Federal Prisons Reported by Inmates, U.S. Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). The U.S. government acknowledged in a January 16, 2007, report that suspected illegal immigrants were mistreated in five prisons, breaching the principle of humane custody (The Washington Post, January 17, 2007). The Washington Post reported on December 17, 2007 that juvenile inmates in a West Texas youth prison were sexually assaulted or beaten and denied medical care. Those who reported the crime [suffered violent retribution]. . . . (“Dad Dismissed Prison Reform,” The Washington Times, December 17, 2007; see also International Herald Tribune, January 8, 2008). Guards in American prisons regularly use taser guns. According to a 2007 report from Amnesty International, 230 Americans have died from taser guns since 2001. . . .

U.S. prisoners often die from HIV/AIDS infection or inadequate medical service. A report released by the U.S. Department of Justice in September 2007 said there were 22,480 state and federal inmates who were HIV infected or had confirmed AIDS at year end 2005, 5,620 inmates had confirmed AIDS. . . . (HIV in prisons 2005, U.S. Department of Justice, www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). According to a report by the Los Angeles Times on September 20, 2007, 426 death cases took place in California prisons in 2006 due to belated treatment. . . . On April 14, 2007, 41-year-old diabetic prisoner Rodolfo Ramos died after being left alone and covered in his own feces for a week. Prison officials failed to get medical treatment for him despite knowing of his condition (The Associated Press, April 27, 2007).

The justice of the U.S. judicial system is increasingly put in question. Surveys find that since the first DNA exoneration in 1989, there have been 209 post-conviction DNA exonerations in the United States. . .15 of the 209 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row (Facts on Post-Conviction DNA Exonerations, Innocence Project, www.innocenceproject.com). . . .

III. On Civil and Political Rights

The freedom and rights of individual citizens are being increasingly marginalized in the United States.

The House of Representatives and the Senate of the U.S. Congress passed the Protect America Act of 2007 on August 3 and August 4, 2007. The act enables the U.S. administration to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects in the United States without court approval. It also permits intelligence services to conduct electronic surveillance on digital communications between terrorist suspects outside the United States if the communications are routed through the country (The so-called Protect America Act, http://public.findlaw.com, August 10, 2007). According to a report by the Washington Post on March 10, 2007, the FBI improperly obtained personal information on more than 52,000 people without court oversight through the use of national security letters (NSLs) from 2003 to 2005. Verizon Communications, the second largest telecom company in the United States, disclosed that the FBI sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but all the people that customer called, as well as the people those people called. . . . The records included Internet protocol addresses as well as phone data. In that period, Verizon turned over information a total of 94,000 times to federal authorities. . . . The FBI is embarking on a 1 billion U.S. dollars effort to build the world’s largest computer database of peoples’ physical characteristics, called Next Generation Identification, a project that would give the government unprecedented abilities to identify individuals in the United States and abroad. The increasing use of biometrics for identification is raising questions about the ability of Americans to avoid unwanted scrutiny (“FBI Prepares Vast Database Of Biometrics,” The Washington Post, December 22, 2007). Statistics show that the government’s illegal dragnet electronic surveillance has put sensitive personal information from millions of people at risk. . . . (Cf. USA Today website, December 10, 2007). In July 2007, the Homeland Security Department was granted more than $4 million to install 175 video cameras on the streets of cities. . . . The Boston Globe estimated that up to hundreds of millions of dollars were being spent by the department to install new surveillance systems around the country, accelerating the rise of a “surveillance society” (The Boston Globe, August 12, 2007).

Workers’ right to unionize has been restricted in the United States. . . . Employer resistance stopped 53 % of nonunion workers from joining a union (“Sharp Decline in Union Members in ‘06,” The New York Times, January 26, 2007). According to a report by the Human Rights Watch, when Wal-Mart stores faced unionization drives, the company often [broke up the organizing, fired the involved employees, or closed down their stores].

IV. On Economic, Social and Cultural rights

The deserved economic, social and cultural rights of American citizens have not been properly protected.

Poor population in the United States is constantly increasing. According to statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August 2007, the official poverty rate in 2006 was 12.3%. There were 36.5 million people, or 7.7 million families living in poverty in 2006. In [other words], almost one out of eight American citizens lives in poverty. . . . The poverty rate of major American cities was 16.1%. . . . The poverty rate in the Washington D.C. [the nation's capital] was 19.8%, which meant nearly one-fifth of its citizens were living in poverty (“DC’s “Two Economies” Headed in Different Directions, Report Finds,” DC Fiscal Policy Institute, October 24, 2007).

The wealth of the richest group in the United States has rapidly expanded in recent years, widening the earning gap between the rich and the poor. . . . Top executives of major U.S. businesses made an average of more than $10 million in 2006, 364 times more than that of ordinary workers. They earn as much money in one day of work as ordinary workers make over the entire year (AFP, January 4, 2008).

The past five years have witnessed relatively strong growth in the U.S. economy, but the fortune of millions of Americans just gets worse. The ratio of American wage expenditure to gross domestic product (GDP) has dropped to the lowest since records began in 1947. The average income of households consisted of members at working age has seen a continuous decline in the past five years, and is 17% less than five years ago (U.S. News & World Report, January 1, 2007; see also, USA Today, October 24, 2007; and The Associated Press, December 14, 2007, which notes stress-related suicides).

Hungry and homeless people have increased significantly in American cities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said, in a report released on November 14, 2007, that 35.52 million Americans, including 12.63 million children, went hungry in 2006. . . (“Over 30 Million Americans Faced Hunger in 2006,” Reuters, November 15, 2007). Results of the 2007 Hunger and Homelessness Survey released by the U.S. Conference of Mayors showed that 16 of the 23 polled cities reported increased requests for emergency food assistance. . . . In 20 survey cities, 193,183 people applied for emergency shelter or transitional housing. The number of residents applying for government rent subsidies surged by 30% in Baltimore County in 2007 (“More Seeking U.S. Rent Subsidy,” The Baltimore Sun, December 17, 2007). It is estimated that 750,000 people are homeless on any given day in the United States (“Care Critical for Homeless,” The Washington Post, October 22, 2007). . . . Research shows one-third to half of the homeless have a chronic illness. . . . (“Care Critical for Homeless,” The Washington Post, October 22, 2007). . . .

The number of people without health insurance has been increasing in the United States. A Reuters report on September 20, 2007 quoted the U.S. Census Bureau as saying that 47 million people in the United States were not covered by health insurance. A U.S. family organization said nearly 90 million people below the age of 65 were not covered by health insurance. . . (Reuters, September 20, 2007). . . .

V. On Racial Discrimination

Racial discrimination is a deep-rooted social illness in the United States.

Black people and other minor ethnic groups live in the bottom of the American society. According to statistics released by the U.S. Census Bureau in August 2007, median income of black households was 61% of that for non-Hispanic white households. Median income for Hispanic households stood at 72% of that for non-Hispanic white households. . . .(Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006, see Census Bureau website: www.census.gov; see also Washington Observer Weekly, November 30, 2006). The prevalence rates of HIV/AIDS and other diseases are higher among blacks and Hispanics than among non-Hispanic whites (Cf. “Study Calls HIV in DC. A ‘Modern Epidemic’,” The Washington Post, November 26, 2007). . . .

Ethnic minorities have been subject to racial discrimination in employment and workplace. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in November 2007, the unemployment rate for Black Americans was 8.4%, twice that of non-Hispanic whites (4.2%). The unemployment rate for Hispanics was 5.7%. . . . (The Employment Situation: November 2007, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor on December 7, 2007, see www.bls.gov). . . .

There is serious racial discrimination in the education sector of the United States. According to a media report, public schools tend to take tougher discipline sanctions on black students, and the rate of black students disciplined is much higher than that of white students. . . (Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2007; see also The Associated Press, Jena, Louisiana State, September 20, 2007). . . . Nazi symbol swastika was also found on the campus of the Columbia University in 2007, apparently targeting American Jews, according to a report by the World Daily.

Racial discrimination in the U.S. judicial system is shocking. According to the 2007 annual report on the state of black America issued by the National Urban League (NUL), African Americans (especially males) are more likely than whites to be convicted and sentenced to longer terms. Blacks are seven times more likely than whites to be incarcerated (National Urban League: The State of Black America 2007, www.nul.org). Blacks are 10 times as likely to be imprisoned for drug offences as whites, even though both groups use and sell drugs at the same rate (“Study Finds Racial Divide Across U.S. in Drug Arrests,” The Washington Post, December 5, 2007; also, Prisoners in 2006, issued by the U.S. Department of Justice on December 5, 2007, at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs; and Los Angeles Times, November 19, 2007). . . .

In the United States, minorities are the main victims of hate and violent crimes and murders. According to a FBI report published in November 2007, there were 7,722 hate crimes in the country in 2006, up 8%. Among them, 51.8% were motivated by racial bias. Hate crimes against Muslims increased 22%. Hate crimes against Hispanics went up 10% (“FBI: Hate Crimes Escalate 8% in 2006,” USA Today, November 20, 2007; and Black Victims of Violent Crime, http://www.ojb.usdoj.gov/bjs).

VI. On the Rights of Women and Children

The condition of women and children in the United States is worrisome.

Women account for 51% of the U.S. population, but there are only 86 women serving in the 110th U.S. Congress. Women hold 16, or 16% of the 100 seats in the Senate and 70, or 16.1% of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. . . . (Women Serving in the 110th Congress 2007-09, Center For American Women and Politics, www.cawp.rutgers.edu).

Discrimination against women is pervasive in the U.S. job market and workplace. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it received 23,247 charges on sex-based discrimination in 2006, accounting for 30.7% of the total discrimination charges (Charge Statistics FY 1997 Through FY 2006, www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html; also, Reuters, Los Angeles, February 6, 2007). The average income of women is. . .77% of men’s. . .(Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006, issued by the U.S. Census Bureau, see www.census.gov).

The poverty rate of women is higher. Statistics show that at the year end of 2006, more than 5.58 million single women above the age of 18 were living in poverty, accounting for 22.2% of women in that group. Some 4.1 million, or 28.3% of female-householder-with-no-husband-present families were living in poverty in 2006, much higher than the national family poverty rate of 9.8% (Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau). Colored women are more likely to fall prey to poverty and misery. A report issued by the American Center for Reproductive Rights shows the maternal death rate of the United States ranks the 30th in the world. The maternal death rate for black women is four times that of white women. The proportion of black women infected with AIDS and venereal diseases is 23 times and 18 times that of white women, respectively. . . .

American women are victims of domestic violence. According to information from the National Organization for Women, about 1,400 women are beaten to death every year by their husbands or boyfriends in the United States. It is estimated that two to four million women are battered each year. Women are 10 times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate. Women who are separated, divorced or single, low-income women and African-American women are disproportionately victims of assault and rape. Domestic violence rates are five times higher among families below poverty levels. . . .

Women are frequently victims of sexual harassment at their workplaces and military barracks. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said it received 12,025 charges on sexual harassment in 2006, 84.6% of which were filed by women (Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997-FY 2006, see www.eeoc.gov). The National Organization for Women said every year approximately 132,000 women reported that they had been victims of rape or attempted rape, and that two to six times that many women were raped, but did not report it. The U.S. department investigating military crimes received about 1,700 sexual harassment charges in 2004, including 1,305 rape charges. . . . (Cf. Latin American News Agency, Havana, February 10, 2007, for more information). . . .

Women inmates are increasing in American prisons and they are often subject to grave conditions. Figures released by the Department of Justice in December 2007 show that the number of female inmates in federal and state prisons increased by 4,872, or 4.5% in 2006 to reach 112,498. . .(Prisoners in 2006, issued by the Department of Justice on December 5, 2007, see www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). Amnesty International said in a 2007 report that in American prisons, male watchers can do full body searches on female prisoners and watch them washing and changing clothes. In most states, male watchers are allowed to enter female cells without supervision.

The living conditions of American children are of great concern. The Houston Chronicle reported that a survey by the United Nations on 21 rich countries showed that though the United States was among the world’s richest nations, it ranked only 20th in the overall well-being of children. In the dimension of health and security, the United States was at the very bottom of the ranking. Statistics show that by the end of 2006. . . . Children accounted for 35.2% of the impoverished population in the United States. The rate of impoverished children in female households with no husbands present is as high as 42.1% (Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006, issued by the U.S. Census Bureau in August 2007, see www.census.gov). More children are doing without medical insurance. . . . More children are becoming homeless. . . . (Mayors Examine Causes of Hunger, Homelessness, press release by the U.S. Conference of Mayors on December 17, 2007, www.usmayors.org). According to the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, the infant mortality rate of the United State was seven in a thousand in 2004, and the mortality rate of black infants was 2.5 times that of whites (The Associated Press, November 10, 2007). The infant survival rate of the United States is lagging far behind other developed nations. A bill that would have expanded government-provided health insurance for children was vetoed by President George W. Bush in 2007. . .(“Bush Vetoes Kids Health Insurance Bill,” The Washington Post, December 13, 2007).

American juveniles often fall victims of abuse and crime. According to a report on school crimes in the United States released by the Department of Justice in December 2007, 57 out of 1,000 American students above the age of 12 were victims of violence [with] 14 school-associated homicides. . . . (School Crime Rates Stable Children 50 Times More Likely to Be Murdered away from School Than at School, issued by the U.S. Department of Justice on December 2, 2007, see www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs). . . . Sexual violations are widespread in American schools. A national survey by the Associated Press in 2007 found that 2,570 educators were punished for sexual misconduct between 2001 and 2005. Eighty % of the victims were students. A survey by the U.S. Congress shows that. . .an average of three sexual abuse cases take place in American schools every day (The Associated Press, Washington, October 21, 2007).

American juveniles are ill-treated at boot camps. A report mandated by Congress said thousands of teenagers suffered terrible abuses at boot camps, some even lost their lives. Governmental investigator said boot camp abuses took many forms, including youths being forced to eat their own vomit, denied adequate food, being forced to lie in urine or feces, being kicked or beaten. . . .

Millions of underage girls become sex slaves in the United States. Statistics from the Department of Justice show some 100,000 to three million American children under the age of 18 are involved in prostitution. A FBI report says as high as 40 % of forced prostitutes are minors.

American children are not properly protected by the justice system. The United States is one of the few countries in the world that sentences children to death. . .and sentences more children to life imprisonment than any other country. . . . Colored children and those from impoverished families are more likely to suffer fate of this kind.

VII. On the Violation of Human Rights in Other Countries

The United States has a notorious record of trampling on the sovereignty of and violating human rights in other countries.

The invasion of Iraq by American troops has produced the largest human rights tragedy and the greatest humanitarian disaster in modern world. It was reported that since the invasion in 2003, 660,000 Iraqis have died, of which 99% were civilians. That translates into a daily toll of 450. According to the Los Angeles Times, the number of civilian deaths in Iraq has exceeded one million. A report from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) revealed that about one million Iraqis were homeless, half of whom were children. . . . According to media reports, guards of Blackwater, a security service company with State Department background, shot dead 17 Iraqis for no reason on September 16, 2007, and it was given immunity by the State Department (The China Press, October 31, 2007). Investigation by the Iraqi government found that Blackwater guards had killed 21 Iraqis and injured 27 others before that. State Department investigation showed that Blackwater was involved in 56 shooting cases in Iraq in 2007. A U.S. Congress report said the company was involved in nearly 200 shooting cases in Iraq since 2005, and 84% of them were random shooting. . . .

U.S. troops have killed many innocent civilians in the anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan. The Washington Post reported on May 3, 2007 that as many as 51 civilians were killed by U.S. soldiers a week (“Karzai Says Civilian Toll is No Longer Acceptable,” The Washington Post, May 3, 2007). An Afghan human rights group said in a report that U.S. marine units fired indiscriminately at pedestrians, people in cars, buses and taxis. . .(New York Times, April 15, 2007).

The United States has many secret jails across the world where prisoners are treated inhumanely. “Secret prison” and “torturing prisoners” have become synonymous with America. In May 2007, the UN special rapporteur on the protection of human rights while countering terrorism. . .expressed his concern over the conditions of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and other secret detention facilities, the lack of justice protection and access to fair trial for terrorist suspects, as well as the rendition of suspects. He also expressed his disappointment that the U.S. government had refused to allow him to visit Guantanamo Bay and other places of secret detention (Preliminary Findings on Visit to United States by Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism, May 29, 2007, www.unog.ch). In addition to Guantanamo Bay where prisoners were subject to gruesome tortures, the United States also ran secret facilities in Jordan and Ethiopia, where detainees were brutally treated. . . . The detainees came from 19 countries and included women and children as young as seven months. . . . (The Daily Telegraph, April 5, 2007; The Associated Press, Nairobi, April 5, 2007). The Washington Times reported on December 14, 2007 that CIA often tortured detained terrorist suspects by using waterboarding and mock execution (“House Approves Ban on CIA Waterboarding,” The Washington Times, December 14, 2007). The American Broadcasting Company (ABC) described in a report how waterboarding is done: the prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt. . . . Iraqis said there had never been so many rapes and atrocities against women in any war since the Middle Ages as witnessed in the Iraqi war (Rebellion, May 5, 2007).

The United States has always adopted double standards on human rights issues. It frequently exerts pressure on other countries to invite the UN special rapporteur to examine and report on the status of their human rights status, but itself has never done so. The United States requests others to obey the UN norms that allow special rapporteurs to visit any place and talk with anyone without interference or surveillance, but itself has rejected such norms and has turned down the request. . .from several special rapporteurs.

The United States has to date refused to acknowledge the right to development as part of the human rights. Although it signed the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1977, the United States has not yet ratified the convention. The United States claims that it attaches importance to the protection of the rights of women and children, but it has not yet ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women 27 years after signing on the convention. The United States is one of the seven U.N. members that have not ratified the convention. The United States has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child 12 years after signing on it, though 193 countries have already done so. Since March 2007, the Convention on Rights of Disabled Persons has been open for signature and many countries adopt active attitude towards the convention. By the end of December 2007, 118 countries had signed the convention and seven ratified it, but the U.S. has not yet signed nor ratified it.

To respect and safeguard human rights is an important achievement in the progress of the human society and an important symbol of modern civilization. It is also a common goal of people of all countries and races and a key theme of the tide of progress in our time. . . . No country in the world should view itself as the incarnation of human rights, and use human rights as a tool to interfere in affairs of and exert pressure on other countries and realize its own strategic interests. The United States reigns over other countries and releases Country Reports on Human Rights Practices year after year. Its arrogant critique on the human rights of other countries is always accompanied by a deliberate ignoring of serious human rights problems on its own territory. This. . .exposed the double standards and downright hypocrisy of the United States on the human rights issue, and inevitably impairs its international image.–

This is not to say China has human rights violation problems: it does. But the US needs to take a firm look at itself before pointing its pot black fingers at a kettle. The US has brutally take care of any group that protests its war and terrorism policies, utilizing not only beatings and tasering but chemical weapons by police. The full extent of the two Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act are not at all approached in the above report but it’s easy to put it in simple terms: your house and be broken into and you arrested and confined without warrant or reasons given for your arrest/imprisonment; there is no ability to defend yourself, that is, the writ of Habeas Corpus has been taken away. Anyone can be listened, followed on line or their mail read at any time for whatever reason–even no particular reason at all. These are the kinds of things that happen in military dictatorships, socialist dictatorships and tyrannies. Why, then, do they happen in the US?
In truth, both countries–China and the US–should be taken before the International Criminal Justice Courts and dealt with accordingly.

[NOTE: quoted text has been edited for grammar and clarity and many individual statistics have been eliminated in the name of brevity, the original document being 13 pages long]

a question of talking

Just the other day I was reading a book, Language Shock. Not a well-written book but filled with tidbits about the interrelatedness of culture and language, a subject I’m interested in, perhaps because of my world travels. I was stuck, about half way through, with the author’s contention that “Americans never get any interesting debate going.” This is apparently because contradiction to an American is a threat to the relationship. Granted this is a broad generalization–there are always exceptions–but it rings true. Americans don’t like to hear something that runs counter to their beliefs. Even more, Americans don’t like any opinion that questions their opinion. This spans the political spectrum from right to left. The attitude seems to be, “You’re telling me I’m wrong so to hell with you.” Or, “You’re opinion doesn’t jive with mine so I’m not going to pay attention.” In the publishing world, this means no publication for writers who aren’t status quo–within whichever political or social stratum they may fit.
What is the result? No problem truly gets discussed. No attempt at solutions to problems can be entertained. A continuation of the same old same old, though perhaps with a different hat on.
Let me give you an example. I read an article the other day that breaks down the political problems into Democrats and Republicans. I happen to think this is simplistic. I happen to think this sidesteps the problem or any discussion of the problem. It is much easier to make discussion via this kind of divisiveness as it is status quo and doesn’t really talk about anything than to raise the spectre of a discussion on “What is a government for? What does it do? What is its relationship to its citizens? What’s wrong with government?” With frightening topics like this, real thinking comes into play. Worse, as you argue you may find your beliefs are without merit or founded on myth or something as uncomfortable. No, no, no–better to stay with the known, the well-trodden, the non-issue even if wrong.
And, of course, that’s where a problem lies for Americans: any questioning, any divergent opinion is automatically turned into the threatening challenge of “You’re wrong!” And nobody likes to be told they’re wrong. There is such a finality to that proposition. So much so that often when people fight back, they fight back viciously, almost damningly, for if they don’t win–and win hands down–they will lose, lose face, be seen as weak, be losers. Americans hate to be wrong and they will do whatever they can to make sure they are right, even to the lengths of pounding their opponent into the ground. Indeed, Americans tend to see the world in a conflict mold: everything is one side pitted against the other. Opposition is the overriding worldview. And that worldview creates itself. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
For some people, this statement of divergent viewpoints leads to fruitful discussion, even if heated, and thence to some kind of understanding. Or not. Divergent opinions are not considered personal attacks, for some people and many people not American. I argue incessantly over political issues with a good friend; we disagree almost vehemently–and he’s much more passive than I am which is very frustrating because I’d rather argue than win, especially without any fight. But we remain good friends. I don’t hate him because of his beliefs. I do think he’s a damn fool. I do wonder how he can be so blind. I even argue with my Chinese friends, though they inevitably begin the conversation with, “You can’t say that in China.” And then they open up since it’s private, I’m foreign and I’m safe. Indeed, a very good friend and I really go at it. She’s a staunch believer in the system, though she will admit the government doesn’t always do the right thing.
In America, I lose friends. In America, I alienate others. In America, I lose jobs. Because I don’t agree. Because I ask difficult questions. Because no one really wants to face the thought of making a decision, a decision that might shake up or change their world. But, of course, you don’t need to change your opinion, as most Americans seem to assume must happen. You can come to an impasse. What’s best, of course, is that you are talking. When you don’t talk, when people don’t talk, what do you know?
But who cares about that? It’s better to be in opposition. It gives America definition. Since it’s founding, America has been in opposition. The British settlers were in opposition. The rich merchants were in opposition. In the 19th century as America sought for its own definition separate from its heritage, it was framed “in opposition to.” Hmm. . .does this bespeak a negative attitude in Americans? That is, definition by way of it’s negative, what it’s not?
What you find, then, in America, is normalization. The status quo. Conformity. Obedience to authority. Stereotyping. No one wants to be different. Even when they take sides. Democrat vs. Republican. Right vs. Left. Same behavior. Different frame. Same basic assumptions. No new thought. America is Ortega y Gasset’s mass-man. And free speech is only what I want to hear. Everyone else has an agenda (not me/us). So no one ever really talks and, therefore, nothing ever really happens. And this is cool because everyone gets to go home happy, feeling as if they’ve said and done something.

john brockman on the edge

John Brockman is an intellectual opportunist and an intellectual coward. He is also a pseudo-intellectual in that he cannot discern solid thinking and facile underlying assumptions but, instead, trumpets them as the harbingers of the future. In a few instances he may be right; but in those instances where he is wrong, his rightness is cast in a wondering light. And, indeed, he should be questioned, for it is only by questioning that anything is discovered; though he wishes not to be.
Let me look first to his intellectual cowardice. Mr. Brockman noted, in one of his Edges, C.P. Snow’s assertion–correct–that there is a gap between the sciences and the humanities that did not exist at one time. The underlying assumption–correct–is that this is not a good thing. To prove his point, he devised a test of what he figured was common knowledge science to be administered to people in the humanities. This is a kind of test designed to fail people. It is also a kind of test Karl Popper finds utterly meaningless, like laboratory simulations that will, of course, prove themselves to be true. A theory, to be proven, must be tested for its opposite, it’s untruth. Even so, Brockman only proved one half of the equation of discipline distance. I pointed this out to him and sent him a little test of common knowledge humanities questions to be published/given to his wonderfully enlightened and superior scientists to give a more rounded and more relevant result. After all, if there is a divide, it exists on both sides. Mr. Brockman kindly refused to offer up the test. I’m quite sure because his pets would have failed, as I’m sure he did when he looked at it. (I did not give him the answers.)
Here is the test:
These ten questions for scientists are commonly known facts.
1. What is metonymy?
2. Who is considered as having written the first novel–and when?
3. Why was phonetics developed–and when?
4. Who was it who said that with the coming of the written word people would forget how to think?
5. Who is Lope de Vega and what is the name of his most famous play?
6. Why are there no extant commedia dell’arte scripts prior to Molière?
7. Who is Roland?
8. What is the Annales School?
9. Who wrote Beowulf?
10. Who is famous for writing in dactylic hexameter and what are the names of his most famous works?
Notice that 1/3 of the answer to #5 is given in the question. I could not resist helping the handicapped along.
I am a writer, it is true, but I’ve been interested in the sciences since childhood, beginning my college career as a pre-med student, biology and chemistry major. So, I didn’t do too badly on Mr. Brockman’s test of how little a humanitarian knows of science. In this, though, I think I am an anomaly.
Mr. Brockman is interested in proving that scientists are the end-all and be-all of humanity, much as the Enlightenment philosophers and Encyclopedists believed that reason and rationality were the answers to everything in the world. Reason and rationality, science, can answer all questions and dispel all mysteries, as seems to be the belief of Steven Pinker as well–but more of him later. Jonathan Swift showed just how silly such an “enlightened” stance was in Gulliver’s visit to the land of the Houyhnhnms. The Houyhnhnms were huge horses: would that make them full of alot of horse sense? They, in their reason and rationality enslaved Yahoos (who now rule the New World, aka the USA). These superior beings also believed that Gulliver could not have come from some island across the ocean because they believed, rationally and reasonably, that such an island did not exist and, therefore, it did not. The Psicops seem to hold to this kind of logic as well, a truly Luddite stance.
So it goes, as Kurt Vonnegut writes in God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. And other novels of absurdity.
On and off throughout history, science has had a bad name. In these times, it is good that someone is around to show us that not all science is ill-conceived or put to inhumane purposes or can be bought. But. Mr. Brockman needs to be a little more discriminating in his choice of scientists to congratulate and hold up as shining examples of their art discipline. In his choice of Steven Pinker, this might be no more than running with the pack of wild popularity dogs. Steven Pinker is very popular. He is considered the leading figure in language and linguistics studies, especially via neurological investigations. Dr. Pinker is a psychologist. And Dr. Pinker is a shoddy thinker, a man who obviously did not read or pay attention to those who did read David Hackett Fischer’s Historian’s Fallacies or Stephen Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument or any of Karl Popper’s assumption-questioning writings–even though he cites Popper in The Stuff of Thought. A few examples will, I think, suffice to elucidate the ad hominem thinking that Dr. Pinker passes off as intellectual cerebration.
“[N]ear death experiences are not the eyewitness reports of a soul parting company from the body but symptoms of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain” (The Mystery of Consciousness at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
0,9171,1580394,00.html). This presupposes not only that there is a separation of the soul but that oxygen starvation can occur in selected, isolated portions of the body even though it involves the entire brain. Generally speaking, when a brain is starved for oxygen, it’s the entire body that suffers, not just one or two organ systems. Dr. Pinker is hedging here, for he’s never experienced a near-death experience nor has there been any scientific evidence to verify his dismissive judgment. That is, he’s not tested, with advanced technological equipment, those going through near-death experiences. Chances are, too, he’s never been on the scene. Such a statement as his is an opinion, yet it is passed off as science for no other reason than he says so. His dismissive attitude runs throughout his writing, as if to say, “I don’t believe it so it’s all pish-posh.”
Earlier in the same essay, published in Time (19 Jan. 2007), Dr. Pinker states, “Consciousness surely does not depend on language.” How unfortunate that, in fact, it does depend on language, for without language no one would know of consciousness, no one would be able to admit of it, no one would be able to talk about it. We are, after all, languaging animals: our world is described and built and adapted by our language (Cf. Humberto Maturana generally).
Then he says, “everyone agrees that the hard problem (if it is a problem) remains a mystery.” The “hard problem” is “explaining how subjective experience arises from neural computation.” That is, consciousness is mysterious. Unfortunately, there are some people, notably I.N. Marshal, who do not believe consciousness is a mystery. Marshal, Zohar and others approach consciousness from a quantum mechanical viewpoint. More of his flippant dismissal of this later. Dr. Pinker only sees the brain as a computational entity; it doesn’t do anything else. But he confuses brain with mind (The Stuff of Thought, p. 259) or, rather, considers there to be no difference: brain is mind and mind is brain. Everything appears to be rationally and reasonable and solely to be found in the neural functioning of the brain/mind. He even talks of language as if it were bits and pieces that are put together according to certain rules, implying that to not follow the rules results in non-language and–perhaps I stretch the point here–stupidity. Stupidity is his forte: all his argumentation is reducing ideas he does not agree with, including Lakoff and Johnson, to the ridiculous, using pieces of their writings in order to lambaste the entirety of their theories, imparting to them ideas or beliefs that are, in reality, his conclusions based on obviously conscious misinterpretations (Cf. The Stuff of Thought in its entirety) such that the argument to ridicule is itself ridiculous.
The most amazing concept, and the most contradictory statement that Dr. Pinker makes in this essay (The Mystery of Consciousness), is that there is a seat of consciousness and it is in the “higher” part of the brain. He supports himself by citing Crick, the other half of the DNA discoverer duo. However, earlier on, he maintains that consciousness consists “of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain.” He even notes that Bernard Baars “likens consciousness to a global blackboard.” So, which is it Dr. Pinker? Is there a seat of consciousness, like the seat of language in Wernicke’s or Broca’s area (now disproven)? Or is it a brainwide phenomenon? And how can consciousness be only “neural computation” when soft matter physics most assuredly plays into the matter? There are external stressors that affect a cell’s functioning on the cellular level as well as the macroscopic level: swelling in the brain effects behavioral aberrations which, I think, have something to do with “neural computation.” If a change happens on such a large scale, a comparable change will happen on a cellular level since the cells themselves are not static entities–or perhaps there is some other reason for the brain to pulsate. That is, the environment in which nerve cells operate affects their operation. Even the pulsation affects, macro- and microscopically, “neural computation.” Cells in the body react to contiguous cells, not in isolation. Dr. Pinker’s thinking seems to be quite linear and rather simplistic and very, very concrete.
The most insidious pseudo-intellectual, ad hominem argument Dr. Pinker makes results in his debunking quantum mechanics. To wit:- “Some mavericks, like the mathematician Roger Penrose, suggest the answer might someday be found in quantum mechanics. But to my ear, this amounts to the feeling that quantum mechanics sure is weird, and consciousness sure is weird, so maybe quantum mechanics can explain consciousness.” Well, perhaps I’m being too hard on Dr. Pinker: Einstein thought quantum mechanics was weird, too. Einstein’s been proven wrong on this point.
Dr. Pinker further wishes to take the mystery out of language via scientific examination and neural explanation and, to do so, he posits that language is an instinct. . .a very mysterious thing indeed is instinct. Instinct is, I think, something that cannot be explained: it just is. And as it is, it is mysterious in its being. So, in truth, Pinker explains nothing and keeps language in the realm of the mysterious. But it sounds good. Wow! Language is built in. A fool might ask, “How?” and show his stupidity in thinking that debunking the mysteriousness of language by attributing it to the mysteriousness of instinct is ridiculous. . .if not mysterious.
Again, in an article for The Times (“Can’t find the words? Make ‘em up”), Dr. Pinker resorts to specious thinking in his Chinese example of onomatopoeia and sound symbolism via light in weight (qīng 轻) and heavy (zhòng 重). The implication he is making is that there is a parallel between sound and meaning that holds across the language (even though he debunks this myth in The Stuff of Thought). It doesn’t. If we look at large (dà 大) and small (xiăo 小) we find that, yes, da is the strong fourth downared tone but xiao is the sing-song third tone. Not only this but da changes its tone with usage, that is, in context. And what are we to make of inside (nèi 内) and outside (wài 外) or up (shàng 上) and down (xià 下)? They are the same tone. There are only four tones in Chinese (five if you count the neutral tone), so onomatopoeia and sound symbolism via tones is extremely limited and apparently has little to do with meaning. Dr. Pinker, here, is making a specious argument. He also does not speak or read Chinese. Generalizing from one instance to the entire corpus is intellectually indefensible. It is the one dog bites, all dogs bite kind of logic engaged in by people who are afraid of dogs because they were bitten once.
Dr. Pinker engages in just that kind of word usage in “Words Don’t Mean What They Mean” (another Time Inc. article, of 6 Sept. 2007, an excerpt from The Stuff of Thought) as, when he talks, he lays lines on his listeners, role plays, sidesteps, shilly-shallies and engages in “all manner of vagueness and innuendo.” We also do as he tells us we do, without apparent thought: assume “that the speaker is rational.” Dr. Pinker’s rationality smacks of the Houyhnhnm variety, it would seem: because they did not believe an island existed across the sea, it therefore did not exist even in the face of evidence, Gulliver, to the opposite. But Mr. Brockman finds him, Pinker, to be eminently intellectually gifted and full of astounding insight. Socrates would perhaps liken Dr. Pinker’s rhetoric to that of Critias, Polus or Callicles.
In his Language Acquisition, Dr. Pinker engages in the most egregious analysis of how children gain an understanding of how to use language given that they are not open to hearing constant repetitions of patterns: he shows us how they, children, use higher intellectual functioning to come to a conclusion. In truth, children are incapable of even the simplest of arithmetic computations. Not only do children not have this ability to logically analyze backwards from a given until they are much older, he is going about his explanation backwards, as if the end product is the cause when it is more probably the effect of child learning (Cf. Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species for a different take on this).
Dr. Pinker first slides around issues by using ifs, shoulds, coulds–suppositions that assume much but prove nothing. “[C]hildren should start off assuming that their language requires the largest possible governing category, and then to shrink the possibilities inward as they hear the telltale sentences” resulting in “this subtle pattern of predictions.” Children are also supposed to “assume, by default, that languages have a fixed constituent order. They would back off from that prediction if and only if they hear alternative word orders, which indicate that the language does permit constituent order freedom. The alternative is that the child could assume that the default case was constituent order freedom.” Eh? “Constituent order freedom”? What kind of children does he know! Dr. Pinker is thinking, it seems, that children have the same mental agility as he, an adult, does and can engage in axiom-making and assumptions that go with higher inductive reasoning. He is having children reason as he would reason. This is a fallacious reasoning, one that, perhaps, Jonathan Swift perhaps might could have used in Gulliver’s Travels or any of his other satires. Is Dr. Pinker from Laputa? Or maybe Lilliput?
Everything for Dr. Pinker resides in the brain. The brain’s functioning is the answer to everything. The brain rules. The brain leaves us no choice. We are at its mercy. But it’s a mystery. Even Dr. Pinker admits it’s a mystery when he says we have an innate language instinct. Why? Because instinct is a mystery in and of itself. And so it is that Dr. Pinker is talking in circles, in tautologies. As noted before.
The brain we humans have took millions of years to evolve but the language we use evolved (evolves) in hundreds or thousands of years. So, language cannot be an evolution-dependent item. But it could be, as Dr. Deacon notes, a co-evolutionary item, à la Baldwinian evolution/selection (Cf. The Symbolic Species). But Dr. Terrence Deacon is not among John Brockman’s edge-defying scientists. Who knows why. Perhaps because he’s not colorful enough. Dr. Pinker does not like Dr. Deacon either. Actually, Dr. Pinker doesn’t seem to like anyone who doesn’t think as he does. This becomes obvious in The Stuff of Thought, especially as he cites himself 20 times, twice as often as any other writer/theorist.
But Steven Pinker is colorful and animated and popular and that’s what’s needed since Mr. Brockman is interested in selling his product. It would appear that John Brockman is not so discriminating in choosing his cutting edge scientific thinkers. Even with Richard Dawkins, who raises up that old 19th century belief that we are the top of the line, the end of the line the goal evolution has been heading toward since the very beginning, if we are to believe the closing pages of The Blind Watchmaker.

Bibliography
Brockman, John. Edge. http://www.edge.org/
Deacon, Terrence W. The Symbolic Species: the co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1997.
Fischer, David Hackett. Historians’ Fallacies. New York: Harper & Row, Pubs., 1970.
Pinker, Steven. Can’t find the words? Make ‘em up at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article2474562.ece
__________. The Mystery of Consciousness at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
__________. The Stuff of Thought. London: Allen Lane, 2007.
__________. Words Don’t Mean What They Mean at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1659772,00.html
Popper, Karl. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge Classics, 1969.
Toulman, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964.

pissed about pistorius

Oscar Pistorius is a gimp. A crip. A handicapped man with an attitude. He’s also what’s known, in disability circles, as a super-crip. This is a somewhat pejorative label as it gives the rest of us a bad name–by and for the mainstream abled community. Super-crips make the rest of us look like slackers, like lazy no-goods out for a hand-out: if he can do it, why can’t you?, ask the able-bodied.
Let me here engage in blonde sorority girl ingenuousness: Well du-uh! Is anybody home?
From one gimp to a whole bunch of able-bodied people: Can you do what Michael Johnson did? Can you do as well as Wilt the Stilt? Are you Bret Favre? How about Ronaldinho, can you play like him? No. Of course you can’t. Why? These people are exceptional. . .and you’re not. You’re just average. Like most disabled, very many of whom are ex-military.
The very worst athlete you see on TV is better than any athlete you’ve ever met.
So, if you can’t do what these athletes can do, why do you expect all crips to perform like super-crips, the exceptions to the rule?
Prejudice. Pure and simple.
We’re a sign of the fragility and meaninglessness of life. We are the embodiment of your life-fear: there but for the grace of God go I. So. . .God’s grace has been taken from the disabled and it’s therefore A-OK to ignore the disabled, want the disabled out of the way, treat the disabled poorly, as if they’re something less? Why is it they have to fight so hard for inclusion in this society? Where’s the humanity?
And now that a super-crip can perform at the level of an able-bodied exception, the prejudice surfaces with a vengeance. Why? Because a gimp is as good as a non-gimp and that makes the abled look like they’re less than they are. You think? And, by God, he can’t do that to us!
In reality, all Oscar Pistorius has done is overcome a handicap that most normal and, probably, most exceptional people could not overcome. And that pisses y’all off. Who the hell does he think he is, acting like a normal person? He’s a fucking crip! He belongs on the sidelines, living a bare subsistence life, dependent on the pity and piteous welfare of peoples and governments, living in holes in the wall or nursing homes–just damn well anywhere but out in public and independent. Yeah?
What an insult, what an embarrassment Helen Keller was to the abled community. Yeah?
Homer (blind). Milton (blind). Beethoven (deaf). Goebbels (club foot). Henry VIII (club foot). Cher (dyslexic). FDR (post polio syndrome). Abe Lincoln (manic-depressive). Lord Byron (club foot, manic-depressive). Lord Horatio Nelson (blind in one eye). Sarah Bernhardt (one leg). Steven Hawking (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis). Walt Disney (learning disabled). Miss America 1995, Heather Whitestone McCallum (deaf). Deafy Hoy (baseball pitcher who invented umpire signs). Curtis Pride (baseball outfielder). The great NFL running back John Mackey (one leg shorter than the other). Moshe Dayan (blind in one eye).
Why is it that a disabled person must out-perform any and all abled persons in order to gain respect and recognition? Why is it when he does he is suddenly not allowed to compete? Why? Because he’s too good. And his disability shows. His adjustment to disability and his will to perform, no greater than any other exceptional athlete’s will to perform, is right out in the open.
What an insult to Michael Johnson if Oscar “Gimp” Pistorius even ties his record–a record gained by specially rearranging Olympic events so Johnson could perform at such a high level. Pistorius isn’t asking the Olympics for anything special to enhance his performance.
Oh! There’s the key word: enhance. Performance enhancing drugs disqualify you from the Olympics. Performance enhancing drugs for the able-bodied. Performance enhancing drugs that raise the ability of the abled above their natural capability limits. Since cheetahs enhance Legless Pistorius’ performance, he can be eliminated, too. Right? Well. . .he’s not normal able-bodied to begin with so. . .is it the same kind of enhancement? No. But it doesn’t matter: he’s a crip out-performing most able-bodied athletes and we just can’t allow that. Y’know?
So. . .the Olympic Committee gets together and in their able-bodied sagacity and prejudice ruminate over the matter. They decide to do a simulation. That simulation proved to them that, yes, Gimpy Pistorius’ cheetahs are an enhancement because he doesn’t have to put out as much effort as an able-bodied man. Let’s forget that he doesn’t have the legs to do what an able-bodied man could do to begin with, yeah?
But there’s a problem here. As Karl Popper points out in Conjectures and Refutations, simulations will always prove what you are setting out to prove because of the way the experiment is set up: with prejudice, with the desired end in sight. This, he says, proves nothing. If you want to prove a theory–and it is only a theory that Pistorius’ artificial limbs are performance enhancers in the illegal Olympic sense–you must try to prove that that theory is wrong. If you can’t, then, at least for the moment, you’re right. A simulation does not prove a theory at all; it proves a preconceived notion, a prejudgment. . .a prejudice.
A disabled person performing at the level of world class able-bodied athletes is untenable. It’s unheard of. Until now. Well, at least for the Olympic Committee members. They’re not up on their sports history: asthma is a disabling disease and many Olympic athletes have asthma yet they are allowed to compete even though they are taking medication that contains the performance enhancing drugs known as “steroids” and “speed.” All they have to do was tell the Olympic Committee they were taking this drug for their asthmatic condition, their disease, their disability. Pistorius doesn’t have to tell anyone of his performance enhancer–that an able-bodied man could not use–because it’s visible to all and sundry. Steroidal anti-asthmatic medication allows a person to perform beyond his normal capability; so, too, Pistorius’ cheetahs. What’s the difference? Well, I think you can see need. And the man’s got no lower legs. And he can run. And he has overcome his disability to such an extent that he can perform at world class able-bodied level. Those asthmatics couldn’t without their drugs. So, what’s the difference?
After all. . .a disabled man can’t do as well as an abled man, right? I mean, he isn’t supposed to be able to. I mean, we can’t let this happen. Can we? A disabled man as good as. . .me?
Hell no!
Disqualified!
On what grounds? Able-bodied prejudice. Fear. Fear of failure: a crip can do what a non-crip can’t. It doesn’t matter that we do what the abled can’t do every day: listen to yourselves. . .I’d hate to be like that, I could never. . . .
The Olympic Committee has effectively taken the disabled agenda to the international arena where everyone can see their narrow-minded, dismissive, segregationist attitude, the attitude that keeps us marginalized, inferior and worthless.
Oscar Pistorius asks for recognition and the OC, able-bodied athletes and the press spit in his face.
George Washington couldn’t have won much of anything if it hadn’t been for his two disabled officers. Yeah. Get that: the Father of the USA needed crips to be a winner.