Archive for January 18th, 2010
Save Darfur Movement? Not a cent reached Darfur; (Jan. 21, 2010)
The Save Darfur movement started in 2004; it claimed to have reaped $15 millions in donations. An official at the United Nations humanitarian action, asked how much Darfur received from that collect, replied “Zero dollars”. The correspondent to Darfur, Mahmood Mamdani, called the movement headquarters in New York and got this response: “We are not an aid agency. Our goal is mainly to plead for the Darfur cause”
I got into thinking “where does that entire donation sum end up?” Then, I remembered reading banners displayed by Save Darfur which state: Let’s quit Iraq. Let’s go to Darfur” and Let the US army intervene now”. It dawned on me that Save Darfur is recapitulating the Superman syndrome: the movement organizers do not give a damn about any resolutions of the Darfur civil war. The organizers want expeditious revenge and blood vengeance; they want just to punish, finger point haphazardly culprit in general terms (Islam radical terrorists is very comforting). It is the same Bush Junior mentality of waging war against ghost enemies that affect civilian collateral victims. The Save Darfur organizers want violence against violence, an eye for an eye; getting rid of the bad guys (assuming that they are the good guys).
Save Darfur organizers have no idea of the political or social situations and they care less: they will be very confused if you interrogate them on specifics, especially who are the real culprits and who might be the good elements. Who initiated this protracted civil war? How many militias are involved and which tribes are struggling for control of this area as large as France? It is an ethnic, sectarian, or partition war of Sudan? How many multinational oil and mineral enterprises and developed States are fighting for piece of the pie?
The research center for epidemiology of disasters in Belgium reported 120,000 casualties since 2003; the number includes death from diseases and famine. The UN branch for health reported 70,000 victims in total (35,000 are victims of violence). Save Darfur is adamant: the number should be 500,000 and climbing exponentially.
Save Darfur is targeting the high school kids for donations: popular singers and movie stars are financed to drum up support among high school generation: the generation in universities and older have wizened up to this fraud. In order to convince high school kids the movement internet sites had nothing to offer but violent pictures and videos of rape, murder, and burning villages of the first year of conflict. Darfur is shown as a region with no past and no politics; just a dark region where evil reigns supreme.
Save Darfur movement claims to expose the cause of the people but so far failed to explain or expose anything. The American people are willing to donate to save Darfur (of what exactly?) but they hate saving Iraq or Afghanistan. Why? Iraq and Afghanistan feel very much like paying taxes!
Part two: Twilight of philosophy and dawn of philo-ethics; (Jan.20, 2010)
Note: this might be unusual: I decided to publish a section of part two before part one. I felt the urge to post what I had written the most recent so not to get discouraged in my vast endeavor.
It is not necessary to be a practicing scientist to have a scientific critical mind; otherwise, not many people would feel comfortable believing that they are endowed with sensible rational and empirical thinking. When I claim that we need to think philosophically I mean that we need to combine the ethical component to whatever scientific thinking we undertake. The ethical mind should be the guiding rod to solutions or resolutions of any question.
For example, (it might sound a simple interrogation but it might carry complex implicit ramifications), suppose that I stirred my Nescafe cup with a spoon. My Nescafe includes no sugar or milk; just plain hot filtered water and Nescafe. I got into wondering: should I rinse the spoon in tank supplied water (many germs) or just let the spoon dry when removed from the cup? The idiosyncratic reaction is to rinse the spoon no matter what, isn’t it? If I discover that the accumulated potent germs on a dried spoon are far less than the rinsed one then what would be your behavior? The whole exercise is that we generally extend ready behaviors in answering that does not answer implicit reasons in questions.
Philo-ethics (a new term that I invented) is to working on a set of stringent ethical reasoning that you feel are right. The purpose is that you feel you have the right to state your ethics because you applied them. The other advantage is that you won’t feel obliged to impose your ethics on people you like their company: you are in a position to be lenient and to compromise because relationships are more important than strict rules and regulations.
The hardship that you subjected yourself to is to keeping sensible relationship working: a climate of genuine compassion to human frailty gives incentives to overcoming shortcomings that may be surmounted.
Note: I wrote this post at 4:30 am and watched two movies. One of the movies is about a girl who decided to throw a formal wedding invitation to marry herself. If I had the finances I would have done the same: it is never too late to experience what you failed to do. The other movie is”The Bridges of Madison “. I liked the conversation and the two actors were well in their skins. I have seen this movie before but this time I liked it even better, no matter the critiques. I felt that the cheating wife overdid the whining part in bed.
Sex: An exclusively personal value
Posted by: adonis49 on: January 18, 2010
Sex: an exclusively personal value (Draft); (Jan. 20, 2010)
Let me dispatch the physical aspect to focus on the important matter. Like pissing, shitting, and sweating, ejaculating is a bodily excretion.
Like shivering for heat equilibrium, ejaculating is a reaction for internal physical chemical equilibrium.
We learn to control pissing and shitting when asleep with no major harms; we might control these exercises during our waking period for short duration. I doubt that it is recommended to stretch the control freakishness to ejaculation during the dream part of sleep: your subconscious mind might get frustrated in reorganizing your memory and it needs a release mechanism to function properly.
Thus, set aside any guilt feeling when you have sex in dreams, no matter with whom or with which genders.
I will not dwell on the physical consequences of diseases or how to protect from inadvertent occurrences. I am interested in the value system attached to sex.
I am not insinuating that sex is the primal value in most social value systems, but it is in most systems. It is our duty to retrieve sex from the other values and give it an exclusive personal value. This is right because sex is a prime responsibility that is pretty much under individual capabilities to control and manage.
What differentiate intercourse from the other excretion outlets is that it is under your total control during the waking period, and for as long as you wish, with no major physical harmful consequences.
I also differentiate between sex interplay (without intercourse) and the entire sex game. Sex interplay should always be welcomed between two friends who appreciate company.
The topic is basically related to the intercourse phase: It is always trouble in any aspect you consider it (though not necessarily in a negative sense).
When two partners need to have intercourse, they should be at the same psychological level emotionally.
No one is nominee to play the physician or psychiatrist or to be in control during the whole physical debate.
Thus, the partners have to be both emotionally either “sick” (they feel the urge for release) or contended and healthy (they regard sex as the best alternative quality time).
Intercourse bring the domain of the ego into the foreground. Ego is the most tricky characteristic to comprehend, admit its existence in the relationship, and to control and manage its consequences.
It is your entire responsibility to be sensitive enough to recognize the imbalance in emotional status when you decide to have intercourse.
You have to decide: are you both emotionally sick or healthy? It is your entire responsibility to figure out in what state your partner is complying. Conversation is an excellent start; exposing your concept for healthy intercourse is a must to permit your partner judicious decisions.
If you are past age 30, you are not entitled to bring the issue of subconscious urge for procreation: you have lived long enough for your brain to discriminate among rational thinking, facts, fiction, myths, misunderstanding, disinformation, and human errors. The psychiatrist will demonstrate whether you are a nut case at this advanced age.
Intercourse, as a game of complex control behavior of others, is the most basic and influential habit that expands to all other control behaviors in our daily routines and schemes.
If we learn to master the control freak behavior in bed, then humanity would have started a giant step toward harmony, compassion, and emotional stability.
Note: This is a draft: I need your developed opinions and comments.
Adonis Diaries 