The Elephant in the Womb

I love to cook, and when I cook, I cook with garlic. Some people can't handle much garlic and for them I have great sympathy. When one such as myself expresses their love for garlic as they begin peeling cloves for cooking, it's not uncommon for the less tolerant to caution "But not too much." I don't want to call it a pet peeve but the smart ass in me just cringes when I hear that combination of words. "Too much" is too much, meaning not "just right", therefore too much is always a bad thing, so.... duhhh, of course not too much! Sometimes I say sarcasmically "Don't worry, I'll just use too much of everything else so it evens out in the end." The word "too" defines itself, it's like the word "to" with too many "o"s in it. Whenever you use the word "too" the "o"s represent the noun in the sentence: too much salt, too many cats, too many cooks in the kitchen. The exception is the phrase "too few" which is usually "not enough", and "too small, short, little" which are more commonly used, a gentle digression.

I'm not listing my pet peeves here, I wouldn't want to leak that sensitive intelligence to Al Queda. But I do have a larger point to make than to express my passion for garlic and my dispassion for those who state the obvious. We earthbound souls have an abstract ideal that can be summed up as "Just right", we don't want "Too much, too little, too few, too big, etc." It's not because we're finicky, there are valid reasons to resist "Too much, too little, too few, too big, etc." We can all agree across the board that anything can be too big, but few people agree on where the line is drawn. And maybe there is no right size, shape, composition, portion, etc. Maybe there is a spectrum in which something can be not too big and not too small but still leave room for variety and diversity. For instance one can eat too little to survive, or too much, but there is a lot of space in between and it's amazing how much of that space some people can take up.

Our modern era is a world of giants, behemoth institutions surround us in every aspect of our lives. Nations stretch on for thousands of miles spanning continents, collecting states, cities, minions. Corporations rival the size and power of governments and collect in "trade organizations" to create even larger monstrous entities capable of manipulating larger chunks of the world with relative ease. Banks monopolize the flow of currency on a larger global scale than during the British empire, and the few executives, board members, share holders, rake in profits from the debts of the masses. Mortgage rates are too high, minimum wage is too low, prescription drugs are too expensive, Jobs are too few and far between, food prices are too high, gas prices are too high, tax rates are too high, and yes, the rent is too damn high! Sometimes "too much" may leave you with a mild case of garlic breath, sometimes it's a matter of survival.

There is a large and growing consensus that corporations are bad, even "evil." And when you take that position you are setting the other side up for a slam dunk, it's faulty logic and vulnerable to a master debater. The truth is that corporations are too big, too powerful, they have too many "rights" and too much sway in our electoral and legislative processes. Those who sit at the helms of these Goliaths, and those whose paychecks bear their logos, may disagree that there is anything wrong with their size and scope. But anyone who looks at a timeline of the past century can see that there is very keen political awareness about the issues that arise when any entity grows too large, too powerful, too ominous. We have what we call "Anti-trust" laws in the US which are intended to prevent unfair trading practices and break up monopolies. About a hundred years ago the worlds first multinational corporations were emerging and they quickly became too big for their britches, Standard Oil and Bell Telephone were two of the largest and most powerful monopolies and had to be broken into smaller corporations to maintain a fair trading environment. But all of those regulations and oversights have been strategically and systematically dismantled over the past century, tweaking capitalism to be a leaner, meaner killing machine.

Oddly, corporations are all about the extremes of too much and too little, it's possible that they can create little else than inequity in our society. The first and foremost principle that separates a corporation from an unincorporated business, is the concept of "limited liability". Obviously the premise behind this is the notion that there is otherwise "too much" liability, or that there are too few assets compared to the potential liabilities. You might say that the first principle separating corporations from companies is that the corporation is owned by share holders who buy stocks in the company. But the way for this system is paved by the concept of limited liability, why not buy stocks in a company when you only stand to lose what you payed and/or gained? It's a lot like Vegas. It's not like you're going to be sued if that corporation gases the entire city of Bhopal, India, killing thousands of people. In fact, it would be more accurate to call this system "limited accountability" as most corporations can evade any real culpability for the negligent crimes they commit.

Consider this, when one entity in the world actively limits their liability, they are increasing the general liability of the system. The people who run corporations can act with effective impunity in the world, while they are not liable, the corporation becomes a greater and greater liability to the planet. Imagine if your next door neighbor robbed your neighborhood bank, but he had a "get out of jail free" card and didn't have to pay back the money or do the time for his crime. But everyone in the neighborhood lost their entire savings and now the bank is raising fees and interest rates to try to recover some of the losses. If you understand how a corporation works you would look at those who profit from that system as you would look on someone who stole your life savings, burned down your house, raped your wife and killed your mother and got off Scott free. You cannot retaliate without risking everything including your freedom. They benefit from their crimes with no effective deterrent to stop them from doing it again and again. Why would anyone with good intentions and strong integrity want to limit their liability? Unless, perhaps they have ill intentions and simply don't want to be held responsible for the pain and suffering they leave in the wake of their profiteering.

Now lets look at the other giants crowding the halls of the congresses and parliament buildings around the world. The last few centuries have seen a sharp decline in "Kingdoms" and "Empires" at least in the old design, people across the planet have soundly rejected these old patriarchal rulers who threaten our sense of individuality, liberty, and justice. Many of us like to believe that we now have a system of governments that makes sense and is more acceptable to our modern ways of life. But our current system of nations will also fall by the wayside as we slowly realize the faults of their designs, and the endless crimes committed in their names, if they don't simply implode of their own massive gravity. But some system of governing is required and I could go in to many examples of what I believe would be marked improvements. But many forms of government could work, and maybe all of them do work, but when they are too big, too vast, too expansive the system inevitably fails. Just as the Roman empire remains our greatest political example of "Too big", so is our current system of government. It's not about "Capitalism=good, communism=bad" it's about "Too big=Too bad."

Imagine if every state in the nation were it's own separate nation, or autonomous governing body. As a resident of the united states I (or any one person) =1/300,000,000, but as a resident of California I =1/30,000,000. I just grew one hundred times in size and relative power, one person one vote in a nation of 300 million is one hundred times less powerful than one person/vote in a nation of only 30 million. Now lets say that countries (or autonomous governing bodies) are only about the size of the original congressional districts which were no more or less than 33,000 people. Now I =1/33,000, that's about 1,ooo times more powerful than a vote in a nation of 30 million (California), and 10,000 times more powerful than a vote in a nation of over 300 million people! And consider the other power we have to protest our government to redress our grievances, To demonstrate in Washington DC I would have to travel about 3,000 miles! To demonstrate in my state capitol of Sacramento I would only have to drive about 200 miles, and if my government were limited in size and scope to my local city and county governments I would just have to drive to the next town. We were never intended to have corporations that were "too big too fail" but a child should be able to reason that "too big" is destined to fail by definition alone. And if corporations can be "too big" isn't it time we reconsider the legitimacy of our giant empire and the global hegemony that maintains it?

The results of the ultrasound are back and the baby is a girl, but she's an elephant. Is this the "Birth pangs of a new world order" Condoleezza Rice was telling us about?

World Wide Strike!

"The workers with their hands in their pockets have more power than the bosses"

Utah Phillips

In the united states the concept of a general strike is completely off the radar, some unions are prevented by penalty of law from striking at all. This nation has a bloody history of union busting forcing workers to continue their labor in unfair and unsafe conditions since it's very beginning. It is ironic to say the least that the nation itself is a "Union" that we are all expected to respect and serve without question. Unlike the workers unions, the union of states is really a union of bosses, of owners, of tyrants. When the bosses are faced with challenges they have called out the national guard, the army, and of course the police. Even the police have unions but they seem to exist in a vacuum having no solidarity whatsoever with the unions of working people, they exist only to protect the owners of our society, not society itself.

For those of you who are vague about the concept of a workers strike, it's time you understood that you have untapped power in your pockets. It's highly unlikely that the owner of the company you work for works there right beside you doing the tough job on the front lines. That's because they have the power of good old fashioned money, would you work if you could afford to pay someone else to work for you? Wealthy people are too smart to work, they make their money work for them, which is to say they make other people work while they spend their time enjoying their riches. They do the hard work of signing a few checks and cashing many more, oh yeah and they make some tough decisions like putting you out of work to move the factory overseas. The company just couldn't function without their wisdom and guidance, or could it?

Actually, it could. But one thing is certain, the company couldn't function without the masses of poor, hungry, desperate workers who will take the job for slave wages and work 'til their dying days. This country was built on slavery, the vast majority of wealth in the united states is ill gotten in its' origin and the thieves will never give up the goods. But slavery was only en vogue for about the first century, then it completely ceased to exist in any form whatsoever. Just kidding, slavery is alive and well in the united states of america, but not without being re-jiggered and re-branded to look more like freedom. That's right, you're free to work for any oppressive corporation you choose, until they outsource your job to people with less collective bargaining power. Hey, you're even free to own your own business, you too can sell your soul to the bank for a business loan that will hardly cover your tax burden.

But america is special, we have rights, we have votes, we have power! Which would all be great if our bosses didn't have more rights, more political power through campaign contributions, and a hotline to Capital Hill with an army of lobbyists. If this country was ever truly free (and it wasn't) it is now so totally slanted in the direction of the rich and powerful that it forever leaves the workers out in the cold. We have entered a new era of robber barons who control the direction of the country (and the world) and never intend to give it up. Unfortunately, they're also never satisfied, they can throw everyone out of their homes and out of their jobs and skim all of the profit from all of the resources and labor and they will not be done. They laugh and count their money monopoly while the workers willingly walk away from their jobs and into the streets to search for work that isn't there to find.

Why do we give up every time there is a challenge to our simple ways of life? Why do we give in when they want to take away from the few "benefits" and perks of our labor? Why do union bosses keep folding and never pull the ultimate weapon, the general strike? A general strike is when the majority of workers (if not all) simply stop working and go into the streets to demand fair and safe working conditions, benefits, wages, etc. They may even be content with their working conditions but they want to oppose the agenda of their government in an effective way, and there is no more effective way than to stop the profit system in its' tracks. As I write this the people of France are taking part in a general strike shutting down most factories and all oil refineries so that there is no fuel for cars, busses, trains, and planes, all because the president is planning to change the retirement age from 60 to 62. In the US the retirement age is 65.

It's no wonder we're taught to hate France, if we followed their example we might have universal health care, a higher minimum wage, 6 weeks of paid vacation a year, affordable housing, etc. Not that France is perfect, but it is far more true to democracy which, when allowed to fully flower inevitably leads to a system that takes care of its' people. We in the states have a system that takes care of its' rich at the expense of its' greater population, a crushing, lifelong burden for 90% of the people. This in itself is proof that american democracy is false democracy, no people would so consistently vote themselves out of work and out of their homes, no matter how effective the propaganda campaign waged against them. But in our collective fear and ignorance we simply go along with the status quo which has never resembled democracy no matter how much we are told that it is.

Demands must be made, a date must be chosen, and people must STOP!

Revolution Party!

As someone who has never agreed with representative democracy and always seen the need for revolutionary change to make democracy a reality, voter apathy has had a significant meaning to me. Political campaigners see voter apathy as a rich field for them to farm, just as Christians have for ages looked among the "lost souls" for new recruits. There is no single reason that one decides not to participate in American democracy, but there may be a binding element among the variety of people who opt out of this flawed system. In fact, it's quite possible that I represent the majority of this group in my belief that the system of voting for representatives, especially with our current party politics, is completely defunct. I believe it is not apathy that keeps people from going to the polls, but a passionate belief that a representative, partisan democracy is not democracy at all.

I have gone from not voting, to voting with my heart, to voting with my head, to voting for hope and change, and nothing has changed in the ways I've hoped for. When we vote we are simply voting for someone who always turns the ship of state to the right, or someone who sometimes turns left, nobody seems to have a compass and no one can turn this ship of fools around completely. We seem somehow surprised when the ship wrecks on the rocks and we're all washed up on the deserted island that once had great resources, clean air and water, and fish. While we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic the rich are filling up the lifeboats and quietly sailing away with all that they can carry. The wealthy have never been true patriots, they don't care which country they extract their wealth from, as long as they don't have to share it with the people they stole it from they're happy.

Voter turn out in presidential election years has hovered near 50% for decades, is it possible that this means that nearly 50% of the American population is ready for real change? Many countries have compulsory voting in which the entire population of eligible voters are required to vote in elections, some enforce this with fines some do not. Some people believe that voting should be a right but not a duty compelled by our governments. But what if non-voting was actually counted like votes, what if a vote for "None of the above" was a vote for revolution, or at least drastic reforms? What if we had a Revolution Party in our party system, in which all non-votes counted as votes for the Revolution Party? Imagine, it would be the largest political party this country has ever had, and it would win every election season unless people get out and vote for something else.

But "Revolution" is always working from the outside right? Wrong, revolution is what happens when people get the power back from the plutocracy that has stolen it year after year from year one. Revolution does not by definition have to be violent, but with no representation in the electoral process it is not allowed to be peaceful, and by design is prevented from ever happening. Thomas Jefferson once said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Is our democracy so rigid, and yet so fragile that a bloody revolution is what's needed make major revisions and corrections? Why can't democracy include in it's blueprint a mechanism to lubricate the process of these constant corrections, like simply making revolution an option to vote for. I'd rather be forced to vote, than prevented from voting for revolutionary changes.

Even small adjustments to our electoral system are just beyond our reach and require a revolution to be considered at all. For instance, instant runoff voting would break up the two party system in this country by eliminating the fear of voting for a third party, simply put a number next to each candidate representing your first, second, and possibly third choices. In the 2000 elections this might have looked like this: Nader=1 Gore=2 Bush=3, in which case no candidate could be seen as a "spoiler" and everyone can vote their heart first and their head second. This runoff system that is widely accepted as the best way to determine the NFLs' MVP constitutes a revolutionary change for our democracy, it doesn't even enter the realm of national debate during election season.

And while this bad design continues uncorrected, more bad designs are being adopted, like allowing corporations to spend limitless money to influence elections. If you thought this was a bad idea, see if you can change it now, you cannot. We have entered an accelerated phase of electoral corruption, the leak in the damn has burst open and there is no going back now, not without, dare I say it, revolution. The green party can do the right thing and focus on the right issues, but it has a boot on its collective neck and is prevented from making any real change on the national level. But a Revolution Party could play a very effective role in making significant changes in our system. The two dominant parties continue to block the Green party from the public debate forums often by having their candidates arrested if they show up at the debate hall. And if you are a private citizen who shows up to voice your discontent, you are liable to be beaten down in the streets and jailed for no reason.

Revolution is a strong word, I realize that. But the parasites who run the world have always known that they do so at the risk of an all out revolution that could very quickly end their reign of cruelty and greed. They steal the worlds resources and then they spend half of their riches to maintain the machine that made them rich, to prevent anything or anyone from making any real change. But they simply cannot go on much longer, they have concentrated so much wealth in so few hands that they have the whole world against them. They know this and they have fear beyond description that some cause, some leader, some forum can unite these people against them in an effective way. Revolution is that banner, that cause, the real and only hope and change we have as a people, as a planet. Revolution is a threat, and if it's allowed to do it's work as a threat, it may never have to be a reality. We the people deserve some leverage.

Everybody gets a home!

Calls are growing across the country for a nationwide moratorium on home foreclosures as several major banks including Bank of America and JP Morgan Chase are postponing foreclosures in 23 states due to fraudulent practices. The Obama administration and his friends on Wall street have rejected these calls on the grounds that a freeze on these eviction/sales would hurt the housing market and the greater economy. Let's ask ourselves who will be hurt and how? As it is there are tens of thousands of families scheduled to be kicked out of their homes by the end of the year, which also happens to be the middle of winter. BUT, if we we're to call a halt to these evictions and bank foreclosures the banks will lose money, and perhaps some real estate predators would have a harder time finding desperate people to prey on.

Remember the bank bailout of just a couple of years ago where we were told that if we didn't give the banks everything they wanted our economy would collapse? What they didn't tell us is that it would collapse anyway due to their corrupt practices and that they still would not lend money as they promised, oh, and now they want our houses too. These banks have admitted that many of these foreclosures are not valid but they're going to push them through anyway in the majority of states who don't require a court hearing. They only intend to stop potentially invalid foreclosures/evictions in those states where they stand the chance of being caught. You can't expect them to do the right thing where there's no oversight can you? It could really effect their bottom line, they need to wrongfully throw thousands of people from their homes for the sake of the economy.

They are telling us that the housing market will suffer if more people aren't homeless, as if there were a real estate god demanding human sacrifices to grant us a good harvest. The banks have done the greatest damage to the housing market in the history of real estate and now they want to inherit all of the ruins they have created while real people are swept away. They'd like us to believe that the market that is bad and getting worse will somehow get better if only they can continue to flood it with more eviction sales. And of course they know they can get anything THEY want by telling us that the "economy" will get worse if they don't get it, when just the opposite is true. The economy does not get better as more people join the ranks of the homeless and banks accumulate greater and greater wealth. Banks don't really care about the health of the economy, they only care about how much wealth they can extract from it.

It is time for the people to unite as a community and prevent ANY AND ALL EVICTIONS. This is not just about people who bought homes they could not afford, or renters who have never had the credit and/or savings to buy a house in the first place. Everybody deserves a home, just one, and nobody deserves to be homeless. I am calling for every home owner with a mortgage or house payment, and every renter to STOP PAYING FOR YOUR HOME! Come together as a community and agree to prevent anyone and everyone in your town from being kicked out of their home. It doesn't matter who thinks they own the house and property, if they aren't using the house it no longer belongs to them. If you live there it is your home, that is all that matters, that is all that is required for you to continue living there without paying a penny to anyone, especially a bank.

This is what revolution looks like and I assure you that the people who would resist this restructuring of the ownership society will not be popular and they will not want to fight their own battles. Many people who own more than one house would actually welcome this revolution because the market has turned their assets into liabilities as they try to pay taxes on properties that can no longer pay for themselves, and whose sale will inevitably be a loss. I welcome signs that the Obama administration may be considering this moratorium but I am here to take it several steps forward to it's eventual outcome. Ownership society is slowly dying by it's own methods, unchecked capitalism has followed the path of least resistance right down the drain. It is the wealthiest among us who do deserve to be evicted from all but one of their homes, and the banks, corporations, and politicians deserve to be evicted from the planet.

Everybody gets a home, you get a home, you get a home, you! Oprah for president 2012!

I'm adding this recent Democracy Now interview with Joseph Stiglitz for its' relevancy to the topic.

Go Team Nationalism!

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
It will become all one thing or all the other."
Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln included a biblical reference in his famous "House divided" speech that significantly differed from the original statement and took on a new life as a cause for struggle. According to the gospel of Mark, Jesus said "If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand." at the time reasoning against his accusers. Lincolns' use of this analogy was political, but it was also moral and sound logic. But is it possible that both Jesus and Lincoln unnecessarily limited the scope of this brilliant analogy, and therefore it's potential impact? In Lincolns' case specifically his goals were purposely limited and short term and the result has been to our long term detriment. All that he desired from this mighty metaphor was to reunite the burgeoning American empire under his leadership, one could assume his motives were pure or perhaps not.

But what is a "Nation" really? It's not real in the way that a person is real, or a tree, an animal, or the planet. Nations don't actually exist but on paper and in the minds of people, they are no more real than a spell of magic cast upon the impressionable collective conscious. For thousands of years maps were commissioned by kings and conquerors to portray a world divided, carved up and claimed by men who sought power over their fellow man. It is only in recent times that we have real images of the Earth from satellites showing us the truth, an undivided world of blues, greens, and of course earth tones. When one contemplates the true image of Earth from space it is difficult not to notice the absence of false lines, endless text, and the pastel patchwork covering most man made maps and globes. Pondering the image of this beautiful planet can eventually break the spell of these old, tired, outdated empires.

Lincolns' divided house was not a house at all, but a collection of territories, not unlike those ruled by the Roman and British empires. Kingdoms and empires have always been about collecting cities, territories, resources under one crown, one emperor, one monopolistic mentality. A city is real, a collection of cities is imagined, temporary, and can only be imposed by force and a constant threat of violence and political penalty. The city state model of ancient Greece is the most real political model yet conceived, because a "city" is a real thing with visible boundaries, not unlike a person. It is the height of reason to suggest that a city can and should be self governed, and it is equally the height of absurdity to suggest that one city should rule over others sometimes hundreds of miles away.

Todays "America" is a territorial Goliath, an empire whose great expanse would make any Roman emperors' ambition feel a sense of inadequacy. Even the smallest state in the nation (Rhode Island) would not be too small to be it's own nation on the European subcontinent, and even that would be a collection of cities ruled by one city. Imagine if (after World War II) the Soviet Union had been in a position to march into every European city and annex them into their already massive territories. This is what would be required for the citizens of Paris, Luxembourg, and Madrid to send their annual tax payments to a city thousands of miles away. But in the united states we do so relatively willingly and without much consideration of fairness. What would be a dismal humiliation to Europeans somehow seems reasonable to Americans.

France may be the primary reason that we have a "united states" model with a powerful centralized governing entity we call the federal government. When our "Forefathers" called upon the French to assist them in their revolt the French leaders would not do so unconditionally, they wanted the colonies to unite under one figure head for the purpose of clear and direct negotiations and strategies. This model was kept in place after the initial victory because the threat of a British invasion remained a constant for the formative years of the fledgling nation and the union was considered the best defense. Surely the various colonies would have preferred to be autonomous especially considering the growing tensions around the slavery issue that later erupted into civil war. The "Union" was forged as a direct result of fear of a people united only by the constant threat of a common enemy.

Sports teams teach us all we need to know about the spell of Nationalism and it's patriots. It is with the same mindless devotion to a local sports franchise that most people love their "country". Within cities high school sports teams create rivalries from one side of town to the next, within counties there are rivalries between towns, states are divided by county rivalries, and of course nationwide it is state versus state. But there are some people who move around the town, the state, or the country and for them a mindless devotion to one team is almost impossible, they simply must consider other factors if they insist on favoring one team over another. With nationalism we are taught to simply love and adore the nation who claims the territory under our feet, and when necessary to adopt the enemy of the day and even give our lives to defeat them.

Nationalism is a false model that divides the true house we all share called Earth. The unquestioning impulse of Nations to collect more territories, cities, resources, and influence is contradictory to the collective desire for democracy, equality, and justice. Someday perhaps we can wake up from this powerful spell called nationalism and begin to localize our democracy and globalize our equality. But a step in the right direction would be to break up the "unions" of states and territories under centralized governments like the United States, China, India, Brasil, and now the European Union. Not in the largely symbolic way in which the Soviet Union dissolved, but with full autonomy in each state. The people of the world would welcome smaller, more manageable nations, though the nations themselves, false as they may be, would rather torch the world than lose any ill-gotten power over the people.

It is time for the people to take back the power from the imaginary realm of nations, no man (or woman) is fit to rule over their fellow man, it is an affront to democracy, equality, and justice.

Justice just is.

Liberty is always free, just reach out and take it.

You'll know if it's a real law if you just can't seem to break it.

Justice just is, we don't need to force or fake it.

The wheel invented us, long before we could make it.

What is justice? Ask a hundred different people and you will surely get a hundred different answers. This doesn't mean that justice is an illusion though it may be somewhat elusive. The same could be said for love yet no one is cynical enough to consider this proof that love doesn't exist, in fact love may be the only thing that is real. But these absolute abstractions are not for man to define and no living man can represent them universally to all. Yet we live in a worldly construct of men who claim to be authorities in the realm of justice, man imposing his justice on his fellow man. The practice of law is an arrogant game when it should be at best a humble service equal to the preparation and serving of meals. A judge is no more qualified to speak for justice than a janitor.

Men (and women) of self proclaimed importance seek to guide the hand of justice, but justice does not bend for man, man must let justice guide their hands. Any man who seeks to be an authority of justice on Earth is himself guilty of subverting justice and therefore unjust. For all of the legal design to protect the rights of those who come before the judge, justice is never truly served. From the police man to the judge to the jailer to the executioner, justice is further and further from it's home. The obedience to precedent in court decisions seems to suggest that callous consistency is more important than correcting the mistakes of man made justice. We are told there is an "Arch of justice" and that gradually (over thousands of lifetimes perhaps) we will someday reach "Justice." I do believe that justice is our final destination, but so is it our past, present, and future, it is our here and now.

If we wish to understand justice we should instead call it "Balance", this is a far more accurate and unambiguous term. Not that the same mistakes cannot be made, but that each entity can truly be their own authority, or at least humble observer. Many may be convinced that justice requires years of study at an expensive law school to grasp. But we are all students of balance and as we stand and walk without falling we feel we have a good grasp of this practical phenomena no matter how abstract. Our so-called justice system is often the perpetrator of greater crimes than any one man can achieve, and in many cases actually reverses justice where it exists.

Our correctional facilities are fundamentally incorrect in their design and have a negative effect on the natural order, the natural balance. The duration of time that many people spend incarcerated becomes a crime against that person as their time goes on and on well beyond any notion of correction. If we can see the injustice of the system for what it is then one begins to see uniformed men kidnapping (not arresting) people, robed men condemning (not judging) them, and more uniformed men holding them against their will like slaves, slaves to a corrupt and ultimately flawed institution. Withdrawing any validity from these men and their false institution one begins to see that they are criminals in their word and deed, nothing more than common thieves, kidnappers, and murderers.

The unfortunate reality of man made justice is that it is anything but fair, it is the poor, the minority, the demonized in our culture who suffer the wrath of this institutional weapon. Minorities are arrested in far greater numbers, given far harsher sentences, and fail far more parole hearings than their white counterparts. Even if you believe that man is capable of guiding the hand of justice on Earth, it is hard to disagree that the american justice system is and always has been an overwhelmingly racist apparatus serving the white mans fear and hatred of his darker skinned brothers. Man made justice is out of balance with nature and can never achieve it's stated goals. Instead of removing the volatile elements from our society it gives many of them uniforms and weapons and robes and iron bars, and essentially a license to kill, kidnap, rob and steal. It is somehow better for wild dogs to be leashed and trained to commit crimes on command as the attack dogs of the state.

Justice is far better served when men do nothing, then when men relinquish their power to so-called "authorities."