Recently there has been a rather large quantity of vampire literature published for the young adult market. This has proven to be rather irritating to me, largely insofar as every single author involved seems to be romanticizing vampires and their lifestyles. Do none of them retain a sense of what it is to be evil? Vampires are inherently abhorrent to nature, to morality, and to God Himself (even those with scientific explanations still require vile acts to sustain their lives). A vampire represents all that is base in humanity. They are essentially creatures of appetite. They fear death, and so have twisted immortality. They fear hunger, and so they need only the blood of their fellow men to survive (which is itself cannibilism). They typically are presented as alluring, whether physically, psychically, or simply by the attractiveness of the powers that they wield. Vampires do whatever they want without regard for any limitations of morality, ethics, or even basic politeness (unless being polite furthers their goals).
The way that modern authors glamourise these monsters, turning them into heroes who get all the "benefits" of their evil unlives without suffering any of the traditional consequences (killing people and such), making them entirely sympathetic characters, makes me sick. Even more, it is the fact that so many authors are jumping on the "good vampire" bandwagon. I'd type out a cry of frustration, but without the ability to modulate tone in the printed word (other than the stop-gap measures of bold, italics, and all caps) it'd be an exercise in futility.
Therefore I have resolved to write my own vampire story, only this time the main character will not be eagerly awaiting his true love's final decision to "turn" him, nor will his fellow vampires, living out their unlives to the utmost, seem like viable rolemodels for anyone who isn't a juvenile sociopath with a sensitivity to sunlight. Indeed, rather than the end of my book being the final conversion of my protagonist from a human into a vampire (see Stephanie Meyer's work for the prime example of this), instead it will culminate in one of two things: either he is devamped or he is destroyed. No other options exist for a moral man suffering the curse of vampirism.
That's enough on this topic for now...
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Something completely different...
I've had a few thoughts on the nature of the afterlife, and this seems like a decent medium in which to air them. According to a Christian (Eastern Orthodox) understanding, if I'm correct at least, then there must actually be two seperate and distinct afterlifes of sorts.
The first is that to which people go immediately upon dying. This would be the afterlife referenced in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and to which the thief on the cross was headed when Christ informed him that he would this day be with Him in heaven. From what I can tell, this is a purely spiritual existence, considering that the body remains on earth. However, this cannot be the final state, for that would deny the truth of the Resurrection and the promise of the New Jerusalem. Indeed, it is itself an unnatural state, since man was created body and soul, not just soul, and so continuing to exist without a body, even if in the presence of God Himself, would still be an imperfect situation.
This brings us to the second afterlife. According to the Nicene/Constantinople creed, we "await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come." There will be a general resurrection when Christ comes again, when all men, whether sheep or goats, will find themselves with renewed, perfected bodies. This then is the eternal afterlife, the life of the age to come. The New Jerusalem is a new creation, a new physical Paradise where men can finally live as they were originally intended, body and soul in unity with the Divine Energies of God (never the Substance).
So then arises the question: why do people focus pretty much exclusively on the temporary, imperfect spiritual afterlife when it is the eternal, perfected post-resurrection afterlife that really matters? The former is more of a holding area than anything else, with the peace of heaven being but a shadow of that which is to come, and the torments of hell likewise being but a shadow of the suffering that the newly resurrected will undergo in the Outer Darkness.
Speaking of the Outer Darkness, given the context of the situations when this term is used (namely after the wedding feast, which I understand to be the Second Coming, and therefore after the general resurrection), it would seem to me that the spiritual Hell of the immediate afterlife is more akin to that from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (ie a place of fire and whatnot), while the everlasting Hell of the age to come will be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, with each person consumed with isolation, loneliness, fear, sorrow, etc..
These are just some musings on the subject, so I thought I'd throw them out there and see if anyone cares to make comment upon them.
The first is that to which people go immediately upon dying. This would be the afterlife referenced in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, and to which the thief on the cross was headed when Christ informed him that he would this day be with Him in heaven. From what I can tell, this is a purely spiritual existence, considering that the body remains on earth. However, this cannot be the final state, for that would deny the truth of the Resurrection and the promise of the New Jerusalem. Indeed, it is itself an unnatural state, since man was created body and soul, not just soul, and so continuing to exist without a body, even if in the presence of God Himself, would still be an imperfect situation.
This brings us to the second afterlife. According to the Nicene/Constantinople creed, we "await the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come." There will be a general resurrection when Christ comes again, when all men, whether sheep or goats, will find themselves with renewed, perfected bodies. This then is the eternal afterlife, the life of the age to come. The New Jerusalem is a new creation, a new physical Paradise where men can finally live as they were originally intended, body and soul in unity with the Divine Energies of God (never the Substance).
So then arises the question: why do people focus pretty much exclusively on the temporary, imperfect spiritual afterlife when it is the eternal, perfected post-resurrection afterlife that really matters? The former is more of a holding area than anything else, with the peace of heaven being but a shadow of that which is to come, and the torments of hell likewise being but a shadow of the suffering that the newly resurrected will undergo in the Outer Darkness.
Speaking of the Outer Darkness, given the context of the situations when this term is used (namely after the wedding feast, which I understand to be the Second Coming, and therefore after the general resurrection), it would seem to me that the spiritual Hell of the immediate afterlife is more akin to that from the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (ie a place of fire and whatnot), while the everlasting Hell of the age to come will be a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, with each person consumed with isolation, loneliness, fear, sorrow, etc..
These are just some musings on the subject, so I thought I'd throw them out there and see if anyone cares to make comment upon them.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Initial foray...
Given the timing of this, my first entry, I think it is appropriate for me to begin with a bit of political discussion (conventions are quite the spectacle, no? Bread and circuses indeed).
I have to wonder sometimes, do people actually bother to learn about the forms and structures of the General government? Sure, civics classes are usually required as part of one's high school education, but apparently those aren't the most accurate (nor the most well-remembered) of classes. Therefore I think I'll open this with a short description of basic federalism as I understand it.
Fundamentally federalism depends on the proper relationship between the State and the General governments. When that relationship becomes unbalanced, for instance by having States assume powers reserved for the General government, or vice versa, then the system as a whole begins to break down. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of those for whom it was not intended, and tyranny eventually becomes the inevitable consequence (hopefully, but not necessarily, followed by revolution). Of course, there are integrated methods for righting that relationship, for instance the ability of the People to elect representatives, and for those representatives to punish or remove offenders from other parts of the various governments.
Now look at the current situation among the United States today, as exemplified by a few easily found examples. The General government essentially runs the public education system, a power reserved to the States by the Constitution (by means of the much-ignored Tenth Amendment). Senators, the States' great check upon the General government, are now (by means of the Seventeenth Amendment) elected by the People instead of appointed by the States. There is talk at the General level of passing some kind of legislation defining marriage (which, unless done by means of an Amendment to the Constitution, would constitute a violation of the Tenth Amendment). These are but a smattering of instances wherein the General government has usurped powers and authority reserved by the Constitution to the States and to the People.
Indeed, with the sum total of all such usurpation on the part of the General government, especially insofar as they consist of regulations backed by financial incentives, I believe that it can be argued that the Federal system has become essentially defunct. The States, once partners in a Union intended to protect them from undue loss of sovereignty in a hostile world, have been reduced to little more than administrative provinces. I also believe that this situation is harmful to the entire body politic, General, State, and Personal. But what is the root of this problem, and indeed of so many of the problems that now face these United States of America?
My answer is that the true cause of the decline of Federalism, the rise of the modern National goverment (a term the use of which I may discuss in the future), and the loss of both personal liberty and, more importantly, personal responsibility, can be laid at the feet of certain fundamental assumptions that are no longer even discussed, with any who would do so labelled as radicals, extremists, etc.
What are these assumptions? First and foremost is the idea that the state is a positive force for good. This assumption is proven wrong simply by looking around you. Look to China, a country that exploits the masses to support a vast military and police apparatus, solely concerned with the continued power of the Party and its leaders. Look to Russia, a nominal republic that even now shows the influences of the old Soviet regime. Look to our own government, with harmful regulations imposed due to hysteria and fearmongering that led to nuclear power being choked nearly to death (a source of energy that even now gains favor among the green movement because of how clean and safe it is compared to every other viable source of power), along with corruption, pandering to lobbyists and special interests, and the violation of such basic rules of civilization as refraining from torture.
Second is the assumption that those who seek out the highest political offices do so purely out of an honest desire to work for the betterment of mankind. For some few statesmen that may be true, but for the vast majority of politicians in this country as in any other the real motivations have been far more base: money, power, and the various enjoyments that are derived from those two things. Find a congressman who refuses to accept donations from lobbying firms, major corporations, unions, or other such special interest groups and you'll have found either a total incompetent or one of those rare few who qualify as a statesman. The unending revelations of sexual misconduct, hypocrisy, corruption, etc. should be enough proof that the vast majority of politicians serve only themselves and those who have purchased their loyalty.
The third assumption is that it is the job of the General government to fix all the problems in the world and to elevate everybody to the same level of prosperity by any means necessary. To counter this, simply read the Constitution of the United States of America. Sure, the clause to "promote the general welfare" is included in the Preamble (the only part without the force of law), but if you read the document as a whole it is clearly intended as a structural outline for the body of government to be formed around, with only those powers as are specifically granted to it (again, read the Tenth Amendment). Nowhere does the Constitution allow the General goverment to regulate public education, to provide health care, or even to establish a National Bank or issue paper money (note that the Constitution only provides for coining money).
There are other such assumptions, but I'll end this with one final example. It is generally assumed that bureaucrats are the best qualified individuals to fulfill whatever function they are given by Congress (or with increasing frequency the President). From the Department of Education to the Department of Homeland Security, the number one solution to any sweeping problem seems to be to establish a new bureaucracy. To see the folly of this practice, all one need do is examine the performance of FEMA during the Katrina disaster. For an example of the unaccountability of bureaucracies, look to the Central Intelligence Agency and its torture scandals. Indeed, bureaucracies can essentially legislate by issuing directives and such, a power that the Constitution reserves entirely to Congress. This is a dangerous thing, as it grants mere hirelings vast powers, many of which the General government does not rightly possess at all.
The final question then becomes, where did these assumptions come from? I would argue that they have their beginnings as a cohesive body of thought in the Progressive movement. Modern inheritors of that tradition include the bulk of the Democrats, the entire Neoconservative movement, Socialists (and by extension both Communists and Fascists), and nearly every other variation on those themes.
I hope that I have left you with something to think about, whether you agree or not.
I have to wonder sometimes, do people actually bother to learn about the forms and structures of the General government? Sure, civics classes are usually required as part of one's high school education, but apparently those aren't the most accurate (nor the most well-remembered) of classes. Therefore I think I'll open this with a short description of basic federalism as I understand it.
Fundamentally federalism depends on the proper relationship between the State and the General governments. When that relationship becomes unbalanced, for instance by having States assume powers reserved for the General government, or vice versa, then the system as a whole begins to break down. Power becomes concentrated in the hands of those for whom it was not intended, and tyranny eventually becomes the inevitable consequence (hopefully, but not necessarily, followed by revolution). Of course, there are integrated methods for righting that relationship, for instance the ability of the People to elect representatives, and for those representatives to punish or remove offenders from other parts of the various governments.
Now look at the current situation among the United States today, as exemplified by a few easily found examples. The General government essentially runs the public education system, a power reserved to the States by the Constitution (by means of the much-ignored Tenth Amendment). Senators, the States' great check upon the General government, are now (by means of the Seventeenth Amendment) elected by the People instead of appointed by the States. There is talk at the General level of passing some kind of legislation defining marriage (which, unless done by means of an Amendment to the Constitution, would constitute a violation of the Tenth Amendment). These are but a smattering of instances wherein the General government has usurped powers and authority reserved by the Constitution to the States and to the People.
Indeed, with the sum total of all such usurpation on the part of the General government, especially insofar as they consist of regulations backed by financial incentives, I believe that it can be argued that the Federal system has become essentially defunct. The States, once partners in a Union intended to protect them from undue loss of sovereignty in a hostile world, have been reduced to little more than administrative provinces. I also believe that this situation is harmful to the entire body politic, General, State, and Personal. But what is the root of this problem, and indeed of so many of the problems that now face these United States of America?
My answer is that the true cause of the decline of Federalism, the rise of the modern National goverment (a term the use of which I may discuss in the future), and the loss of both personal liberty and, more importantly, personal responsibility, can be laid at the feet of certain fundamental assumptions that are no longer even discussed, with any who would do so labelled as radicals, extremists, etc.
What are these assumptions? First and foremost is the idea that the state is a positive force for good. This assumption is proven wrong simply by looking around you. Look to China, a country that exploits the masses to support a vast military and police apparatus, solely concerned with the continued power of the Party and its leaders. Look to Russia, a nominal republic that even now shows the influences of the old Soviet regime. Look to our own government, with harmful regulations imposed due to hysteria and fearmongering that led to nuclear power being choked nearly to death (a source of energy that even now gains favor among the green movement because of how clean and safe it is compared to every other viable source of power), along with corruption, pandering to lobbyists and special interests, and the violation of such basic rules of civilization as refraining from torture.
Second is the assumption that those who seek out the highest political offices do so purely out of an honest desire to work for the betterment of mankind. For some few statesmen that may be true, but for the vast majority of politicians in this country as in any other the real motivations have been far more base: money, power, and the various enjoyments that are derived from those two things. Find a congressman who refuses to accept donations from lobbying firms, major corporations, unions, or other such special interest groups and you'll have found either a total incompetent or one of those rare few who qualify as a statesman. The unending revelations of sexual misconduct, hypocrisy, corruption, etc. should be enough proof that the vast majority of politicians serve only themselves and those who have purchased their loyalty.
The third assumption is that it is the job of the General government to fix all the problems in the world and to elevate everybody to the same level of prosperity by any means necessary. To counter this, simply read the Constitution of the United States of America. Sure, the clause to "promote the general welfare" is included in the Preamble (the only part without the force of law), but if you read the document as a whole it is clearly intended as a structural outline for the body of government to be formed around, with only those powers as are specifically granted to it (again, read the Tenth Amendment). Nowhere does the Constitution allow the General goverment to regulate public education, to provide health care, or even to establish a National Bank or issue paper money (note that the Constitution only provides for coining money).
There are other such assumptions, but I'll end this with one final example. It is generally assumed that bureaucrats are the best qualified individuals to fulfill whatever function they are given by Congress (or with increasing frequency the President). From the Department of Education to the Department of Homeland Security, the number one solution to any sweeping problem seems to be to establish a new bureaucracy. To see the folly of this practice, all one need do is examine the performance of FEMA during the Katrina disaster. For an example of the unaccountability of bureaucracies, look to the Central Intelligence Agency and its torture scandals. Indeed, bureaucracies can essentially legislate by issuing directives and such, a power that the Constitution reserves entirely to Congress. This is a dangerous thing, as it grants mere hirelings vast powers, many of which the General government does not rightly possess at all.
The final question then becomes, where did these assumptions come from? I would argue that they have their beginnings as a cohesive body of thought in the Progressive movement. Modern inheritors of that tradition include the bulk of the Democrats, the entire Neoconservative movement, Socialists (and by extension both Communists and Fascists), and nearly every other variation on those themes.
I hope that I have left you with something to think about, whether you agree or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)