Sigh, okay... here goes the big one.

First, if you read this and by the end, find yourself not really having any major disagreement with what is said here.... would you please share or repost this? If it is at least non-offensive, just pass it along. There will be plenty of issues and realities that one just cannot address in a single, readable in length, post on a blog - or at least my blog. So don't worry so much about what i'm not saying right now. Focus on the more grandly unifying aspects of the following proposals because those are the concepts I'm trying to get across, here and now. In the sense of an argument on paper, so to speak, you hammer out the outline before you correct the grammar.

SO............. LIFE


In the famous words "I think. Therefor I am." one can gather that if you are thinking you are alive. So what the hell is this term 'alive' anyway? As people, this is really confusing because being alive gets muddled with the feeling of being alive.

What one feels about something is just a complicated response mechanism to something that actually IS. The feeling of being alive seems (to me) to relate to the concept of The Mind, or a soul, or the 'heart.' Whereas being 'alive' could be construed as relating specifically to the physical processes of life; protein molecules, DNA, metabolization, tissue formation and organ development, respiration, etc.

So, I'm gonna run with this being alive idea for now, but we'll get back to the feeling stuff later.

Alright, you're alive! You move around a bit (not everything), you RESPOND to stimuli, you CONSUME some kinda stuff for energy to GROW & REPRODUCE and you DIE. That's kinda it. You might move some shit around, a.k.a. build something, cook something, make anything, drag some stuff from one place or another, but that's it. That's all that there is to the MECHANICS of life. No, not the guy in the jumpsuit that fixes your car mechanic, but the actual movement and function of the little bitty parts that make up all the stuff... ever.

Feeling a little small? good. you are ultimately less than the cosmic dust you are made of, in the grand universal scale of things.

That pang you felt right there, thats a bitch I call humility. Learn it. Love it. Live it.

Anywho, back to the chain of ideas here... So all being alive is, is really, the movement of tiny bits and pieces. If those bits didn't move, and move together... consuming, building, excramenting, dividing, etc. all one would be left with is molecular fusion and decay... Somewhere along the line, those steps of adding more & breaking apart specialized. Fusion (or adding more) separated into consumption and consequently growth; and fission (or molecular decay) separated into releasing waste and reproduction (dividing). The only weasel left is that odd duck, the response to stimuli.

Which could be argued is simply a natural result of the combined effect of multiple specialized units acting in unison with the goal of the survival of the whole.... but we'll get back to that one too.

So, everything but the response to stimuli, one can reason is just the movement of stuff. It's that reactionary action that is special. Basically, if something provides a positive (as in happy) sensation, the natural inclination is to repeat that action. If something results in a negative (hurt-y) sensation, that something is avoided. Run to happy, run away from hurt-y. Easy! This is the fundamental law to surviving, and prospering in the game of life.

It is this reactionary quality that makes (what we have witnessed it to be) life special. Or, at least it makes life unique and therefor prized. Mind you, we haven't gotten to the point of choice yet, not by a long shot... Rather, just focus on the concept that there is just an inclination to do things that continue each instance of life, as well as a similar inclination to avoid things that threaten each instance of life - and that newfound inclination is the basic principal of the difference between alive and not alive.

Now as you progress up the tree of life, all of these individual decisions compile, and the bigger and more sophisticated & specialized each higher being becomes.

For example; bacteria = not so many functions i.e. simple, a sponge or moss = less simple, a worm or fern = ennnh, stuff startin' 2 B really goin' on now... Moving up to mammals and flowering plants, there are so many bits all moving around that one is confused to the point of cutting oneself a little slack, and imagining a being that is sooooooooo significantly out of proportion between your newly self-prescibed value (emotions) of it versus the true sum of its parts; that this new mental hyper-constuction can actually degrade from the overall significance of each of these beings.
ooooof. simply, if you make something out to be grander that it really is, it is easy to lose sight of the basic function and placement of that one thing in the grand scheme of things. (google panda bears and where they're @ in the food web.)

...and since food and energy in nature are the exact opposite of Reagan-omics, in that shit rolls DOWNHILL- but life moves in the opposite fashion; the guys at the top are totally dependent on the guys at the bottom... and most of the guys at the bottom could exist without consideration to the existence of those at the top.
....in other words...
The grand society of the natural world can live without its kings or CEO's... it cannot live without is farmers and builders.
... now scale that to the level of species, taken form the previous analogy of professions...
The amoebas and bacteria don't need us. But the plants and animals that we need to live, do...
...and we need them (bacteria, et al.) on a personal level much more than they need us...
...ever try to digest food? yup, bacteria helpin' yo ass out, just working for food and a place to stay... so put the sanitizer down and stop being such a cunty princess. get dirty, you'll smile more.

oooooookay, almost off point there...

To recap, you are WAAAY more dependent on all that life you would traditionally consider "below you," AND all that life of which is "below you" could survive just fine if you vanished, died, or never was in the first place...

So, considering that balance of power... that we are dependent on all this other life... wouldn't there be more than just a simple moral imperative to do both these things; manage our consumption (as well as pollution - again later) of all this life beyond our own species as well as to do everything in our power to aide and proliferate the existence of all these other forms of life?

We (as people) need the rest of life. Not just a cow or a codfish, but the whole damn thing. It's no secret to anyone that life is a blissfully dynamic, woven, interrelated and complex network (much like the internet, but just not nearly as limited), so why not respect it as such? If i were to stab a ballpoint pent through the flesh and metacarpals of your right hand and inject a bunch of ink (say, a form of pollution), it will hurt your body.
DUH.
So why then, does anyone seem to think that doing the same to the biosphere (that we've already established we are dependent upon) on an comparable scale would hurt life any differently than the ink would to a person's body? (google "deep-well injection sites" for full metaphorical impact)

So what i'm saying here is that the complexity of your soul and body is, quite literally, a scaled-down version of life on this planet. If you feed yourself crap and don't exercise, and shoot up a bunch of Drain-O,... enh...

OR, if you take care of yourself and pay attention to how things work, and react to stimuli in a way that demonstrates you are not insane- that you are inclined to activities that would promote and prolong your existence (like managing your waste and food source), as opposed to activities that would threaten your existence - such as cutting down every last tree on the island and then wondering why you can't grow anymore coconuts, nor find anymore wood to build a boat to leave- or scooping too many fish out of the oceans, then wondering why there aren't as many as last year,  much less, enough growth in catches for all the new mouths to feed....

...you'll stand a much better chance, if you were savvy enough to say, "i don't have that much left, so not only will i not spend it all at once... but i will try and learn how to use less to get more out of my life in the future..."

Have I beaten this dead horse of a point enough yet? no? I thought not.

but moving forward!

We have now discussed one aspect of that balance of power i mentioned earlier that was between people and their one-way dependance on the rest of life. We need to not destroy it for our own survival. It's all interrelated, we cannot fuck one hole too hard for too long or the whole bitch will give out... but we (people) are trying to pull this Le Mans, DP, gang-bang style on the planet and biosphere that we are so pathetically dependent upon. Now it's time to let the other ball drop.

 We are obviously competent enough, as a single species, to do one thing...... to somehow act MORE evolved than those that preceded us.

But that is exactly what we are NOT doing.

Every other species has in some way, without our trick, been able to achieve a balance with its environment.

Where we differ is that we keep creating new technologies (our trick) to compensate for our lack of balance with the rest of the world.

TAKE DEEP BREATH HERE

What if our abilities to create and use technologies had a purpose?... beyond our personal selves as a species?

...to recap, you are WAAAY more dependent on all that you would traditionally consider "below you" AND all of which is "below you" could survive just fine if you vanished, died, or never was...

But then why would such a specialized creature as ourselves exist? Are we functionally just a drain on resources?  Yet we've created ideologies of purpose, meaning, responsibility, exploration, worth, value, principal, morality....

In all this discovery, and searching.... i know one thing; that the current conditions.... as well as the existence of this solar system, are finite.

i know one other thing. the possibilities of human imagination and creative problem solving are infinite.

take the two and what do you get?

the reason (if there was forethought to it) for human existence. our collective reason d'être. the purpose to our being...

what is one thing no other species has been able to do, save ourselves?

come on........... the big one...

To be able to leave this planet and get something or someone to another.

--I am an American, and i do love my tired Christian symbolism so...

... long ago, when god saw the world going to shit, he told this bloke Moses, "I'm gonna wipe the slate, build an ark and save the necessaries."

Well, either we fuck it up, there is a meteor, nuclear war, the sun has time to grow to a red giant (or whatever that next phase is) and eventually the Earth WILL BE swallowed in fire, simile or no.... but we got to keep this shit cool.

So, shouldn't we save the bunnies, britches, and buffalo! stop the looting & polluting?
Preserving and being a steward of life is the most moral thing a person can do. Just ask Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians. He says the same thing... (NYTimes.com)

Think about it another way,

Think of the most meaningful, life changing moment of your memory....

If you have had children, usually it is either the birth or death of a child.

This strong emotional sensitivity to both nurturing and death is one of our species most admirable qualities.  But the best part is, it is not limited to our own species.

Think of any pet or plant you've ever owned. You have emotional attachment to these living creatures... you care whether they live or die. you may even enjoy caring for them too.

When you are able to care for and see the growth, development, maturation and eventual proliferation of these life forms you have nurtured... does it not lend to you an amazing sensation... a dull pride, a warm feeling that you have been able to not just survive but have done that so well that you were able to aide in the survival of others... and that investment and witness to independence and success is one of the warmest, most natural and fulfilling experiences you will ever have....

that is the action that provides the most nourishing and sustainable meaning to your life.

more life.


AND THE CUNT OF CHOICE AND HOW THAT FITS IN WITH MORALITY IS NOW THE BARE BUNS BITCH AT THE BURLAP BEACHHEAD OF YOUR BEATIFIC BUNGALOW.

It's an easy calculation but a hard pill to swallow- most of the shit you value in you life actually takes away from your ability to find any lasting purpose, meaning or contentment, as your value system is organized around things and concepts that are at their most historic, TEMPORARY.

SO, do you want to last forever or just fade away?

A question then,

why is Utopia always portrayed green and lush and undomesticated?

isn't that what it's supposed to be?

but it doesn't end with this planet... that's where our purpose comes in again....

1. we can get off this rock.

2. and we know this rock wont last for ever.

3. we can't go it alone.

4. we need to take the rest of life with us to survive.

5. if this is the only life in the universe, by default, we have a duty to preserve it, out of self-interest.

6. so, the meaning to our lives is to care for life

7. and our purpose is to safeguard it, life.

Acceptable agrarian risk?

Another policy clusterfuck is this falsity to attempt a "0 risk" situation in any aspect of food production in small farms or industrialized  is impossible, like scientifically impossible. So why are there seemingly two sets of rules?

Industrial food is only held accountable when enough people get sick,

whereas small farms are held accountable if there might be a theoretical mathematical probability that someone may, at some time in the future possibly get sick.

Seems a little lopsided to me.

And what's this limited sales on raw milk in NY... does that mean that once you sell a certain amount you have to remove yourself from the free market because the government says so... mmmm sounds fairly communist to me.

And not being able to transport ANY amount of raw milk across state lines for strictly personal use, what the hell is that? Does anyone honestly believe that raw milk poses more of a social or personal threat than alcohol? Seriously?
I want to see the figures used to justify that there are more raw milk related injuries and deaths per annum than from booze. That would be the justification for there being tighter regulation on raw milk than for booze. It's MILK for fuck's sake.

This is one of those examples of a PR campaign gone so well, it has turned into this deplorable Kurtz-ian nightmare. Local food was somehow deemed less safe than processed and pasteurized food.

(There is more centralized money in the selling of all the factory equipment and so on... Just a guess)

Now you may be able to find examples of people who have gotten ill, and possibly died from eating "raw" food. It happens, people get sick from all sorts of weird stuff - you cannot remove microbes entirely from growing plants and animals. It's not possible. And it's not safe, but that's another story.

But, I know for a fact that you can also find examples of people who have become ill and even died from food that was processed, and bagged, and shipped to where the consumer bought at a supermarket. I would wager, there are actually more cases of the latter in recent decades as opposed to the former.

So do you want to put something that came from this place in your body?......

OR from this place?...

So, if you're going by the numbers...... the food from factories and supermarkets is MORE DANGEROUS than the food one would get if they bought it straight from the small independent farm.

As it is easy to conceive that more people get sick from e-coli, and mad-cow, and other such food born illnesses from factory farms and modern industrialized foodstuffs than from local organic farms.

Then there is the money issue of localized economies vs. the Tysons, Monsantos and Wal-Marts which we know hurt small local communities way more than help them, financially speaking. But again, whole other (but not unrelated) issue.

So if public welfare and safety was the actual concern of the government.... they would follow the risk to the people...

...instead of the money under the table.

Next, they're going to tell me that i can't have raw oysters or undercooked eggs or Medium Rare anything... oh wait, they keep trying that...

I thought I had the right to pursue happiness and all that jazz... Isn't happiness good food, good people, and a warm gun?

In the land of the free, when am I going to be free to make the choice to buy what i want to buy, grow what i want to grow, and eat what i want to eat?

The amount of work I have to go through to avoid eating processed crap is one step away from not having any choice at all.

Bastards.

All of us.

For letting it come to this.

lexicon and democracy

I'm watching a documentary about small farms and government, "Farmageddon." It basically focuses on the mountains paperwork, questionably legal raids on,  and government intervention forced onto small farms.

Before I dive into any details i must say it continues too leave me speechless when I consider how far from the founding ideologies of this country we have aloud ourselves, and more importantly our leadership, to stray from those competing but not mutually exclusive ideas; pragmatism and puritanism.

JFC, the key framer of our most highly revered political statements (Tomas Jefferson) envisioned a nation of independent small farms, which we had managed to support (by way of not regulating them heavily through policy designed to manage large corporations) until the post World War II era of mechanization and corporations and "policy"and eventually lobbying. There was a little bit of trouble during reconstruction and the industrial revolution but that only resulted in the dust bowl. Large industry found a financial incentive in convincing small farms to change their policies of planting and grazing, which was detrimental to the integrity of the native prairie grasses, which kept the top soil in place, and when that natural mechanism was disturbed the top soil dried up and blew away and... bam. The dust bowl was the immediate result, and then the following breakdown of agrarian society and economy in the middle of the country... not soon afterwards the country has some financial troubles that started in 1929, and it's hard to imagine how the two events are non-causally related. Kind of like how that tech bubble of the 90's created the finical landscape for the credit/ housing bubble, and well, we're living in the fallout from that one.

BTW, this whole lobbying shit is so morally egregious to our concept of democracy it is almost laughable. Remember back to like 8th or 9th grade Social Studies class, when we learned about different forms of government? When I was taught this, there were essentially three flavors of government: Democracies, degrees of Communism, and the third group "Monarchies & Others." In current political discussion, I would assert that true forms of that third group are rarely considered equal in stature to the first two. (England has a Parliament, and so therefor is more of a democratic state than a monarchy)

So, concerning the functional characteristics of Democracies vs. Communism(s); I would say an accurate distinction is that Communist/ Socialist styles of government seek to consolidate power and decision making ability toward a smaller representative group of the population at the "top," whereas in Democracies or Republics the goal is to proliferate decision making ability to as many people at the "bottom"is as possible while still managing to be deemed efficient.

So when you have a trend towards growing influence of a minority of big business and industries being able to disproportionately (in comparison to the sum tally of individuals' concerns) influence policy and practice of the elected officials.....

...that, to me, is more by definition an oligarchy instead of a democracy.

And those are scary situations because when the individual is playing against a rigged game of governance, their government is less and less inclined to listen to the individual as he/she is so disempowered by that new reality, that they (the individuals) are less inclined to fight for their rights on as an individual, thus less of a threat/ concern to those in power - from both ends; top down and bottom up - the system reinforces itself.

And what the hell is this concept of the government "saving face" vs. changing a failing program that is has been "put on track" by the federal government? Clearly this ideology failed the government miserably in "the war on drugs."

And this concept of "the war on terror," when do we finish tracking down all those damn red haird bastards from the IRA? but i digress.

Somebody please tell me how is the popular bureaucratic phrase, a "one size fits all" policy, different than true Marxist communism? I thought that the whole point of this little social experiment we have here is along the lines of "no taxation without representation." Well, I historically cannot vote because, even of the little parties (which 9 out of 10, is a wasted vote anyway), I don't have anyone to vote for...

No one is on the ballots who represents my interests. The two party system is in itself a threat to the principals of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution because the two party system inherently marginalizes and dispels any independent thought or dissenting opinion. And since the two parties agree on so many principals of government you don't even have a vote on many of the most important social and economic issues. I can't think of anything less democratic than a government that lies about being so. Give me a dictator over that shit. Then I at least know what to expect, instead of this state and federal institution of Terror and Indian Giving.

For example, there wasn't a candidate in the presidential election that stood a chance at winning that gave the option of ending wars we are in, NOW. Not some gradual withdrawal from a the same war that financially crippled the U.S.S.R., but fist act as Commander and Chief -
"we're done. we're broke and we're done. Come on home."
"Oh. And that money we were spending to fight the war, we're going to take just half of that, and pour that into the VA (not into administrative costs, but on actual care) and fix up all our men and women of service who, since coming home haven't been able to have the quality of care and life someone who risked their life for their country should have." But i realize the last concern of the military is caring for it's veterans. If you put your money where your mouth is, the VA has probably the lowest most neglected finances of any aspect of the defense budget.

In the last election, there was not a specific policy on much of anything, really. other than "the people of this country are good and we need to help them." No shit. How, other than taxes (which is a ridiculous platform to run on; tax law and policy is so insanely complicated that only a few people could even make an informed vote on) was there really any differing opinion at the end of it all? Oh, health care... but again so bloody complicated, other than some of the people who work in insurance, I haven't heard any real consensus on how any of all these proposal will actually work because nobodies plan is final, they are all still on some level of "fact finding," so how do you vote on a plan that isn't finished being written yet?

And the cronyism of either party is basically equal. Look up the resumes of most of Obama's cabinet. Still the same connection of CEO's and such that we saw under Bush. So WTF?

How can you say this is a democracy when there are so few things to vote on? and so few options when it comes to how to vote on something?

I am not anti-government in any way. Governments are good; people need laws and leadership. I just want a government that acts in the ways that it claims to.

And the sad thing is, I realize what a ridiculous request this is.

The Quality of an Idea

It is not the character of the person who came up with the idea that matters... 

It's the trueness and validity and pragmatism of an idea that is of greatest (and really only) concern...

Example; say a alcoholic, identity stealing,  murdering baby rapist,

was able to create cures for AIDS, Cancer and all forms of degenerative brain disorders...

would you NOT use those cures

simply because you found the the history of behavior of that person "bad?"

So the next time you here new idea, but its unorthodox,

and the person saying it doesn't look or sound like you,

or has done thing you don't approve of,

just imagine that it's someone you admire and/or respect saying those weird new things,

and judge the idea for the idea, not because of who's saying it.

the miracles of self-dillusion

I once knew someone who loved watches, really any timepiece, for no particular reason... I guess they just thought that time was all that important. So, she really loved watches and would gaze longingly at full page print ads or pop-ups murmuring on and on about how good it looked or the things each piece could do, other than tell time.

There was one particular brand that would always elicit extra commentary though. Not because there was any aspect that was ever notably 'better,' rather that it happened to be a high end brand, and stylish (my opinion there) and the most important commentary, to her, was to always note how much she loved the brand of watch but would never buy one simply because there was one particular celebrity endorsement of whom (again, for no reason she could ever actually define) she found to be the pinnacle of loathsomeness.
Naturally, my question was always, "what the fuck does it matter who is paid to pawn the damn thing to silly rich golfers and hippity-hop pop star wannabes? Is the watch (all on its own) something you like, or not?"

Somehow it was always argued that the mechanical quality and aesthetic appeal of a watch was not the point of choosing an ornamental timepiece to buy.  (hunh?)

The point was...... that this rich dude, of whom she had never met and according to the scientific objectiveness of journalistic tabloids, was a bad person cuz he had sex with morally questionable people with the knowledge and silent sanction of his wife (at the time).

There is so much insanity in this stance that I don't really know where to begin.

o.k. fuck it, 'morality' (what ever the hell that's supposed to be) and sex (not intimacy/ or making love) are two eggs that just cannot be in the same basket. Morality, as i have come to understand it, it the concept that you cannot do something just for the sake of itself, you have to consider this vague a-morphus third party's potential opinion/ feelings too. Whereas sex for the sake of sex (see, there is already an impossibility brewing here) is one of the most honest, free and natural acts, ever.

One major problem is that the act of sex has been raped by this purposely undefinable concept of morality. Sex is the one act in which the biological necessity of the act is reinforced by the unavoidable pleasure ones body is designed to experience from it (kind of like eating, but sex requires the company of at least one other), in order to encourage repetition of said act. Nothing else is required to create an enjoyable sexual encounter, other than the consent of all the individuals involved (unlike eating, where you need food as well).

Morality, however, has (by way of its non-consenting intrusion) fouled the organic purity of sex, for all of us. Morality has augured conditions and value judgements to sex and sexuality which stem not from the act itself, but rather the worst permutations of the psychology that can be (but not necessarily is) associated with it. Implications of commitment (which apply to reproduction, but not sex), or what a vague a-morphus third party may or may not think concerning this act that happened- which is actually no concern of that third party in the first place. Or, that by having just sex, that somehow re-qualifies in a negative manner one's commitment to sharing resources and emotions with another, particularly a spouse.
But again, morality is a slippery cunt as it is almost required to be attached and considered along side everything, except by those enforcing it, then there are almost always exceptions or reasons or excuses.

The fun really starts when people start doing immoral things to justify or prove their own higher morality... like fabricating realities, a.k.a. lying.

And here we are, back at the bimbo, her lust for Tag Heuer watches and her totally uninformed judgement of Tiger Woods.

When you start defining opinions and justifying personal stances with reasons designed to escape definition (borrowing from Mrs. Rand here) you won't wind up in a situation with lines, edges and points... you wind up with goo. colorless, flavorless, meaningless, self-devouring goo.

So go out there and get randy with some strange, cuz in it's fun and is nobody else's fucking business unless you make it.

Чеэрс! 

put your $ where your ass is.

I just read a great article on students standing up for climate change by asking their colleges to remove fossil fuel companies from the investment portfolios of each schools' endowment.

NY TIMES link; To Stop Climate Change, Students Aim at College Portfolios

It's a great idea, and it seems to be working, at least some places... so far.

Now, given that nobody really debates the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere  and that any agree that this rise in this one compound has... shall we say... an effect on atmospheric conditions on a global scale, in the specific sense of a warming trend, one could argue that there is some rationality to reversing the trend of adding more CO2 (etc.) to the proverbial fire.

Some of the many reasons that fossil fuels are so awesome to invest in is that; everybody buys them - most want more than they can get, FF's also are relatively cheap (for now) to extract considering the price they (FF's) fetch on the highly regulated, far from open, market. Oh, and did i forget to mention that we're all useless junkies when it comes to the stuff, just count how many times you encounter a polymer on any given day.

Any talk of FF's and/ or climate change always makes me think of the only place i've every really thought of as a home, New Orleans... Cheers.

... and Tulane is as brilliantly and majestically as warped an institution as the city she's in...

(btw, that is high praise, just so ya know)

... anyway, I was musing upon reading the previously noted article on what the scenario could be for the 'ol Green Wave if confronted with a rising tide of anti-FF sentiment. Hilarious to play out in one's mind when you consider the vast network and tanker-fulls of money that the FF industry sloshes around with in Southern Louisiana... and if you're the go-to alumni destinations of good ole boys from the Garden District as well as hurricane hunting hippies and trustifarians... Look Out!

Considering the campus is roughly sea level, surrounded by water, CO2 levels and climate change and sea level rise should be of the utmost concern... in jest a few years, who can actually say how fast the water will rise... how long will the levees hold? but like i said, given the city it's in...

- now i don't claim to know the first thing about how anyone actually handles their money, college, individual, city, whatever... but it is money, it's how we all get along...

So... would you put your money where your ass is? Yesterday, today, or tomorrow?

law & such

I was having a conversation earlier concerning lawyers as a general topic and, of those participating, the general consensus was more often than not little, if any, services (by means of results, in that bad or good as shift from the status quo)  were rendered for the payment asked to be given. Now, this is in no way saying lawyers are useless. I have had them save my ass on more than a few occasions. Rather, that there seems to be a fair amount of useless law that requires the hiring of peoples who (given their fervor for justice, expertise and efficiency in maneuvering a client through the trials of law) should have never studied law in the first place.

The scene cuts to inside a courtroom. The camera is positioned from the far back-right corner, looking down at the defendant being sworn in, as she takes the stand. The quivering young girl, in colorful 'traditional' Indian veil, gently rests her hand on the gold accented red leather book that makes the Bindi in the center of her smooth, auburn forehead all the much brighter. 

How is it legal to swear an oath upon something you believe against? And by against, I mean that I should (in this country, I would think) be aloud to not believe in something, thus not held to a standard dictated by the thing I don't believe in?

In that sense, it would not have been legal for Mittens to be sworn in as president as he follows the Book of Mormon; which is not the Bible. So, either he would have had to swear an oath on the Bible, which would make him a liar in the most black and white interpretation... or... he would have had to swear an oath on the Book of Mormon - which is different than what everyone else has had to swear an oath upon, thus implying different standards for different people for the same responsibility, thus invalid. The standards by which one gets into Heaven in the Bible vs. T BOM are inherently different as they are considered different faiths.... Just because the Book of Islam preaches a very similar moral code (practices are different yes, but faith, devotion, community, and respect for fellow members of the same faith) of that of Christianity, there is no way in Hell (pun intended) that this country could elect a Muslim president. And before anyone says anything, I know Obama is black, but as I understand it, that is not the same a Muslim.

Ahhh, the separation of church and state. In faith we trust.