VELVET DONK

Introductions

Preface

to top

Archives

Issue 1
Issue 2
Issue 3
Issue 4
Issue 5
Issue 6

to top

Contributers

Feature

Aliens and Religion

by Dax

Aliens and Religion. Both seem to be in the media quite often these days—in top grossing motion pictures; headlining television news shows; and backing unconstitutional laws. There isn't an escape on any front. In any case, these seemingly unrelated genres of mass marketed life are indeed closely related, or at least conflicting. Definitely conflicting.

We as a country, flock to Contact and Men in Black. We consistently watch reruns of The Twilight Zone and Star Trek. We take in 3rd Rock from the Sun and old episodes of that show with our own alien pop-culture icon, Alf. We rent Independence Day and Star Wars. And then, when we are surveyed, the majority of us claim to subscribe to major religions. Do you see the inherent conflict?

And the majority is indeed a majority. 93% of Americans claim membership to a major religion: 53% Protestant denominations; 26% Roman Catholic; 2% Jewish; 2% Eastern Orthodox; and 2% Muslim. That leaves a mere 7% of Americans that consider themselves to be nonreligious, agnostic or atheistic. And this 7% are the only Americans who can actually claim to entertain ideas of intelligent life on other planets without clashing with their religious beliefs. All of these other Americans who are talking in coffee shops and Chinese restaurants about the possibilities of aliens are completely contradicting themselves on a religious front (unless of course they utterly denying the alien possibility).

Creationism, geocentric universes, immutable species, heaven—these are all facets of most modern religions which utterly repudiate the possibilities of aliens, or life in general on other planets. Being agnostic, I personally do not rule out the tenants behind modern religions. I am not arguing about religious truth; I am simply pointing out that some central beliefs held by many modern and popular religions conflict with the possibility of alien life. I mean, is heaven really big enough for us and all those other barely intelligent life forms in the universe, or even just merely those in our galaxy? Is there a separate god for each alien species? A separate heaven? None of these questions are answegray or even mentioned in religious texts. And no one seems to notice these religious inapplicabilities in our society. The alien industry proves astoundingly large in a country dominated with human-centegray religions and with presumably very few actual aliens.

Besides the burgeoning trend of alien street-wear, spurgray from the United States Air Force weather tests in Roswell, New Mexico, there has been an ongoing corroboration of alien fervor in this country through the simple statistic of motion picture revenues. Out of the top ten grossing films, four are alien flicks, not including the recent continual successes of Men in Black and Contact. And movie sales are indeed an affirmation of mass beliefs in a country where motion picture sales rank higher in industry gross then coal mining and metal mining combined.

Furthermore, fervent religious groups like The Christian Coalition and the Southern Baptists have recently been ranting about rampant immorality in our society, where immorality is defined as anything that violates these groups' religious beliefs. For instance, the Southern Baptists say they are going to boycott the Disney Corporation on the basis of their consistent promotion of immorality. Apparently, according to Reverend Tom Elliff (one of the leaders of the Baptist conference that discussed this boycott), Disney has been marketing products on an "anti-family trend." This trend includes (among other things) the skimpily clad clothes of the Little Mermaid and Pocahontas, the films produced by the Disney owned subsidiary, Miramax, and also Disney owned ABC's "Ellen," who herself is openly homosexual. On the latter, Elliff says that "homosexuality is a perverted twisting of God's plan." And where do aliens fit into God's plan? What about the "immorality" inherent in alien flicks? After all, the members of these groups are spending countless millions on the alien industry, the basis of which completely contradicts their world view.

Both recent alien films, Men in Black and Contact, propose how our society would react to knowledge of alien life, and Contact even details this reaction through a religious viewpoint. Contact shows (amid other things): religious fanatics protesting scientists, screaming Armageddon; representatives of the Christian Coalition questioning the morals of the aliens at a special meeting with the president; and a leading spiritualist and his reaction to alien life. This spiritualist, played by Matthew McConaughey, represents the battle of religion and science. He repeatedly attacks the intentions of scientific disciplines, spouting off about how piety should be the basis of modern life, and how alien life and the science that accompanies it is both unnecessary and hindering to a strictly religious viewpoint. In a climactic scene, the leading scientist, played by Jodie Foster, is being drilled by an international board, when McConaughey asks Foster whether she believes in god. Foster probes in return about the relevancy of the question which she believes has none, but in reality, her answer, which reveals her atheism, ruins her chances to make "contact" for the time being. Moreover, in Men and Black, Tommy Lee Jones tells Will Smith why their agency must remain secret—because the American public simply couldn't handle the reality that they are not the only intelligent beings in existence. That humans might not be the smartest and the best and the specialist.

These viewpoints presented by these movies quite conflict with the modern religious viewpoint of an omniscient supreme being who created life on one planet and who is monitoring our every move, deciding if we will attain salvation or damnation. Again, the validity of this religious viewpoint is not question. With the recent religious fervor concerned with cleaning up the filth in our society, why have these films been overlooked? That is my question.

These religious oriented organizations back laws like the Communications Decency Act and then they turn around and buy Roswell alien paraphernalia. Tom Elliff says that Southern Baptists support freedom of speech "with the requirement that it....promote the good of society, lifting the level of moral consciousness," where moral consciousness is synonymous with religious belief. Not very free. And these are the same people who have an obsession with aliens—real bonafide outer-space aliens, whose mere existence contradicts these religious beliefs.

Religious contradictions are of course understandable in a country where hate groups like the Ku Klux Klan claim strict allegiance to a "love thy neighbor" religion. But usually these contradictions are at least exposed somewhat through satire comedy sketch shows or through society poking television like The Daily Show and Late Night with Conan O'Brien. Yet the conflict between aliens and religion lies unexposed to the general public even after its immense representation in Contact. Go figure.

Literature Analysis

Is Hamlet Mad?

by Dax

"I will be brief. Your noble son is mad," states Polonius (II, ii, 91). Ophelia exclaims, "O what a noble mind is here o'erthrown!" (III, i, 153). "Alas, he's mad," concludes Gertrude (III, iv, 106). Claudius even instructs Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to escort Hamlet to England because "it [is not] safe with us/To let his madness range" (III, iii, 1-2). Essentially, each supporting character questions Hamlet's sanity, and most conclude he is indeed mad.

General consensus can justify almost all actions in most societies. As for sanity, if authorities believe you are insane then you "are" insane; your personal commentary is often not heeded and is dismissed. Hamlet's environment proves no different. The possibility that Hamlet feigns madness for purpose never enters most characters' minds, and to Claudius (the King and figurehead against Hamlet), purpose is irrelevant. Hamlet poses a viable threat to Claudius' throne whether sane or insane, and Hamlet's supposed insanity provides justification for detrimental action. As long as evidence supports Hamlet's psychosis then Claudius can rid himself of Hamlet and rule Denmark as he pleases. Hamlet's actions and speech on numerous occasions can surely support pleas of his insanity.

Although Marcellus, Bernardo, and Horatio all witness King Hamlet's ghost, only Hamlet hears it speak. After this speech, Hamlet enrages, yelling vehement epithets about Claudius and Gertrude, pledging to avenge his father. However, later in the play Hamlet questions the validity of the apparition after assuming its sincerity initially. In the scene following the ghost's entrance, Hamlet's speech towards Horatio and guards is evasive as his mood swings erratically. Hamlet insists the guards swear upon his sword that they will not tell what they have seen, and as they perform this act, Hamlet claims to hear the ghost request the swearing from a supernatural state. [The only other character who has a line surrounding Hamlet's claim is Horatio, who comments "O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!"] (I, v, 164). Is Horatio questioning Hamlet's "strange" behavior? Furthermore, the ghost appears once more in the play, during the scene between Gertrude and Hamlet. In this episode only Hamlet sees or hears the Ghost; Gertrude sees no such apparition. She insists, "all that is I see" (III, iv,132).

Beholding supernatural beings that no one else sees or hears usually is a strong case for insanity, but Hamlet provides much more material. Hamlet consistently responds to direct questions with indirect and seemingly irrelevant answers. He also has trouble on numerous occasions following simple logic presented by obviously intellectually inferior characters, notably Polonius. The following conversation illustrates both mannerisms:

Polonius: My lord, I have news to tell you
Hamlet: My lord, I have news to tell you. When/Roscius was an actor in Rome
Polonius: The actors are come hither, my lord.
Hamlet: Buzz, buzz.
Polonius: Upon my honor—
Hamlet: Then came each actor on his ass— (II, ii, 398-404)

In one instance, Hamlet does not even recognize Polonius and suggests instead that he is a "fishmonger."

Hamlet's illogical speech persists in conversations with other characters as well. Additionally, Hamlet often changes moods unmethodically, reflected in histrionic outbursts of accusatory speech. Such occurrences transpire on independent occasions in scenes with Ophelia, Gertrude, and with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. In the scene between Hamlet and Ophelia, Hamlet contradicts himself and morphs from cordial demeanor into fiendish behavior. In contiguous lines Hamlet declares "I did love [thee] once," then exclaims "I loved you not," and finally instructs Ophelia to "get thee to a nunnery" (III, I, 115-121). In Act III, scene ii, Hamlet and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern exchange simple questions and answers with calm temperaments, but suddenly Hamlet transforms into a state of wild distemper: "how unworthy a thing/you make of me!" (372). Furthermore, later in a scene with Gertrude, Hamlet switches back and forth in a manic-depressive fashion between providing Gertrude with compassionate advice and providing fiery scourges of Gertrude's character. This verbal inconsistency seems the resultant of raging insanity.

Hamlet's actions also indicate derangement. Hamlet's clothes after the first scene are unkempt, and he appears disheveled. According to Ophelia, Hamlet's shirt is open, "his stockings [are] fouled," and he has "a look so piteous in purport,/As if he had been loosed out of hell/To speak of horrors" (II, I, 79-83). Hamlet's apparel is as unexplainable as the actions he performs in them. Hamlet wrestles with Laertes in Ophelia's open grave, a completely inappropriate and possibly condescending act. Hamlet also jumps onto a pirate ship alone, without anyone to back him up, without any assurance of survival. Moreover, Hamlet orchestrates the death of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, his dear friends who are not part of his avenging plan. Finally, Hamlet stabs blindly through a curtain, killing Polonius. Then, Hamlet will not reveal where he hides Polonius' body.

Each bizarre act can be interpreted as madness. When coupled with Hamlet's erratic speech patterns and mood swings, Hamlet seems psychotic. However, Hamlet is not really insane. Instead, he feigns madness at various instances throughout the tragedy in an effort to buy time, gain clemency, and manipulate characters. Furthermore, each illustration of Hamlet's supposed madness has a flaw, a counterexample, hidden inference or discernible purpose that ultimately indicates Hamlet's sanity.

Let us first resolve Hamlet's actions, which present the greatest anomaly. Hamlet does jump on the pirate ship alone, though after discovering (by examining the documents carried by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) that he is on his way to England to perish. Therefore, jumping on the ship is rational because Hamlet has nothing to lose. Additionally, Hamlet has a plan: he uses his princely title to save his life while appearing heroic and still mad to the crew of his ship. The documents which Rosencrantz and Guildenstern carry also provide justification for Hamlet's orchestration of their deaths. After repeated attempts to rid his friends of his avenging struggle, they continue to mettle and stab Hamlet in the back. Hamlet finds these heinous acts insulting and reprehensible; thus, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern must be punished, and they are indeed. Moreover, Hamlet wrestles with Laertes in Ophelia's grave only after Laertes' initiation. Hamlet comes forth in sorrow while Laertes, playing his avenging role, grapples with Hamlet who has no choice to defend himself. Hamlet even requests to stop: "I prithee take thy fingers from my throat" (V, i, 262). Finally, Hamlet kills Polonius in belief that he is Claudius. Afterward, Hamlet quickly realizes his mistake and responds rationally, "Thou wretched, rash, intruding fool, farewell!/I took thee for thy better" (III, iv, 82-83). Hamlet then hides the body and refuses to tell where it is located to buy time, offend the king, and discern the true nature of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. At length, each action that implicated Hamlet as psychotic, actually has purpose. Hamlet's speech and apparent mood swings are laced with logic as well.

As Hamlet's scene with Ophelia transpires, Hamlet tries to discern whether Ophelia is trustworthy or is she is influenced by the authoritative figures of Claudius, Polonius, and Gertrude. Thus, Hamlet's seemingly incongruous speech is an attempt to determine dependability. Hamlet analyzes her answers as he speaks and questions in a step wise fashion culminating in: "Where's your father?" (III, i, 131). If Ophelia answers anything other then "spying", then she is dishonest, which she is. This proof of unreliability explains Hamlet's mood elevation to great distemper. Hamlet's next scene with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern proceeds in the same fashion with the same explanations. Hamlet manipulates language, penetrating his companies facade of friendship. When he discovers the friendship is indeed fraudulent, Hamlet sensibly becomes infuriated. Hamlet's intermediary scene with Gertrude, though, proves tough to resolve.

Hamlet already knows, or believes he knows, of Gertrude's uncontrollable sensual behavior. Therefore, he does not need to determine Gertrude's trustworthiness since he already concluded that she needs his assistance to escape the lusting grasp of Claudius. Hamlet's frenzy in the scene with Gertrude then is difficult to explain, especially the element of the supernatural. Before the ghost appears, Hamlet becomes angered because he is not getting through to Gertrude, and when he finally does, she understands the concepts but still does not seem to reform herself. As for the ghost, perhaps the apparition itself choose for only Hamlet to see its figure, which would not be unimaginable in the era when the play was composed. Perhaps Hamlet is mad for the fleeting moments while he "sees" the apparition. After all, Hamlet's love has betrayed him, he has murdered the wrong man, his sinful mother is not listening, and he is being sent to his death—an incredible amount of pressure and possibilities for madness. Whether Hamlet is sane throughout the scene or is temporarily insane, after the supposed apparition leaves, Hamlet has fully recovered, is fully sane and composes rational thoughts.

Madness interpreted from Hamlet's other lines in the play are easy to render rational thought. Most of Hamlet's speech which seems absurd is really leveled pun or feigned madness. The first is the most prevalent. In the mentioned scene between Polonius and Hamlet in Act II, scene ii, Hamlet first mocks Polonius, and then makes reference to hinted sanity from the previous conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. The lines seem mad to Polonius who cannot reference them, cannot figure out Hamlet is mocking him, and cannot understand Hamlet's complex puns. Polonius misunderstands Hamlet in many scenes, including the scene which he thinks he corroborates Hamlet's madness in the beginning of Act II, scene ii. Hamlet seemingly mistakes Polonius for a fishmonger, insulting him, but Polonius rights it off as insanity. Then Hamlet begins a long insult as he pretends to relate what he is reading, but Polonius still does not understand. Plus, even through Polonius' misinterpretation, Polonius himself still notes that Hamlet's comments seem reasonably logical: "Though this be madness, yet there/is method in't" (II, ii, 207-8). Additionally, when Hamlet seems to be insane through irrelevant speech, he reaffirms his sound mind with obvious rational thinking. For instance, after the scrutinized scene with Polonius and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Hamlet recites an entire passage from a play he heard some time ago, a sure sign of sanity. Moreover, Hamlet interjects lines throughout the play hinting at his feigned madness: "I am but mad north-northwest," and "I must be idle" (II, ii, 387;III, ii, 92)

A final corroboration of Hamlet's sanity is evident in the analysis of the truly insane. After her father's death and Hamlet's denouncement, Ophelia becomes deranged. She answers questions with immaterial facts and impertinent song, and cannot keep attention or direction. Ophelia is not mentally sound at this point in the play, a condition ultimately manifest in her death. Hamlet's actions and language, though, in no way compare to Ophelia's. Hamlet maintains rational progression where Ophelia has none; Hamlet is sane.

Shakespeare's purpose for the feigned madness of Hamlet is difficult to assess. The acting shows the gullibility of the other characters and elucidates the superiority and intelligence of Hamlet. Surfacely, Hamlet's supposed insanity paves the way for the plot of the tragedy. The madness also proves as a medium for comparison for other events, themes, and images in the play such as Ophelia's insanity and Laertes' real avenger role. Introspectively, Hamlet's supposed derangement allows him to question himself and supplies us with a more rounded picture of Hamlet's true character. In essence, only Shakespeare's ingenuity could weave so many psychotic acts and such elusive speech into a planned culmination.

Poetry

Tragic Heroes Mine

by Dan

"There is a man playing the violin,
and the strings are the nerves on his own arm"
-- James O'barr

to top

White Space Distortion

by Joseph

to top

Humor

50 Fun Things for Non-Christians to do in Church

1. Pull aside an unruly child in a preschool Sunday School class and say: "If you're bad in here, you'll go to Hell."
2. A week beforehand, find a member of ACT-UP. Tell him the scheduled sermon is entitled "Why God Sent AIDS to Punish Homosexuals".
3. Put stray dogs in coat closets.
4. Un-tune the piano.
5. Replace the pianist's sheet music with "Stairway to Heaven".
6. Going through all the hymnals, mark song 666.
7. Find an empty seat, and ask the person next to it: "Is this seat SAVED?"
8. Toss around a giant beach ball before service, like at Grateful Dead concerts.
9. Ten minutes before it starts, find a kid in the front rows, hand him a dollar, and tell him to ask the preacher: "Would you rather be stoned or crucified?"
10. Hide copies of Hustler inside the pulpit. Point them out.
11. Start a wave.
12. Do cool things with the lighting.
13. When attendance is taken, sign on fake names like "Hugh G. Rection" and "Oliver Klozoff".
14. Wear an ankh or a new-age crystal pendant.
15. When the choir sings, roll your eyes and grumble: "Oh, Christ! Are they gonna do another SONG?"
16. Make up your own words to the songs.
17. Twenty minutes into the service, look at your watch, stand up, and say: "Oh shit. This isn't the wedding!" Run out quickly.
18. Eat dry Cap'n Crunch through the entire service.
19. If there is a crying baby, go over and tell the mother: "IF YOU DON'T SHUT THAT GODDAMN THING UP SO HELP ME GOD I'LL KILL IT!!!"
20. Dress all in black, or in camo.
21. Pierce the body of a tiny animal with stainless-steel wire. Wear it in your ear as jewelry. If you are male, wear two. Change sets for the evening service.
22. If it is an Easter service, wear a pastel jacket, tie, and matching shorts. If you are male, wear a floral-print dress instead.
23. At a church dinner, scoop up a forkful of mashed potatoes. Announce that you can see an image of Jesus.
24. Place blocks of dry ice near the air ducts. Take off your shoes and socks.
25. Hide near the baptismal pool with a block of sodium. At the first mention of "fire and brimstone", throw it in.
26. Inflate balloons, then send them off.
27. Mark places in the Bible or hymnal with religious-themed Far Side cartoons.
28. Turn in the Bible to the Ten Commandments Exodus 20:3-17. Draw in asterisks and write exceptions at the bottom of the page.
29. Make the sun reflect off your watch into the preacher's face.
30. Make calls to 900 numbers on the phone in the kitchen.
31. During the service, play with plastic dinosaurs. If someone asks what you're doing, tell them: "These are dinosaurs. They ruled the earth over 65 million years ago."
32. Discreetly position a number of bottle rockets on the floor. Discreetly light them.
33. Snicker every time the preacher talks about someone being stoned, especially Stephen.
34. Dip communion wafers in communion wine. Eat it and exaggerate on how good it is.
35. When they pass around the collection plate, drop in a piece of paper with Pat Robertson's MasterCard number.
36. Turn to your neighbor, whisper: "This do in remembrance of me," and lick them.
37. Fart, and have a friend shout: "Hark! An angel has spoken!"
38. Blow bubbles.
39. Fake a possession.
40. Distribute condoms.
41. Speak in tongues.
42. Ask where the nearest ashtray is.
43. Drool in the collection plate.
44. Ask someone what they think about the Book of Peleponnesians. After they tell you, inform them that there is no Book of Peleponnesians.
45. After a Catholic service, stand outside and tell Polish jokes. When someone points out that Pope John Paul II came from Poland, act embarrassed.
46. Show unusual interest in any reference to the word "Ministry".
47. At a church supper, bring a casserole with a ring or piece of a wristwatch embedded inside.
48. Overnight, have the stained-glass windows replaced with new ones depicting comical, erotic, or death-related imagery. Send the bill to the pastor.
49. Write on the bathroom wall: "The eyes of the LORD are upon you!!!"
50. Spread the word that there'll be a rave party at the address of the church next Saturday at midnight.

Review

The Crucible

by Joseph

The Crucible, the long-awaited cinema version of Arthur Miller's probing stage drama, shamelessly purports itself as a heavyweight. Sexy trailers, more glib than guts, appealed to viewers on the more erudite-than-thou basis-that is to say, the latest in a series of movies based on literature previously reserved for the intellectual elite. Authors like Jane Austen, Michael Ondaatje, and even Shakespeare have "swelled the rout," to quote Housman, of box-office blockbusters more often associated with "blank" than "verse." The Crucible plays to the hilt this strange new tide in American taste. Having amassed a hefty load of first-tier actors and boasting a screenplay written by Miller himself, its makers have aimed for the fleeting classification of "beyond reproach." In other words, a film so impressive none would dare decry it as anything less than a great movie.

It is not a great movie. Certainly, it comes close, but it never truly hits its stride, never punches with the force with which it is clearly obvious that it could. It suffers somewhat from dramatic techniques better adapted to the theater; it seems as though half of the cut-scenes depict the Salem masses madly flocking from one end of the town to the other, and back again. The first half hour is muddled in every sense of the word; not only does the perpetually dim fogginess grate on one's nerves, but the dialogue is discordant and the cinematography confusing. One can, with effort, discern that the plot revolves around a group of young girls, headed by Abigail (Winona Ryder). When they are caught dancing harmlessly in the woods, the town preacher (Abigail's father) is forced to suspect witchcraft as several of the girls fall into a trance-like coma. When pressed for their confession, the girls begin pointing fingers as to who made them do it. In the film's strongest sequence, written on a higher level as an urgent, resolutely accurate commentary on the McCarthy hearings of the early 1950's, events are blown critically out of proportion. Judges and investigators arrive from across the countryside; trials commence without salient evidence from either side-none suspect the young women of such fallacy, but neither do they expect a person to confess to the crime of devil-worship. Goaded on by their success, the girls continue accusing, implicating a good deal of the townspeople in the process. Complicating matters, however, is John Proctor (Daniel Day-Lewis), a pillar of society who single-handedly built the very church in which the trials are held. As he once had a brief affair with Abigail, he is well apprised of her treachery. Even so, he realizes much of what she does comes from angst generated by his ultimate rejection of her advances. Predictably, he is torn by his desire to expose the truth, seeing as he would likely expose his lechery in the act.

Whatever steam the actors picks up during this acceleratory phase melts back into the air. The politics in the movie (the judges' inner motives, the preacher's fear of controversy) are neither fully explicated nor fully resolved. Admittedly the acting is excellent; Day-Lewis's performance is good, and though the film does not boast several household names the cast is incredibly solid. The one notable exception is Ryder, who is obviously out of her league. She fails completely to portray the deep-seated ambivalence her character loses sleep over.

All parts taken together, The Crucible is an unsatisfying fable. Some of this is due to the restrictions Miller imposed on himself, having chosen to write within the bounds of historical record. But most is due to something less tangible. The over-wrought, self-important direction lends far too many highly dramatic moments to the movie, crippling its tempo. Slightly careless editing (particularly involving the dental health of a long-detained Proctor) doesn't help. And in the end, The Crucible tells half a story. We see the martyrs and hear the preaching, but the promised triumph of goodness is nowhere to be found in the disappointing three lines of text following the conclusion of the film.

It is definitely worth six bucks and two hours. But it doesn't follow through with its gilded promises, like morning mist on the Massachusetts marshes. It is not epic in scope; it is narrow. It is not about Day-Lewis's intense, explosive love affair with a beautiful young Hollywood starlet (as the aforementioned trailers would have audiences believe); it is a reflection on the values of truth and self in an accusatory, godless society. Such deceit from the producers seems more than a little hypocritical in light of the subject matter which they tackle. Thus, if truly we expect the winter to make amends, they may find themselves left out in the cold.

Lyrics

Girls

by The Beastie Boys

to top

Men in Black

by Will Smith

to top

In Addition

The Lorax

by Dr. Seuss

to top

Ranting

The United States Postal Service

by DAX

Network television commercial time during prime time is immensely expensive. And it should be: network television during prime time captivates millions of individuals who bask in consumerism. These commercial slots are marketing managers' dreams-come-true while most of us could care less or are standoffishly annoyed by them. We usually switch channels or get off our lazy bums and miss the four minute commercial-slots anyways.

But lately I have been witness to commercials that you personally have been paying for. And no one in their right mind is apathetic about paying for stuff they don't want, let alone are annoyed by. And what organization backs these commercials I so scorchingly speak about? No one other than the duplicitous United States Postal Service.

Yes, the USPS is running commercials cast during coveted prime time TV that you are paying for. One of their recent commercials depicts the glamour of stamp pictures, which is an astounding feat because personally I didn't know this glamour existed. And of course these commercials are well filmed and directed, hinting at exorbitant costs, which again the American public pays is paying for.

And how do we pay for it? If you didn't know, our friends at the United States Postal Service are raising stamp prices yet again to soon 35 cents for a normal letter stamp. This raise pays for these commercials and the stupid pictures on the stamps and the post office stores. And who needs the pictures or the stores or commercials to tell you that the post office exists? No one. I am positive that everyone knows what their law-required mail box is for, as I am sure every citizen would rather have 25 cent stamps without pictures and without commercials for them.

The point is, the United States Postal Service is being threatened by e-mail and online banking and private companies, just like they were threatened years ago by Mailbox Etc. (which is precisely the reasoning behind those Government Postal Stores). The catch is that we are paying for the competition between the private and the public sector. We are paying for The United States Postal Service commercials and their stores and their pictures, which is absurd.

UPS

by DAX

Big Strike, Big News. So big, in fact, that many citizens in the United States advocate their President to exercise the vague Taft-Hartly Act and step in and stop the strike. Do you see the problem here? Anyone who is remotely observant knows this country is not as free as it is made up to be, but this is ridiculous. It would be one thing if government workers were on strike, workers that the American public hires and pays for. But UPS is a privately owned business. So where does our President get the power to interfere with our supposedly "free" open market economy. It doesn't. There is no breach of National Security here. UPS is not shipping needed weapons to the front line of a war we are currently involved in. And even if it were, UPS is not the only package carrier. Although if they were, the government could break them up under anti-trust laws, which is an entirely different breach of open market freedom.

What all this boils down to is that the United States doesn't have a true Capitalist economy or anywhere near an open market system. And this is not new news, or secret; it is one of the realities of our country in this century. Our market system is like an every-man-for-himself battle with millions of men and thousands government referees. And this is understandable. The President and all government officials in general must try to maintain a good economy or they will simply not be reelected. Yes, this is understandable; just not free.

According to Capitalist theory, every private industry will eventually become monopolized, thus destroying competition. Of course, a country-wide referendum would definitively show that most people do not wish this to happen. And that is where anti-trust laws come in. But the strike with UPS isn't destroying competition; it is encouraging it. So under what right does President Clinton have to step in and shut the strike down. None. After all, what will actually become of a long strike. Our economy may drop a tad from lack of moving material objects around. Other carriers will expand and gain market share, drop packaging prices, and eventually cancel out the economy drop and probably booster the economy through competition providing better services at lower prices. After all, isn't that what Capitalist theory is all about. In the meantime all of the people in this country whose sole activity in life is consuming and making products for consumption (mostly everybody) will just have to shack up for a while.

Yes, many small business are being screwed because they depend on UPS and of course they did not foresee this strike, but it is also true that these businesses do depend on UPS. They depend on another company to do business. That is their problem. If I depend on pens to write, and BIC makes most pens, and BIC workers go on strike, I just can't call the president in and tell him to send the workers back work. These workers have been screwed for years and this is their chance to receive the benefits they want. Yes, the Teamsters are also involved, but that is not what this article is about.

The fact is that our President can not just curb industry when it goes awry; that is socialism. We must try to maintain the free society envisioned by the Founding Fathers. If our lives are stake, it is the President's job to rectify that difficulty, but if we can't send packages through UPS, that is not the President's problem. That difficulty is not in the President's job description. Strikes are one of the setbacks in a free open market economy. Deal with it. The benefits outweigh the setbacks, trust me.

IQ

by DAX

Recently some statisticians (not scientists) plotted data from over two hundred previous studies exploring the old nature vs. nurture IQ dispute: whether genetics or environment or a combination of both determines an individual's IQ. What they concluded (just by fitting data) is that IQ is determined by both environment and genetics, the latter accounting for thirty-four to forty-eight percent of a given individual's IQ. Initially I question the validity of this conclusion through skepticism stemming from the variance in the two hundred some odd previous studies, such as the many ways to measure IQ. Despite this skepticism, let us say that these statisticians are right. Even so, their second conclusion is entirely absurd.

The statisticians decided somehow that their concluded thirty-four to forty-eight percent genetic transfer to IQ somehow rules out the theories presented in The Bell Curve, a 1994 book by two Harvard professors. The basic premise of The Bell Curve is that the continued intermarriage of highly intelligent, well-educated people will eventually lead to a two-tiered American society—one rich and smart, the other poor and dumb. The statisticians declared that their calculated thirty-four to forty-eight percent genetic transfer is far two little for The Bell Curve theory to be accurate, because too much of IQ then depends on environment. But this percent is arbitrary, and this is the point I am trying to make. The thirty-four to forty-eight percent could be fifteen percent and The Bell Curve would still be accurate. The Bell Curve isn't about genetics. Smart people will, on the average, be smart parents, and dumb people will, on the average, be dumb parents. So, even if environment comprises most of IQ, an environment created by well-educated intelligent parents is more conducive to raising intelligence than an environment created by poorly-educated dumb parents. And the newly calculated thirty-four to forty-eight percent of IQ transferred by genetics, just speeds up The Bell Curve theory: kids of intelligent parents have a head start right from their birth.

These are simple conclusions. What amazes me is that only one out of about ten news stories that I read on this issue even suggested that The Bell Curve may not be undercut by these new doubtfully genuine findings. And even in that article, the writer did not mention this point; it was in a quote from Charles Murray, the political scientist who co-authored The Bell Curve. Murray says "the big misconception about The Bell Curve is that it's about genes. It's not. It's about the role of IQ in shaping social outcomes."

Fiction

Superhero

by Jim

Orlando stepped slowly. He was despondent. His whole disposition burned with intensity, but his compounded rage imposed on his mind a heartful melancholy. He was both terrified and apathetic. He feared for the apparent condition man was approaching, but he could not care for what could not care. How could individuals proposing to have reason and a propensity for empathy and compassion commit such acts of stupidity, cruelty, and uselessness?

He struggled with events of the day and the past as he walked to the pond. The trail led through a sparse distribution of elm trees, like sages, beckoning and enticing the observer to reap the knowledge of its curling, ever-extending branches. Orlando desired to displace his disgust for humanity with his love, or lust, for the continuity and balance of nature. As his feet crunched along the broken branches and fallen leaves, images flashed over and over in his head. In his solitude, Orlando wanted to make sense of the happenings. In meditation, he wanted to ease his suffering and bring about a renewed volition to endure the continuous follies.

As he reached the pond, something usual affected him in an unusual way. He saw a frog, a solitary frog. The frog was forest green with warts, resting on a single lily pad. Orlando moved from his troubling thoughts to examine. He stepped close to the edge of the pond and lied on his stomach. The dark eyes of the frog peered into Orlando's. The frog did not grow timid with Orlando's presence. The frog seemed to be piqued by his somber expression, and the frog's movements seemed to show an interest in Orlando. Orlando saw a mysterious intelligence. Orlando began to speak.

"I envy you. Others may envy the life of an animal because of the romantic idea, the innocence, the primal sentiment, the mind uncorrupted by the avarice and insanity of man. I know man cannot corrupt my mind. I envy you because you live a life alone. You do not have to watch your own species destroy themselves and others for no reason. Worst of all, man uses words, a gift with a potential for unimaginable good, to reduce himself and others to the base, vain, superficial, depressed state they many are in. Those who do refuse to adjust their views to the vapid ranting and pointless babble find themselves in pain. With an innate and intense understanding of others, they suffer for the misemployment of man's reason."

"I endure fools"

"I watch as others consume their lives with fashion and appearance. I hear 'Oh my God, do you see what that dork is wearing? You didn't notice. I always pay attention to the clothes people wear." The inane irritates me. Others base a person's worth on their looks. I suffer as a fool comments on a recovering anorexic 'Have you seen how big the girl's ass has become?' I attack him for his obvious misunderstanding and lack of compassion. He defends himself. He says 'It's her fault. She can control her weight. She can run or exercise." I force myself to laugh at his comments and treat much of life as an absurdity or an observation of human nature. But I struggle. I convince myself that the way others gaze blindly at the terrors of ignorance and selfishness is something which should not cause me so much pain."

"I watch the blatant misunderstandings and buildings of stereotypes. I watch people get judged as groups and not as individuals. I watch insecurities, fears, and ignorance create conflicts and breaches between people. I watch people obsess over proper manners. I watch people fear free expression. I watch people giggle and blush, while discussing the taboo subject, sex, and then as the discomfort dies down, make a guess on the number who have had sex. They have it themselves, believing sex to be rebellious, against authority. They depend on sex for their transient pleasure, feeding on it for its temporary high. They ignore fulfilling relationships, increased understanding, and real contentment. I watch people miss the possible society hidden under the swamp of human desires. I watch and I look for a way."

"I had a dream last night, I think. It was one of those dreams, which seem so real; your whole body is shaken. The vision still seems to me as an experience in the past. I remember the smallest details and the intense sensations. I cannot perceive whether it was an unconscious or conscious experience. I have not given up the possibility that the dream was not a dream at all."

"The dream even began as a real experience. I woke up in the night to a hideous wail of agony. I quickly rose out of bed and moved to the window. The streetlights created intermittent patterns of white amidst the black. Three stories, along the pavement, under the rush of light, I saw a tumult of jerking shadows. When my eyes adjusted to the contrast, I understood the persistent guttural howling. I boiled in anger as I witnessed the horrid beating of a single man. As I heard the torrent of racial slurs, I burned with a rising fury. I felt the growing conflagration. It passed through my heart, leaving a painful thumping like explosions. I could feel the flames enrage my arms. The strangest sense occurred as the anger moved through my legs, and the fire enveloped it. But instead of pain, I felt strength beyond human. I glanced down to notice legs of fire and to see myself rising above the floor."

"I could not fear. My purpose was simple and eminent. I would stop the torment of the defenseless. Under controlled propulsion, I went through the window and to the thrashing. The thrashers could see the flames, which were once my legs. Most ran. With bats, a few swung in vain. I felt the blows as punches of infants. With an unparalleled sense of power, I grabbed the bats and cracked them in twain. Now defenseless, they fled. I carried the injured to the hospital and placed him into the hands of shocked, but understanding eyes."

"The fire was not quenched. I guess it was the feeling of a hero, a noble knight. I searched for another chance at bravery and heroics. Soaring above the streets and in between the buildings, I felt invigorated, enlivened, and an intense feeling of worth. The sense of power and influence increased my desire to make another rescue."

"Fortunately. . .No. . .Unfortunately, I heard another scream. In this scream, I felt revulsion, disgust, and horror. The flames flared. I flew to the shrieks, and as I rushed closer, I comprehended the shrieks as passionate pleas. Through the window, I saw, in horror and wrath, a man forcing his will upon a woman. I crashed through the glass, grasped the shirt of the villain, and threw his worthless body through the wall. He was helpless against my onslaught."

"I was an influence. I saw the possibilities of my new powers. A world without the pain and suffering once felt. I imagined travelling from area to area. My position unknown to criminals. Soon, those who committed acts of cruelty would fear my unpredictable rage. As crime would diminish, a new sense of safety, security, and hope would develop. The problems arising from selfishness and ignorance would be vanquished."

"I remember coming back to my bed and making the vast plans of the future as I drifted to sleep."

The visions of the day's irritations flashed in his mind again. He felt the burning anger. The fury progressed through his body. The hopes he had dismissed as childish fantasy rekindled. He spotted a rock about 5 feet in height. As the burning intensified, Orlando climbed up the rock. He stood atop the rock, feeling the burning pass through his legs. With surge of emotion, he jumped.

He landed with a thud on the not-so-soft grass.

He sighed. But he decided to walk, instead.