Issue 15 We own you America feb,21,2013

Here is a fun one :)

Debt Bonds

            We all know it’s bad to try and pay off debt with more debt.  This is the unfortunate plight of the United States with the national debt at 15 trillion and growing.  So I asked my self, is there a way to replace our foreign debt to countries like China, our bank debt to banks like AIG and the debt we owe to Social Security with something more manageable.  Then it hit me, savings bonds that are used to pay off all other debt and make the Federal government owe only the American people.

            Savings bonds, for those who don’t know, are loans to the Federal government with a controlled interest rate.  This means they can only gain a certain amount of interest beyond their original value.  A stark contrast to the near perpetual interest we owe to countries like China.  So I am calling for the creation of savings bonds that are used exclusively to pay off all our foreign debt, then the debt we owe to banks and other financial institutions and finally the money the government owes to itself.  I dub them debt bonds.

            The debt bonds will only be accessible to American citizens so as to prevent future foreign and other forms of national debt.  Essentially it replaces all debt with debt that is owed exclusively to the American people and is more manageable due to interest rates being capped once the bond reaches a certain value over the original loan.  To prevent the Federal government from owing too much money to any individual citizen and thus gaining too much influence in America’s politics people will only be able to take out a certain number of debt bonds per year.  On top of that the maximum value of each bond will be limited to $100.  This takes care of millionaires and the like who can take out hundreds of bonds at a time and makes the peoples influence on America’s debt more equitable.  Overall, debt bonds makes the United States owe the American people and no one else.

            To speed up the process of replacing our current U.S. debt to the likes of China or AIG, a sinking fund can be created.  A sinking fund is used to pay off the debt exclusively and has a source of funds from the general revenue of the U.S.  In this case, that revenue can come from a certain percentage of what the Federal government gets from our taxes or revenue from such things as the post office.  The debt bonds supplement the fund to speed up paying off foreign debt.  Portions of the debt will actually be paid off and the rest replaced by debt owed to American citizens resulting in a more fiscally sound and possibly easier to pay off national debt. 

            I am sure we can agree that we hate the idea of owing China money.  We hate the idea of owing banks like AIG, who also got bailout money at the start of the financial crises back in 2008-2009.  No one wants more money being borrowed from Social Security or Medicare anymore.  Most of all, however, we hate the idea of our national debt causing the Federal government, our government, to have divided loyalties to its creditors and us, the American people.  So let us make the national debt the citizens’ debt, and have the Federal government’s loyalty return to us and us alone.

Issue 14 sonic screw drivers!? feb,20,2013

I know it's a day late (busy yesterday), but the wait is over. :)

Sonic Screw Drivers!?

Did you know that within the last decade that science and technology have been going through a rapid evolution? Well, it has, and one of the cool things to come out of this revolution is the ability to manipulate sound. I first heard of the technology on the military channel (no surprise there right), and they had created a device that can shoot a beam of sound at an opponent to debilitate them. By debilitate, I mean force a relaxation of the targets muscles and the people collapse while all their voluntary and involuntary muscles are affected. It was so effective that they shut down the project. The weapon did not kill, it stunned, but the people who were hit by the beam literally peed and pooped in their pants. Thus, it was felt the weapon was too inhumane.

While yes the military could have done further research, and the L.A. police department was interested, they shifted gears to make a new non-lethal sound wave weapon to defend U.S. ships in foreign waters. It is called a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD). Its development came out of the U.S.S. Cole incident where the Navy crewmen had only machine guns to stop other vessels from coming to close. They did not fire on the small boat approaching out of fear of creating an international incident. As a result, the small boat (which was a terrorist bomb) exploded causing the death of 17 of our soldiers. So LRAD was created which acts as a bull horn to say "stay away" was created. However, it is much more than a bull horn. The device can send messages in other languages, and even transmit certain sounds in the traditional hearing range all the way to a debilitating level to the ears. It only affects those in the beam, so if you are standing next to the device, you hear nothing. Police departments, cruise liners and other companies are now using it for riot control and self defense.

Deviating from the military, sound wave technology is impacting the field of medicine. Another recent development is a device capable of using sound to heat liquids, stir liquids together, act as a centrifuge to separate particles in the liquid, and potentially both cool liquids and break down particles further within a liquid. The device uses different frequencies of sound and adjusts how sound hits the target liquid to perform this feet of engineering. An amazing technology to be sure, as with this machine you don't have to waste precious time transferring the sample from one machine to the other.

Sound technology is only going to become more ubiquitous. It can be used to loosen tight nuts and bolts on a work sight, weld metals and plastics by heating them up, cut materials or even cancel out other noises with noise cancelling devices which use sound to destroy other sounds. Heck, we have sonic fences to keep out dogs and cats in and other pests out. A technology even in "Star Wars" may come about where sound is used to separate pathogens (bacteria, poisons, unwelcome chemicals and viruses) from the blood stream. Even tumors are not out of the realm of possibility of being blasted away by sound. The idea was to use sound on the body at different frequencies to remove and destroy what is harmful to the body and now that technology may become fully realized. The applications are endless as sound can be used to aid in physical therapy, traditional messages (a sonic message sounds nice), sonic showers to avoid using water (star trek anyone) or just a basic relaxation aid. Sound it now a tool that we can use, and potentially abuse to our benefit.

 



Issue 13 More Power to the President feb,18,2013

Is this too anti-libertarian for a libertarian...hmmm....lol.  Enjoy ;)

More Power to the President:

The Line Item and Line Reduction Veto

            Many people have heard of the Line Item Veto.  It’s the type of veto that President Clinton used to strike provisions from Federal spending bills before signing them into law.  The Congress had the opportunity to overturn these veto provision by vetoed provision with the traditional 2/3 override as prescribed by the Constitution.  However, it was deemed by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional for the Constitution stipulates that the President can only veto an entire law, not individual provisions.  I think it is time though to add the Line Item Veto to the Constitution.

            The Line Item Veto I want only applies to government spending.  If say Congress wants to buy a missile, but the military says they don’t need it, then President can use the Line Item Veto to cut it from the spending bill while leaving everything else intact.  It will only apply to budget items, the things government spends our tax dollars on and nothing else.

            To get this addition you will need a Constitutional Amendment which outlines exactly how it is to be used.  It would allow the President to veto the money going to specific programs, projects, agencies or even entire Federal Departments which would result in there termination.  However, Congress must be allowed to overturn those veto's with a 2/3’s majority on a one to one basis.  For example the President veto’s a missile project and a new Federal Agency, Congress would have to overturn these two veto's individually.  Why individually you ask?  By having Congress vote on each one individually it prevents the usual give and take politics that politicians use to get their pet projects passed.  So if both veto's were together the people who liked the individual pieces being vetoed would overturn the veto.  But separately these two groups would be a minority if they voted on each one individually and thus preventing the unnecessary law from passing.  It becomes insurance to make sure the majority of Congress believes it’s worth the expense.

            The other veto I call for is the Line Reduction Veto.  It works very similarly to the Line Item Veto, but rather than an outright veto of a particular spending provision it merely reduces the amount of money going to a particular project, program, agency or department.  The project, program, agency or department will still remain, but the money going to it is “reduced.”  The President will not have the power to reduce spending to one program only to increase another’s for this would make the President more subject to lobbying than he/she already is and it would hinder the checks and balances of the government.  It also needs a constitutional amendment and would compliment the Line Item Veto.

            With the Line Reduction Veto the President can only reduce the amount of money going to a federal expenditure and then like normal he would sign the bill into law.  Congress would have its 2/3’rd override and vote on each individual spending reduction if the reduction was deemed worthy enough to try and be overturned.  The override process is exactly the same as the Line Item Veto.  It works because say you can’t eliminate a program with the Line Item Veto, and then you can just reduce its money to minimize the damage to our society.  Or say the agency getting the money constantly has a surplus, but the agency in question keeps getting even more money, so the President can reduce the amount going to that agency. 

            We need these two options to the traditional veto.  For one it allows the president more flexibility to get rid of arbitrary federal spending by controlling it.  At the same time it forces integrity on the Congress through the veto override process by having them vote based on the merit of the spending itself.  Checks and balances are still maintained due to the 2/3’s override by Congress while the courts maintain there judicial review authority.

            There are a few objections to both these types of veto's.  One of the fears is that the President will horse trade with members of Congress, allowing certain programs and projects in while saying no to others, or in the case of the Line Reduction Veto, sabotaging others.  It could even allow the President to get political revenge on certain groups and politicians.  However, this truly does not concern me.  It does not concern me for much of the fluff the President will horse trade and terminate are pet projects used by politicians to continuously get elected as that money and projects go to benefit their campaign financiers.  Plus its not like this is not already done, it instead will become much more visible to the general public.  So it really comes down to my hope that superfluous spending will at least be reduced.  Therefore we must rely on the integrity of the President who we vote into office.

            It’s not like the President doesn’t have power over spending.  He can freeze spending, but that program will still be getting money that it has been allocated.  In other words the money will simply sit there.  But with the Line Item Veto and the Line Reduction Veto we give more flexibility to sure up Americas finances.  This flexibility is similar to the Presidents ability to pardon people of crimes.  There are little restrictions on the pardoning power to ensure flexibility to meet the needs of a negotiation, say pardoning a spy to get a peace deal.  In this case, it’s flexibility in spending and spending only.  Sure it will take a Constitutional Amendment, but the benefits of a more fiscally responsible government are immeasurable.     

 

I hope you enjoyed the article, tomorrow I switch from political reform to technology with "sonic Screwdrivers"....stay tuned :)

Issue 12 Taxes and Welfare: Siamese Twins feb,17,2013

Continuing with the alternate forms of taxation I give you the Nobel Prize winning Milton Freedman and his Negative Income Tax.

Taxes and Welfare: Siamese Twins

            While my idea of a deduction (from Issue number 6 Taxes and Welfare Make a baby, posted on Feb,11,2013) could work, its inspiration changes the entire income tax structure.  Rather than the usual tax code alterations, Milton Freedman brings the tax code and welfare together in his negative income tax.  It is a tax code that gives the poor money and keeps as much money as possible in the pockets of the tax payer. 

            Unlike my idea, the negative income tax does much more than rid us of most welfare, but all welfare in addition to Medicare, Social Security, unemployment and food stamps.  Sounds radical right?  Well not really, for Milton Freedman was not a Noble Prize winner for nothing.  Here’s how it works, compliments of Jeffrey A. Miron and his article “Rethinking Redistribution” in National Affairs number 6 winter 2011 edition.  The federal government would first set a guaranteed minimum of say $5,000 and a tax rate of say 10%.  Keep in mind for this idea to work everyone must be taxed at the same rate.  From this point the formula is simple: your earned income is multiplied by the tax rate (10%) and then you subtract the guaranteed minimum ($5,000).  If the gross liability (what you pay in taxes) were to go below the guaranteed minimum then you would receive a check in the mail from the federal government equal to the difference.  Ok, it’s slightly more complex for some people, so here are some examples using the $5,000 guaranteed minimum and the 10% tax rate.  If say you have no income what so ever, you will get a $5,000 check from the government.  Let’s try another example.  Say you’re making $100,000 which is then multiplied by the 10% tax rate.  You will owe $10,000 to the government in taxes, but you then minus the $5,000 guaranteed minimum which results in you paying only $5,000 to the government and you keep a total of $95,000.  That’s a nice chunk of change.  In this last example you make $10,000 that year and you now owe $1,000 dollars to the government.  You minus the $1,000 from the $5,000 guaranteed minimum and you are thus going to get a check for $4,000 dollars letting you keep a total of $13,000.  You not only keep the majority of your money, but you eliminate the need for all welfare in the United States.

            There is a problem however.  You probably noticed that if you get no income, you’re going to get the proverbial free lunch.  Freedman thought it would be best to let people spend the money how they will.  He felt that if they got that money they would be forced to be responsible with it for that’s all the money they would be going to get.  As a result, they would have an incentive to get out of poverty to acquire more money and therefore exit the poverty trap.  Unlike Mr. Friedman we are not that trusting.  So what is the solution to make the negative income tax work?  Simple, a voucher that limits what that money can be used for.  Lets limit the money to the essential such as, food, clothing (within a certain price range), and medical.  This could be too limiting though for you still have State and local taxes (lets hope they adjust there tax codes to) so this voucher could be used to pay for that.  We should also include the rent, mortgage payments (we don’t want people losing there homes), and the heating and electric bills (we want people to be warm in winter and cool in summer), so lets include all those as well.  When it’s all said and done, an impoverished person can only pay for the essentials and not the cable TV bill or a magazine subscription.  Of course the voucher would only apply to the people at or below the poverty level.  We don’t want to be telling our middle and higher income earners how to spend their own money.  This idea would provide an incentive to the impoverished to make more money especially if they want that cable TV or the Internet.

            A simple solution to a complex and over burdened system.  I know it will take a lot to convince people to give up on the old school programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and those 900 plus welfare programs, but think of the benefits.  You still get the money you need to live here in America, you keep most of your income and most of all you, if you use the voucher idea, provide an incentive for those in poverty to earn more.  Heck, any tax could transition to this one, but that’s if you the reader and the rest of America want to put forth the effort.  I hope it is, I’m fairly charitable, but I’d rather I give my charity voluntarily or through a tax system that is clear and acceptable to me and not the current 16,000 plus pages of tax code that provides welfare to the rich, and hurts small business.  These are the same small businesses that create approximately 70% of the new jobs in the United States.  Its time we change the tax code to one that we can all understand and benefit from.       

Hope you all enjoyed the article by yours truely....expect more interesting topics in the future ;)

Issue 11 What are RIGHTS? feb,15,2013

The title says it all, enjoy :)

                                                       

                                                                    What are RIGHTS?

            In order to understand where some of my ideas and thoughts come from, we must first define rights?  We will also define what is not a right.  Let us begin.

            Who thinks education is a right?  Who thinks health care is a right?  Who thinks the freedom of speech is a right?  You probably answered the questions in your self, but you probably only got the answer to the last question correct.  That correct answer is the freedom of speech is indeed a right.  The other two are in fact privileges.  You’re probably thinking I’m out of my mind here but I ask you to bear with me a little longer.

            A right, to my knowledge and research via our founding documents and classical philosophers, cannot be purchased, sold, given, provided or bartered by anyone.  Whether you have your own definition of what a right is I will tell you this, a right cannot in actuality be defined.  However, we can say what is not a right: which is anything that has to be purchased, given, or provided by another person.  Therefore what ever has to be purchased, given or provided is a privilege. 

            Let us take health care as an example.  Health care must be purchased and provided by someone else so it is a privilege and not a right.  However, you do have the right to stay healthy.  I bet some are thinking what’s the difference?  Simple really, unlike health care, your staying healthy does not need to be purchased or given to you.  You can do it all on your own under your own strength and will.  It is as simple as exercising, eating healthy and keeping up good hygiene.  In other words you can take care of yourself.  What is also a right in this scenario is your ability to seek out health care and contract with a doctor to help get better.  Contracts are a property right which you can establish with anyone.  In this case you are contracting with a doctor to heal you in exchange for money, but the money given and the health care received in exchange is not a right, they are the terms of the contract.

            How about education?  Education has to be purchased, given or provided to you.  What about public schools you ask?  Nope, they were never free, nor shall they ever for their services are purchased through our tax dollars.  You pay for education via taxes whether you have kids in school our not, to aid in other children going to school.  Therefore it is not a right but another privilege.  You do however have a right to learn.  Your right to learn is practiced everyday.  When you read a book or an essay (even this one) you are learning.  When you watch television or looking things up on the computer, you are learning.  Going to a museum, talking a tour while on vacation, talking to your friends about "what is a right?" is all an expression of the right to learn.  Interesting right?

            The final example of what is not a right is one of America’s favorite social welfare programs, Social Security.  Wait, don’t close the book yet, hear me out! Please.  If you have been following the logic of what is not a right, then you might have an understanding of why I’m saying Social Security is a privilege.  It is, for one, provided by the government.  The government owns and operates the program and decides how much in benefits you will get in return.  Some of you are saying this is B.S. right now while saying but that is my money.  Sorry, but the Supreme Court back in 1937 ruled in three separate cases that your contributions to Social Security are in fact a tax.  The cases are Helvering vs. Davis, Steward Machine Co. vs. Davis, and Carmichael vs. Southern Coal & Coke and Gulf States Paper.  So for one it is a tax, as the government cannot take your money unless it is either taxed or donated.  You can argue that it is a contract, and a contract is a right which is itself a form of property.  However, the terms and conditions of that contract are not in your favor.  In 1960 the Supreme Court heard a case known as Flemming vs. Nester.  In summary it says that due to a clause in the Social Security legislation, Congress can alter benefits and the qualifications to receive those benefits.  Remember, the contract itself is a right, not what is being given, or in this case exchanged.  It is for this reason that President Ronald Reagan could alter benefits and adjust the retirement age to slowly increase to age 67.  Don’t believe me?  Then go look at the official Social Security website to get the truth.  Although, you may also get information you may not want to hear. 

            Thank you for getting this far and I promise that the majority of everything else I write will be less controversial.  We now understand what a right is not and have a good understanding of what a right is.  Regardless of whether you believe our rights come from God, nature or man kind, it is important to know what our rights are and how to differentiate them from a privilege. 

 

If you have any questions or comments feel free to post them in the comments section and I will do my best to answer them to your satisfaction.

Issue 10 V-day Special feb,14,2013

Are you one of those last minute Valentines Day shoppers? If you have the time to read this, then you probably are. Don't get the usual crap, and put a little extra meaning behind your gift(s) through the language of flowers and colors.

Here I present to you a list of colors and flowers and their associated meanings to provide that extra bit of love toward your loved ones and impress them with your inner ladies man (or men’s woman--if that makes sense).

COLORS

Blue: Peace, truth and intellect, loyalty, chastity, spirituality, eternity

Green: (when paired with other colors) new life, hope, fertility and regeneration

Pink: femininity, innocence, good health, love, patience

Red: (when paired with other colors) vitality and life force, passion, energy, sexuality

Saffron: spirituality, holiness, good fortune

Violet: Knowledge and intelligence, piety, sobriety, humility, temperance, peace and spirituality

White: purity, virginity, death and rebirth, beginning and an end, and in some places mourning (I personally stay away from this one)

Yellow: power, authority, the intellect and intuition, goodness, light, life, immortality, endurance (pair it with other colors as on its own it means cowardice and treachery)

FLOWERS

Amaranth: faith, immortality, unfading love

Apple Blossom: Preference, better things to come, good fortune

Aster: daintiness, a talisman of love

Baby's Breath: Innocence, purity of heart

Cactus: endurance, my heart burns with love (even I don’t know how this means what it means)

Clover: fertility

Clover (4 leaf): Be Mine

Daisy: Innocence, loyal love, purity, beauty, respect

Dandelion: faithfulness, happiness, love's oracle

Gardenia: You're lovely, secret love, purity, refinement

Hibiscus: consumed by love, delicate beauty

Honeysuckle: the bond of love

Ivy: Wedded love, fidelity, friendship, affection

Lavender: love, devotion

Mint: virtue

Pansy: Merriment, thoughts (as in "you occupy my thoughts")

Rose (bridal): happiness

Rose (red): Love, I love you, respect and beauty (note this is the important one for that special someone HINT HINT)

Rose of Sharon: consumed by love

A single rose in full bloom: I truly love you, simplicity

Sunflower: Constancy and devotion

Tulip (general): perfect lover

Venus fly trap: caught at last

Violet: Modesty, virtue, affection, steadfastness

Yucca: yours until death

Please note that some of these flowers are out of season and can only be obtained from a nursery (the flower kind for those who don’t know).

Enjoy your Valentines Day (hopefully in more ways than one: wink)

My information comes from:

The Element Encyclopedia of Secret Signs and Symbols by Adele Nozedar, published in 2008 through Barnes & Noble, Inc in arrangement with Harper Collins Publishers.

Issue 9 “Dead: Are you loving it?” feb,13,2013

In honor of Ash Wednesday I present my college essay on the afterlife...Enjoy :)

Steven Gracey                                                                                                 9/24/10

Religion 80: Life Death and Immortality

 

“Dead: Are you loving it?”

            In Chapters 6—9 of Death and Afterlife the Jewish, Christian and Muslim perspectives of life after death are presented.  For both Jews and Christians, there seems to be no clear cut idea of a life after death.  Muslims on the other hand seem to have a clear idea of what is going to happen when they die.  Whatever the concept of the afterlife, it seems that the three religions of the book have something to look forward to when they die.  Does anyone have to agree with these religions various concepts? The answer is no, for wherever we end up and when is always dependant on our conduct in life.

            I do not have a typical concept of the afterlife.  I am a byproduct of both Irish and Roman Catholic faiths.  Thus the Druidic influences on the Irish Catholics and the current Roman Catholic dogma affect how I believe in the afterlife.  My personal view is that all of Gods creatures go to heaven, animals included, and all that is material on earth (man made) is stuck to rot and decay.  In addition, paradise in heaven is a place where friends and family are reunited in Gods good graces with the exception of those who end up in hell.  In hell the sinners will be punished based upon what sins they have committed.  As to being judged on if a person goes to heaven or hell, it to me is decided on the day we die and we are immediately sent to where we belong.  According to Leander E. Keck in chapter 6 of Death and Afterlife Christians in general do not have a cohesive idea of what the afterlife is or what it will look like.  My concept of the afterlife is evidence of that.  However, I must disagree with Keck on whether or not some members of the Christian faith follow the bible to the letter or not.  According to the History Channel documentary “Hillbilly: The Real Story” there are groups of Christians who do follow the bible to the letter and even attempt to perform various acts in the bible to become closer to God.  Apparently various State and local governments in the United States have tried to ban or regulate such practices including the handling of venomous snakes as part of Church worship.

            As to the point about how one concept of death and afterlife affects people’s thoughts about their mortal lives, I believe without a doubt that is true.  I myself, while not the best example of a Catholic, do try to at least follow the 10 commandments which were not originally 10, but 613 according to the History Channel documentary “The Ten Commandments”.  Those commandments while still fitting on two stone tablets also out lined various rituals and other religious practices.  The commandment thou shalt not kill had three exceptions being self—defense, war and capitol punishment.  Eagleton the author of The Meaning of Life would no doubt agree as well that a concept of an afterlife would affect people’s thoughts on everyday life.  Eagleton might even postulate that people’s thoughts on the afterlife would become their meaning of life and would create a collective religious dogma on what the meaning of life is for its practitioners.  This is neither wrong nor is it right because how a faith operates guides how people will use a concept of the afterlife to ascertain if the afterlife has anything to do with the meaning of life.   

            In chapters 6—9 of Death and Afterlife we see each religions concept of resurrection.  Jews before Christians arrived only believed in resurrection and all of the dead went to a place called Sheol.  Although even before Christianity, not all Jews believed in resurrection till 200 C.E. when a group called the Mishnah ruled that any who denies resurrection will be excluded from the next world.  There is nothing like the fear of isolation and being kept out of paradise to get someone to believe.  Resurrection for Christians is not clear either, specifically the fact that we don’t know if we will be in the grave, heaven or hell when we are resurrected.  Personally the Day of Judgment when resurrection occurs should be held off as long as possible because on that day, to me, many of the people of earth are not at a point where they can be saved.  That however is just a personal thought.  This mentality of wanting as many people to be saved probably is why in Christian dogma it emphasizes that what you do in life is what you will be judged upon in death. 

            I have to say Muslims are lucky.  Their afterlife seems to be well defined and thus don’t have to concern themselves much on that issue.  They know that they will be questioned and stored in a good or bad place till resurrection where scales will be used to judge them.  Not to mention that for Muslims there is 8 levels of heaven and 7 levels of hell each with its own unique compartment for each individual.  There is even a tenant that sinners will be redeemed.  It’s a nice idea and I do agree that sinners can be redeemed if they repent for their sins.  In similar concept to the Muslim vision of hell, rather than different subsections of hell, I believe in customized punishments in a location where they can see the penalties their fellow sinners face.  With that, ones thoughts and motivations for repenting and the impression one gets from witnessing the punishment of others will be the qualifier to earn a place in heaven.  Think of it as when the two criminals were crucified alongside Jesus.  One told Jesus that if he had so much power he should save them from death.  The other criminal recognized that Jesus did not belong there on the cross and said to Jesus that you committed no crime and that Jesus should not be punished.  For that Jesus granted the man salvation, for he had recognized his sins and thought of others who were being wrongfully punished.

            As to immortality, I agree with what is described in chapter 8 that living in common with God is true immortality and that immortality on earth is just a myth.  This is a stark contrast to the immortality in Gilgamesh which had the concept of the kind of immortality that conquered death.  If we were immortal on earth then there would be no need for a pious life for a person would not need to earn salvation if they are never to die in the first place.  Also, to me immortality is more of a punishment as one is forced to watch the living wither away and die, much the same way Gilgamesh watched Enkidu die leaving him alone in mourning.  On the other hand, purgatory seems perfectly logical.  It acts as a proving ground for minor sinners to redeem themselves.  As to whether it is paradise or not, I do not know.  However, I do believe that if anyone enters purgatory, life there will be set up as a constant test to aid in the cleansing of ones minor sins. 

            Then there is this notion that heaven does not have pain, sorrow and the like.  I believe that is wrong.  In the infinite of heaven, the only true pain and sorrow that are gone are the pain and sorrow of loss and the symptoms that cause it.  Beyond that all other pain is necessary to keep the soul pious and clean.

            On to the theory that the concept of eternal life on the Christian idea that liberating mankind from the “yokes of the stifling past” (122 Obayashi) inspires various theologies.  Those theologies being Black theology, liberation theology, feminist theology and even political theology (122 Obayashi) all set to change the present to further the groups they advocate for.  However, while some are inspired by such Christian notions they are not all good.  Anyone of them that seeks a collectivist salvation is not inspired by Christianity, but by Marxism as well.  For Marx’s teacher, the philosopher Hegel despised Jesus Christ and his sacrifice.  The reason being that when Jesus died, he died so that people will be judged by their individual actions, while Hegel believed it should have remained the way it was before, a collective salvation.  True Christianity believes in Jesus’ sacrifice for the individual.  The collectivist notion to salvation is counter to religious thought.  Individuals are judged and thus incentivized to be pious.  Groups are a mob who ignores the rules thinking they can piggy back on someone else’s merits and piousness.  Thus the unworthy will either overwhelm the pious or the sinners can slip through unpunished for their sins.  This is not to say that wanting to relieve others from suffering is wrong, but a theology that saves one at the expense of others saves none.       

            All in all, Death and Afterlife is a good reminder of how my faith looks at the afterlife.  It is also a good introduction to both Jewish and Muslim beliefs in regards to the afterlife.  To me it is acceptable that others will disagree with my own notions of the afterlife. Disagreement is a good thing as we should not know what the afterlife will be like till after we die.  If we did know what heaven and hell would be like, then what would we look forward to.   In the end, it is preferable to dream of an idealistic heaven than have one set down by the dreams and ideas of those who came before us.

                                                                                          

Works Cited

Eagleton, Terry. The Meaning of Life Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.

Hegel, G.W.F. Reason in History: A General Introduction to the Philosophy of History

            The Liberal Arts Press, Inc., The Bobbs—Merrill Company, Inc, United States,

            1953.

“Hillbilly: The Real Story” History Channel Documentary, aired September, 26, 2008.

Mason, Herbert. Gilgamesh: A Verse Narrative A Mariner book: Houghton Mifflin

Company. Boston, New York, 2003.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto Penguin Classics, England,

2002.

Obayashi, Hiroshi.  Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions

Praeger Publishers, New York, 1992.

“The Ten Commandments, Part 1: The Laws of God and Part 2: The Laws of Man”

History Channel Documentary, DVD release April, 12, 2006.