Immigration and "illegal" people. It should never (ever ever) be "illegal" to work for a living; it makes no sense to criminalize labor. It should never be "illegal" to migrate -- travel, along with Free Press, is one of only two guarantees of Freedom.
School. It should never be compulsory to attend school; that turns "education" on its head, and is why schools become devoted to Control instead of discovery and problem solving.
Pollution. Build anything anywhere -- products, factories, whatever. But if what you made has an "exhaust" pipe or chimney, or a "waste product" of any kind, including any solid, liquid, gas, noise, or smell, or if it creates an environmental impact such as a bottle-neck, traffic congestion, or nuisance to a neighbor, then you pay for the cost of that impact. Mitigation by the following design principal should always be recognized: Whatever you build that has an exhaust pipe, it must vent into the face of the user FIRST, before it vents into the faces of non-users; whatever is discharged, must first be vented into the water and air system of the maker/manager/owner, before discharging into the sewer or environment.
Religion. Redemption and Rapture can only be experienced individually; no priest or principal can "save" anyone else except upon proof that they have taken their own advice and have saved themselves. Anyone who proclaims a religious basis for killing any other person should be prosecuted for murder, as plainly as any other such solicitation made without the claim of sanctity.
Theft. Title to material goods never passes by theft. You steal something by force or fraud, it is never yours to use, sell, or profit from. You buy something without title, it is the same as if you stole it from the true owner yourself.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
IRAQ and a Hard Place
Raid Juhi, chief investigative judge for the Iraqi court now trying Mr. Hussein in another case, said during a visit here on Saturday that the court had documentary evidence, and statements from witnesses, showing that at least 100,000 Shiites, and possibly 180,000, died in the 1991 repression.
OBSERVATION:
"possibly 180,000"???? In a period of months? Give or take 80,000?
OBSERVATION:
"possibly 180,000"???? In a period of months? Give or take 80,000?
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Fallability of Eyewitness Testimony - studies
The certainty of the conclusion that eyewitness testimony is not reliable has been with us for a long time. The obstacles of perception, recall, narration and bias have always been insurmountable and completely understood by those who "disagree". Look at the wide spectrum of "religious" points of view, all of which presume or claim to be Reality-Based, and yet maintain profound contradictory views on the "observations" made by various disciples, people wandering in the desert, and seeing things in caves.
Since the arrival of Scientific Method, our scepticism of eyewitnesses has received scientific validation. E.g. Seymour Orless, The Fallibility of Eyewitness Testimony, 86 O.D./O.S.L.J. 2020 (1961) [survey of studies].
And yet, the courts continue to rely almost exclusively upon the narrated recollection of "facts" -- including often unlikely details -- by witnesses. Little wonder, then, that we are where we are: Everyone complaining about justice, and not doing a thing about it.
Since the arrival of Scientific Method, our scepticism of eyewitnesses has received scientific validation. E.g. Seymour Orless, The Fallibility of Eyewitness Testimony, 86 O.D./O.S.L.J. 2020 (1961) [survey of studies].
And yet, the courts continue to rely almost exclusively upon the narrated recollection of "facts" -- including often unlikely details -- by witnesses. Little wonder, then, that we are where we are: Everyone complaining about justice, and not doing a thing about it.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Ezekiel strikes the first note for Personal Responsibility for legal transgression
In 600 BC, writing from captivity in Babylon, the Prophet Ezekiel suggests a break with three fundamental tribal assumptions concerning Law: The Unity of Humans in the Natural World, Unity of the Tribe, and Unity of Motive and Action, the last sometimes extending to Cause and Effect.
The book of Ezekiel begins with a series of dream/visions and isolations: "This is Jerusalem" set in the midst of the nations and countries around her. This was a "sanctuary" which was defiled. 5:5, 9, 11. "I will make thee a waste". 5:14. "I send upon you famine and evil beasts". 5:17. These isolations and the analytic separation of Israel/Tribe/Jerusalem had been begun in the Pentateuch.
But the Prophet Ezekiel goes further. He writes in answer to the question which contained the cultural assumption of unity between the individual and the clan: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." This is drawn from the observation that we are each born and die separately-- as in "the soul that sinneth, it shall die".
Thus we find Ezekiel signaling a change from Group Responsibility -- the collective guilt which tribal people assume.
Ezekiel then goes on to presage another analytical separation of a tribal assumption relating to act and intent. At 18:24, "when the righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and commits an act of iniquity as done by the wicked, shall he live?" Here, Ezekiel sees and suggests a separation between Act and Intent. This is a second revolutionary sidestep from tribal law, which assumes a unity of deed and motive in which any separation is moot.
SUM: Primitive or Tribe-oriented Law assumes a Unity or continuity between Man/Nature, Individual/Group, and Being(intention)/Doing(act). Ezekiel, in 600 BC presents an Analytic distinction of the components within the primitive "unities". This signatls the synthetic functionalism of modern law which seeks individual (human) responsibility (personal) for blameworthy consequences (depending further on the intention/negligence of the perpetrator).
The book of Ezekiel begins with a series of dream/visions and isolations: "This is Jerusalem" set in the midst of the nations and countries around her. This was a "sanctuary" which was defiled. 5:5, 9, 11. "I will make thee a waste". 5:14. "I send upon you famine and evil beasts". 5:17. These isolations and the analytic separation of Israel/Tribe/Jerusalem had been begun in the Pentateuch.
But the Prophet Ezekiel goes further. He writes in answer to the question which contained the cultural assumption of unity between the individual and the clan: "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father." This is drawn from the observation that we are each born and die separately-- as in "the soul that sinneth, it shall die".
Thus we find Ezekiel signaling a change from Group Responsibility -- the collective guilt which tribal people assume.
Ezekiel then goes on to presage another analytical separation of a tribal assumption relating to act and intent. At 18:24, "when the righteous man turns away from his righteousness, and commits an act of iniquity as done by the wicked, shall he live?" Here, Ezekiel sees and suggests a separation between Act and Intent. This is a second revolutionary sidestep from tribal law, which assumes a unity of deed and motive in which any separation is moot.
SUM: Primitive or Tribe-oriented Law assumes a Unity or continuity between Man/Nature, Individual/Group, and Being(intention)/Doing(act). Ezekiel, in 600 BC presents an Analytic distinction of the components within the primitive "unities". This signatls the synthetic functionalism of modern law which seeks individual (human) responsibility (personal) for blameworthy consequences (depending further on the intention/negligence of the perpetrator).
Friday, April 07, 2006
Biblical IP / Cosmic Data baseline interpretations
We interpret the world. It is "natural" that we seek information, and translators of the information we find which is for the most part not exactly "spelled out" to us. We are in a permanent state of being UN-initiated to consciousness, to the bringing of our breath which is taken in trying to comprehend the data we gather.
Ah, and the point?
Our interpretation is historical. We learn what we take as known from the perspective of Period.
For example, in ancient times, our explanations were filled with gods who acted a lot like humans, on steroids. Olympians could fly, tranform, shape-shift, do battle with dragons and giants, while simultaneously creating everything. God used technology the ancients were familiar with -- like fashioning figures from clay, separating and sifting, breeding two by two. Birth was the big miracle and we used the mystery of coupling to explain the mystery of existence, how things and creatures came into being, using Words. Naming invoked the thing in a virtual way. Ancient explanations had an Animal Physicality: Nibelung, Baggavad-gita, PopoVul, Olympus, Genesis, these are all books of birthing and kinship structures, the begattings and creatings. We counted using fingers and toes, piles of pebbles, colored quipu, and an abacus sheet of sliding beads on a wire.
By the 17th century, the universe began to look like a clock, a mechanism, a marketplace transaction. Galileo's pendulum swinging in a Newtonian gear box opening spectrums of light and particles, with life as a moist oxidation on the surface of a cooling sphere. We counted using slide rules, orbits, water clocks, ratcheting gears, and trading companies. Thomas Aquinas was canonized for having converted Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle in the nick of time, while the Summa was still Theologica.
By the 19th century, the study of force fields was hot. Magnetic attraction and repulsion, the electrical pulse, the particle light wave, radio transmission, and radioactive emission, were all bent to the work of ontology. We measured differentials on gauges and things were counted inside sealed vacuum-tubes. It no longer mattered what anyone "believed" about the tides, the hidden hand of the market place, or the tribe and its gods.
As the 21st century unfolded, it is no surprise that the universe started to look like a computer. Compare, 1960's Edward Fredkin and Konrad Zuse. The "calculus", the little pebbles the Latins used to measure, sort, and compare alternative countings, were imbedded in sheets of silicon switches, forming a bank of abacuses. We began creating a 2d virtual reality communicating on networks. We counted using algorythms and bits. The trope of the priesthood adapts to the familiar, and life "evolved". The Pope declares Evolution to be divine. Our semi-conductor on the train of explanation takes us far beyond the Thunder God sitting astride the pile of pebbles.
Now we are staring at quantum phyics, and of course, a quantum computer (QC). We now take the universe as being not only built of atoms, but of atoms in a constant state of interraction -- exchanging, pardon the expression, "information". Compare, Seth Lloyd 2006. This QC is modeling its own complexity, each local part reflecting a greater part, computing itself. There appears to be plenty of room for an epistomology here.
Ah, and the point?
Our interpretation is historical. We learn what we take as known from the perspective of Period.
For example, in ancient times, our explanations were filled with gods who acted a lot like humans, on steroids. Olympians could fly, tranform, shape-shift, do battle with dragons and giants, while simultaneously creating everything. God used technology the ancients were familiar with -- like fashioning figures from clay, separating and sifting, breeding two by two. Birth was the big miracle and we used the mystery of coupling to explain the mystery of existence, how things and creatures came into being, using Words. Naming invoked the thing in a virtual way. Ancient explanations had an Animal Physicality: Nibelung, Baggavad-gita, PopoVul, Olympus, Genesis, these are all books of birthing and kinship structures, the begattings and creatings. We counted using fingers and toes, piles of pebbles, colored quipu, and an abacus sheet of sliding beads on a wire.
By the 17th century, the universe began to look like a clock, a mechanism, a marketplace transaction. Galileo's pendulum swinging in a Newtonian gear box opening spectrums of light and particles, with life as a moist oxidation on the surface of a cooling sphere. We counted using slide rules, orbits, water clocks, ratcheting gears, and trading companies. Thomas Aquinas was canonized for having converted Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle in the nick of time, while the Summa was still Theologica.
By the 19th century, the study of force fields was hot. Magnetic attraction and repulsion, the electrical pulse, the particle light wave, radio transmission, and radioactive emission, were all bent to the work of ontology. We measured differentials on gauges and things were counted inside sealed vacuum-tubes. It no longer mattered what anyone "believed" about the tides, the hidden hand of the market place, or the tribe and its gods.
As the 21st century unfolded, it is no surprise that the universe started to look like a computer. Compare, 1960's Edward Fredkin and Konrad Zuse. The "calculus", the little pebbles the Latins used to measure, sort, and compare alternative countings, were imbedded in sheets of silicon switches, forming a bank of abacuses. We began creating a 2d virtual reality communicating on networks. We counted using algorythms and bits. The trope of the priesthood adapts to the familiar, and life "evolved". The Pope declares Evolution to be divine. Our semi-conductor on the train of explanation takes us far beyond the Thunder God sitting astride the pile of pebbles.
Now we are staring at quantum phyics, and of course, a quantum computer (QC). We now take the universe as being not only built of atoms, but of atoms in a constant state of interraction -- exchanging, pardon the expression, "information". Compare, Seth Lloyd 2006. This QC is modeling its own complexity, each local part reflecting a greater part, computing itself. There appears to be plenty of room for an epistomology here.
Saturday, April 01, 2006
Molecular Expressions: Science, Optics and You - Secret Worlds: The Universe Within - Interactive Java Tutorial
Molecular Expressions: Science, Optics and You - Secret Worlds: The Universe Within - Interactive Java Tutorial
Scientists examine things, sometimes using tools which enhance our native proprioception. Some things cannot be "seen" but are nevertheless observable through these tools. Nietzche said, perspective is all. Yet how do we keep our perspective in perspective?
University of Florida, viewing powers of 10.
Scientists examine things, sometimes using tools which enhance our native proprioception. Some things cannot be "seen" but are nevertheless observable through these tools. Nietzche said, perspective is all. Yet how do we keep our perspective in perspective?
University of Florida, viewing powers of 10.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
What made the Herring - red and dead?
TRUTH. Suppose Truth is a red herring. Sans the fish-wife, just the fish, of dubious provenance and well-passed its prime. We are holding something that smells, and that has a sell-by date that expired somewhere at the threshhold of the origin of language. When we tried to talk about it, it died.
Monday, March 20, 2006
The Arts will fill the circle of the senses
Art used to fill the senses. In the village, you carved wood, you felt the grain and edge, and smelled the wood, and heard its crack and yawl. You smelled the food you cooked, you heard what you were creating, dipping, painting, playing.
Now, in the city "modern" art is in a sealed box. It is on the wall, walled off. The orchestra is "on stage" or in a pit. No interaction. The audience is a specialty.
In the future, as we are individualizing and interacting with art again by computers, the media are going to become MORE "traditional" in the sense that they will fill the senses once again. Pieces will smoke, smell, and sound you in the lobby, the interactive hallway, the kitchen midden of our lives. The courtyard of the future, still within cities, still urbanic, will be richer. Art will fill the senses, again.
Now, in the city "modern" art is in a sealed box. It is on the wall, walled off. The orchestra is "on stage" or in a pit. No interaction. The audience is a specialty.
In the future, as we are individualizing and interacting with art again by computers, the media are going to become MORE "traditional" in the sense that they will fill the senses once again. Pieces will smoke, smell, and sound you in the lobby, the interactive hallway, the kitchen midden of our lives. The courtyard of the future, still within cities, still urbanic, will be richer. Art will fill the senses, again.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
C S Lewis ReDoubt
I always start with A Grief Portrayed, one of the finest books written about mourning. Lewis lost a long-awaited and spirited spouse to bone cancer, and Shadowland gripped Lewis' last years. I am not a biographer -- and there are already more than five -- but you see the two sides of Lewis' mind already established -- bipedaling the desire to imagine and feel "Joy" (Narnia, Perelandria), and his responsibility to the God of residual dogma (Allegory of Love, Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity)-- before he came to be seduced by a married woman named Joy. And she dies. And he is CS Lewis, left to dry alive, not to die, and unable to return to privately priggish common room hearty bachelor life. He emerges, he does not emerge, he is living the Problem of Pain inside, and in trying to cling to a personal faith in the shadow of a personal insult to the entire continent of his belief, he finds his faith has no hands. He now KNEW that conversion was not real, and was not a means of joy in a real world.
He is left with the quest, living the questions. And here is where the believer and the nonbeliever meet -- in the realm of the imaginery, where everything important takes place, or doesn't. Where shared ritual unfolds, where the layers of allegory story each onion, and the petals of metaphor open up each rose.
Who knows what CS Lewis believed in his final hour, the author of magic Narnia slipping into the final resting Wardrobe. We cannot express enough gratitude for a man who gave us fairy tales and faith, and most comforting for those of us who escape into imagination, a permanent bed of doubt.
He is left with the quest, living the questions. And here is where the believer and the nonbeliever meet -- in the realm of the imaginery, where everything important takes place, or doesn't. Where shared ritual unfolds, where the layers of allegory story each onion, and the petals of metaphor open up each rose.
Who knows what CS Lewis believed in his final hour, the author of magic Narnia slipping into the final resting Wardrobe. We cannot express enough gratitude for a man who gave us fairy tales and faith, and most comforting for those of us who escape into imagination, a permanent bed of doubt.
Why People Hate Lawyers.
Lawyers are formidable people.
I’ve always wondered why this is so.
Is it because a Bar Exam weeds out those who are thick as bricks, or plain stupid?
Is it because the Bar organization is powerful? Helping its members?
Is it because we are rich?
You know why. We may be the smartest profession with the biggest mouth, but we are not the only smart people on the planet, and many lawyers get stuck in perspective. The Bar is not a unified priesthood protecting its members from public inquiry. And most lawyers are not in the richest echelon of society. In fact lawyers are peculiarly despised by the rich, for their dependence, if nothing else.
The reason lawyers are formidable, is primarily because we listen to our opponents.
Like no other professional, we are the ones who have adversaries paid to play "enemy" to our ally, and who pay close attention to everything we do and say. No one else has this tool, this engine of criticism built into the work.
Politicians ignore criticism and attack their opponents no matter what they say.
If the Naziis had been capable of listening to their opponents, and learned something, we would be speaking German.
Artists want to express themselves, they are bored by dialogue, the interchange. No one created art in disintermediation, or by committee.
If religious people get into trouble, do they canvas other religions? They try to listen only to God, and to keep from hearing the Devil, and if they hear him they don’t listen and think it pious not to.
And that is what makes us formidable. We listen to what the adversary is saying, knowing that they are listening to us and will try to strip us naked in public if we cannot support what we are saying.
I’ve always wondered why this is so.
Is it because a Bar Exam weeds out those who are thick as bricks, or plain stupid?
Is it because the Bar organization is powerful? Helping its members?
Is it because we are rich?
You know why. We may be the smartest profession with the biggest mouth, but we are not the only smart people on the planet, and many lawyers get stuck in perspective. The Bar is not a unified priesthood protecting its members from public inquiry. And most lawyers are not in the richest echelon of society. In fact lawyers are peculiarly despised by the rich, for their dependence, if nothing else.
The reason lawyers are formidable, is primarily because we listen to our opponents.
Like no other professional, we are the ones who have adversaries paid to play "enemy" to our ally, and who pay close attention to everything we do and say. No one else has this tool, this engine of criticism built into the work.
Politicians ignore criticism and attack their opponents no matter what they say.
If the Naziis had been capable of listening to their opponents, and learned something, we would be speaking German.
Artists want to express themselves, they are bored by dialogue, the interchange. No one created art in disintermediation, or by committee.
If religious people get into trouble, do they canvas other religions? They try to listen only to God, and to keep from hearing the Devil, and if they hear him they don’t listen and think it pious not to.
And that is what makes us formidable. We listen to what the adversary is saying, knowing that they are listening to us and will try to strip us naked in public if we cannot support what we are saying.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Carbon - nanotechnology
1. TUNGSTEN and CARBON - as light filaments. Surely it is not just the heat that makes a tungsten or carbon diode glow, but the voltage and current itself. So carbon should come out ahead eventually in a light per volt contest. If we can build a carbon filament out of nanotubes--by weaving and bonding the filaments with the right amount of radiation -- we may have a tough and brilliant lightbulb.
2. Carbon nanotubes are lightweight, stronger than steel, stiff as diamonds, and way better conductors of electricity and heat than any other known materials. This is carbon we are talking about. Thank you Sumio Iijima (NEC lab in Tokyo 1991). Picture chicken wire rolled into cylinders with an average diameter of a nanometer, or the approximate width of a DNA molecule. Now, how do we coerce these tubes, only a few micrometers long, into fiber? It took chemists 50+ years to make carbon-based polyethylene into usable material. It appears that nanotubes can be bonded together to unitize without congealing or losing strength by irradiating the line. Still, how do we get the line -- how do we "weave" the fiber? This is where I think we have to look at centrifuge or natural "spinning" effects. Not just chemistry.
2. Carbon nanotubes are lightweight, stronger than steel, stiff as diamonds, and way better conductors of electricity and heat than any other known materials. This is carbon we are talking about. Thank you Sumio Iijima (NEC lab in Tokyo 1991). Picture chicken wire rolled into cylinders with an average diameter of a nanometer, or the approximate width of a DNA molecule. Now, how do we coerce these tubes, only a few micrometers long, into fiber? It took chemists 50+ years to make carbon-based polyethylene into usable material. It appears that nanotubes can be bonded together to unitize without congealing or losing strength by irradiating the line. Still, how do we get the line -- how do we "weave" the fiber? This is where I think we have to look at centrifuge or natural "spinning" effects. Not just chemistry.
Sources of Power
1. PLANTS. Are we exploring synthetic photosynthesis? Plants convert sunlight into sugar in a remarkably efficient manner, and using a variety of leaf macro-structures. Can a solar cell be developed out of protein instead of silicon?
2. BACTERIA. I still think the bacteria which glow inside aqueous cells inside animal/piscine hosts could be adopted and adapted to live in synthetic environments which need low level light. Consider the new materials -- for example, synthetic peptides developed by Shuguang Zhang (MIT). If we imbed the cells in plant hosts, we would have trees that provide shade in daylight and moonlight at night.
3. PROTEIN. Photosynthetic proteins from spinach and Rhodobacter sphaeroides imbedded in a peptide cell membrane on a silicon surface coated with indium tin oxide and an organic semiconductor topped with a silver electrode, create a current. Marc Baldo (MIT 2004). The beauty of this is the sandwich could be manufactured in a continous assembly line--a complex film. Even without solar cells, could be protein-based electronic devices. Protein may not degrade and could be self-repairing or replenishing.
4. NATURE. Solar energy collection and conversion has been optimized over a very long time by nature. We seem to understand this, yet we are so obsessed with burning carbon fuels we seem to overlook the model Nature presents. Nothing in Nature is burning fossil fuel for its energy source. Why do we?
2. BACTERIA. I still think the bacteria which glow inside aqueous cells inside animal/piscine hosts could be adopted and adapted to live in synthetic environments which need low level light. Consider the new materials -- for example, synthetic peptides developed by Shuguang Zhang (MIT). If we imbed the cells in plant hosts, we would have trees that provide shade in daylight and moonlight at night.
3. PROTEIN. Photosynthetic proteins from spinach and Rhodobacter sphaeroides imbedded in a peptide cell membrane on a silicon surface coated with indium tin oxide and an organic semiconductor topped with a silver electrode, create a current. Marc Baldo (MIT 2004). The beauty of this is the sandwich could be manufactured in a continous assembly line--a complex film. Even without solar cells, could be protein-based electronic devices. Protein may not degrade and could be self-repairing or replenishing.
4. NATURE. Solar energy collection and conversion has been optimized over a very long time by nature. We seem to understand this, yet we are so obsessed with burning carbon fuels we seem to overlook the model Nature presents. Nothing in Nature is burning fossil fuel for its energy source. Why do we?
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
LINCOLN: “...the better angels of our nature.”
LINCOLN: “...the better angels of our nature.”
He said in his first inaugural address, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. ... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
ALL wars are civil infractions, breaches in our brotherhood of arms, a betrayal of our genes, our culture, our ancestors and our children. A betrayal of our "better angels". The chorus of our Union, once begun, excludes no voice.
He said in his first inaugural address, "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict, without being yourselves the aggressors. ... We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
ALL wars are civil infractions, breaches in our brotherhood of arms, a betrayal of our genes, our culture, our ancestors and our children. A betrayal of our "better angels". The chorus of our Union, once begun, excludes no voice.
Valentine -- No Pesare No regrets
Valentine with Fur and Gold
Repent not. The lady is not for blaming.
Even sins would be forgiven, and we only pray
there were more of them.
No ribboned remorse is wrapped and stored
in the cupboard. Not there is the egg-shelled air.
Mi pesar please and thank you and
sweet heart my dear. No getting a rue over your head.
For you, a life in the provinces in the middle of all kinds
of march behind the cat on the queen victoria. My sweet.
No self-reproof of any pudding here. Her indoors, and
outdoors, and her compunction. The lady of the lake
and the forest, and the coming along the shore. Who could
ask for more and always will. Give me the dance, not
the guilt-tripping a lava-light fantastic. Who would know
is never done and the Be in your bonnet is a bonnie lass.
My sweet. My pudding. Ah it is you were meant for more
than scuttings, and woulds that dishes were never
ever dirty dirty dirty in our purty flirty midden kitchen
you middle march through.
You’ve walked those nights. You’ve talked those days.
Lonely no more, great beloved woman. You were meant
to inhale. All the mothers and fathers of the sure-would
forest and the imps of the everlasting glades only travel
for the hope of seeing you, and only leave on the back of their
spingling regrets, not of yours.
Penseverance pay, say it is not so. You were intended for
fur and feathers, and pockets you can reach into, and
those fingers, that arch, the justice of the piece matched set.
The guilt was all gold, no really, gold, oro de todo. A thousand
times–oh so many times–you still end up nowhere you
have ever been a stranger to.
Believe in the way of loving. It works with pastels, it works
with the tropical accents, it composes the seeing and
fills the being, and afterwards, when all introductions are
gone and the beginnings have exhausted themselves,
your love is the wow factor that every one remembers.
Your love. Wow. I factor this:
Your love is all that people see.
It is everything to me.
Repent not. The lady is not for blaming.
Even sins would be forgiven, and we only pray
there were more of them.
No ribboned remorse is wrapped and stored
in the cupboard. Not there is the egg-shelled air.
Mi pesar please and thank you and
sweet heart my dear. No getting a rue over your head.
For you, a life in the provinces in the middle of all kinds
of march behind the cat on the queen victoria. My sweet.
No self-reproof of any pudding here. Her indoors, and
outdoors, and her compunction. The lady of the lake
and the forest, and the coming along the shore. Who could
ask for more and always will. Give me the dance, not
the guilt-tripping a lava-light fantastic. Who would know
is never done and the Be in your bonnet is a bonnie lass.
My sweet. My pudding. Ah it is you were meant for more
than scuttings, and woulds that dishes were never
ever dirty dirty dirty in our purty flirty midden kitchen
you middle march through.
You’ve walked those nights. You’ve talked those days.
Lonely no more, great beloved woman. You were meant
to inhale. All the mothers and fathers of the sure-would
forest and the imps of the everlasting glades only travel
for the hope of seeing you, and only leave on the back of their
spingling regrets, not of yours.
Penseverance pay, say it is not so. You were intended for
fur and feathers, and pockets you can reach into, and
those fingers, that arch, the justice of the piece matched set.
The guilt was all gold, no really, gold, oro de todo. A thousand
times–oh so many times–you still end up nowhere you
have ever been a stranger to.
Believe in the way of loving. It works with pastels, it works
with the tropical accents, it composes the seeing and
fills the being, and afterwards, when all introductions are
gone and the beginnings have exhausted themselves,
your love is the wow factor that every one remembers.
Your love. Wow. I factor this:
Your love is all that people see.
It is everything to me.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)