The formatting may be a bit off, since the blog won't let me center some stuff and right align others at the same time.
JUDAS X. MACHINA
1 EXT. STREET - NIGHT
Garish purple light spills out of side-street porno houses, illuminating a silhouette, and little else, of an OLD MAN leaning against an alley wall. He is waiting. Another silhouetted FIGURE appears and approaches the first. They size each other up as best they can.
FIRST MAN: Corrigan?
The second nods. The OLD MAN (LOUIS SNIPES) reaches up and whispers, memories racing across his eyes. He staggers up to the younger CORRIGAN and whispers.
OLD MAN: You died fifty years ago... It was my fault... You should be dead...
The camera zooms into the eyes of CORRIGAN. Inside is the figure of a 1940's police detective standing in an alleyway.
2 1940's BRICK ALLEYWAY - NIGHT
In the corner of the screen the date 1940, NEW YORK CITY. In the background a police car races by and a man who looks like CORRIGAN squeezes against the alley wall. As the police car siren fades CORRIGAN slinks further down the alley and peers into a lit ground level window.
3 INTERIOR WAREHOUSE
Several well dressed men are discussing business around a card table lit by a single bulb. Business includes gambling and prostitution, and they joke with each other about buying dirty cops. Silently and imposing, the crime boss GAT BENSON circles in the shadows.
HENCHMAN #1: My, but are you the picture.
HENCHMAN #2: (surveying himself) It's a bit tight.
HENCHMAN #3: See How Mr. Benson pays and treats you well, huh?
GAT BENSON: Have you time for something to eat?
HENCHMAN #3: No sir, Mr. Benson, sir. I'll eat after we take care of that detective.
BENSON looks him over with pride.
BENSON: You'll do well here.
HENCHMAN #1: Be loyal and you'll be treated good. Be able to pay your momma's rent an everything.
From outside there is the sound of a scuffle and shouts. A few moments later a fourth HENCHMAN enters dragging JIM CORRIGAN by his collar.
HENCHMAN #4: Mr. Benson. I caught this honest copper hanging around outside, listening to things that weren't his business. What should we do with him?
BENSON: Well. Detective Corrigan. We were just discussing you, and like a good boy you came to us instead of us coming to you. Thank you. Boys, do we have any ideas about how to deal with Detective Corrigan?
HENCHMAN #2: I do, sir. I've had this little idea to drown a man in cement.
BENSON: I like an idea man. Let's go for a swim.
4 EXT. DOCKING JETTY - NIGHT
The four HENCHMEN and GAT BENSON are standing around an oil drum. Behind them is a truck with a small cement mixer. CORRIGAN is inside the oil drum, bound and gagged. Without a word the oil drum is filled with cement and CORRIGAN'S face is slowly obscured. A lid is placed on top and BENSON kicks the drum into the water.
5 EXT. UNDERWATER
We see the oil drum sink to the bottom of the bay. A light glimmers from a crack in the drum and fills the screen. The sound of CORRIGAN'S scream fills our ears and we cut to a black room with a single light.
6 BLACK ROOM
CORRIGAN stands beneath the light face in shadows. From all around him a deep and thundering voice begins to speak. Images of CORRIGAN at varying stages of his life flicker in the background. Good deeds and bad all play in a quiet montage around him. The more recent events in his life are larger than his older memories. We see his promotion to detective, and his engagement to a pretty young woman.
VOICE: Jim Corrigan. You have died. You are welcome into heaven, should you accept it.
JIM looks down at his hands and clenches them. A mania grips his face and he feels for a pulse. His hands drop away as he realizes he is dead. His face twists in anger.
CORRIGAN: NO! No, no, no. I do not accept it. There are good people that need to be protected and dead men that need to have their voices heard and given justice. The Guilty must be punished for their crimes! I care too much for this world to be bothered about the next. I reject it. I reject you. I refuse to go like this.
VOICE: Jim Corrigan. Your response has deemed you unfit for heaven. Yet your reasoning precludes you from being cast out. The circumstances of your death have also come into play. You were betrayed by men you trusted, and that prevented you from doing your duty. Because of this more innocent blood will be spilled. For this we have an offer for you, Jim Corrigan....
4 INT. LAVISH APARTMENT – MORNING
A pretty young woman is tied to a chair and gagged. Surrounding her are the four HENCHMEN. GAT BENSON stands in front of the woman, his hands clasped behind his back.
BENSON: Good morning Miss WInston. I apologize for disturbing you this early in the morning, but we need to make this as gruesome as possible, and it would be difficult to sleep through that. We need to send a message to the police department. The message that no one is safe, not even those individuals not directly involved with law enforcement. Especially those who are engaged to police detectives, and are of independently wealthy status. You do understand, don't you Miss Winston?
CLARICE WINSTON says nothing, though her eyes are overflowing with tears. The HENCHMEN laugh and HENCHMAN #2 pulls out a gun, striking CLARICE. She whimpers. HENCHMAN #2: Mr. Benson asked you a question. A deep and powerful voice filled with echoes and whispers answers for her.
CORRIGAN: She does understand. And you will understand much in the moments to come.
The HENCHMEN turn around quickly and pull various guns from their pockets and waistbands, pointing it in the direction of the VOICE. A tall man with a dark green cowl stands in front of the guns defiantly. The cowl covers a bone white face that's definition is obscured by shadows. A dark green cloak drapes from his shoulders and dissolves into mist as it reaches the floor. He is a ghost made solid from the knees up, and he glides towards BENSON and his men. They open fire and some bullets go through CORRIGAN while others richochet off the more solid parts of his body. CORRIGAN makes short work of the HENCHMEN, his single touch burning them to ash. He stands in front of BENSON.
BENSON: I don't care who you are or what you can do, I'm not..
He is cut short as the sound of breaking glass issues from his throat. He tries to speak but flecks of blood and splinters of glass pour out of his mouth. He turns to glass and shatters. CORRIGAN turns away and glides to CLARICE. She is on the floor, still tied to the chair. CORRIGAN sees a puddle of blood flowing from her chest: a stray bullet has killed her. CORRIGAN burns the ropes from her body and picks her up, his rage forming in a deep rumble that shakes the apartment and flows from his lips in an roar that would shake the walls of Jericho. There is a long pause as we see tears streaming down CORRIGAN'S boney white face. Then a single delicate hand touches his jaw. CLARICE has been brought back from the dead. Fade to black.
6 PULL OUT SHOT FROM CORRIGANS EYE. INT. LOCAL BAR.
CORRIGAN and the OLD MAN (LOUIS SNIPES) are sitting in a booth, each with a drink in front of them.
LOUIS SNIPES: It was me. I told them who was looking for them, and they told me to tell you where they'd be. I'm sorry. I followed them to the pier, thinking I could help you out when I saw they weren't going to kill you in the warehouse. But when I saw that they filled cement around you, I knew there was nothing I could do. I'm Sorry.
The City Of Victoria on Vancouver Island boasts a population equatable to the Island of Jamaica yet does not have the same crime rate as Victoria, and that is a sub feature or my novel True Monsters. My reasoning for the lower crime rates is due to the leadership of my characters. In reality, however, Victoria rates as the second most dangerous city in Canada. That may not be saying much.
Another example, Toronto and Chicago have similar populations (within their city limits). Toronto is 2.5 million, and Chicago is about 2.8 million. Both cities have large pockets of poverty. Toronto even has large housing project towers in some areas, similar to the ones Chicago has been tearing down.
So far this year, Toronto only has 41 murders, while Chicago has an insane 346.
The sad thing is that Chicago isn't even that high by American standards in terms of RATE - which is to say, murders per 100,000 residents. Cities from New Orleans to Baltimore to Birmingham all have much higher rates than Chicago.
How does Canada manage to control gang violence so effectively compared to so many places in America? What are the major differences in policies, police response, and so on?
What can America learn from Canada's success?
For one, Canada taxes the rich more than the poor creating a larger middle class/social equality. Victoria is an anomaly in the homeless-per-capita situation; our moderate temperatures and high tourism rate provide great draw to those who want money for nothing. Yes, I just said that. Panhandlers can make really good money, an issue I write about in my novel. There are systems to get people off the street. Many simply choose to remain there, making enough to get a fix or drunk, then commit crimes. So that explains the Victoria anomaly.
Canada spends more on social programs, and while throwing money at issues doesn't solve anything, the money spent is part of our healthcare system. A healthy populace, both physically and mentally, reduces the feelings of disparity and the desire to steal.
Canada never built ghettos and tried to push all the minorities into them. True, racial areas did exist, such as China Town, though they were of a voluntary mindset; people desire safety, and safety comes in the form of familiarity. It was never about African descendents drinking from water fountains.
Canada has far less guns, even on a national average. Most people that own guns use them for hunting animals, and very few people I know think handguns are an effective home defence.
The Canadian corrections system is more focused on reform with mandatory psychological and home-ec sessions which reduces recidivism - this is very important as it keeps prison culture at a minimum whereas America has 23.4% of the world's prison population.
It's some of this topical information that fills my novels. Victoria is a micrcosm of the world at large, and it is fitting that there be monsters here.
*There is no statistical evidence to show illegal Mexican immigrants commit crime (other than the crime of being illegal). The only study I have ever seen on this subject suggests neighbourhoods with more illegals have a generally lower crime rate (this is normally attributed to illegals being more worried about getting in trouble as they would get deported).
*Temperature has nothing to do with crime rates. Russia is rife with criminal gang activity.
*Canada has a very large minority population and allows more immigrants per year than any other nation in the world.
In my novel True Monsters Dr. Adam Manikin, the city coroner, aids Detective Virginia “Ginny” Smythe in her quest to catch the serial killer Overman. He is Ginny's friend and confidant, as well as a makeshift off-the-books surgeon when she's stepped out of line and gotten injured. Manikin is diametrically opposed to organ donation, and his own motives against that are revealed towards the end of True Monsters, and carry over into it's sequel (tentatively titled True Monsters: The Good Hypocrite). So what is Utilitarian Bio-Ethics?
“For those whose cost of medical treatment or maintenance outweighs their total future economic value (because they are terminally ill, are no longer productive, and have no reasonable chance of becoming productive or happy in the foreseeable future), it is economically efficient to free up medical resources by not treating them. As an example of this logic, every nurse who cares for a terminally ill Alzheimer's or cancer patient, a comatose individual, or an individual in a vegetative state, is one less nurse to take care of a sick baby or a 12-year-old gunshot victim.”
The way I read that is that a passive form of Euthanasia is sought. Instead of outright killing the person Utilitarian Bioethics states that they should be left to die if the resources needed to keep them alive can be used in another “better” way.
The happiness part is what really strikes me though. How do they define happiness? And how can they know how someone feels, let alone relate that state of mind to their illness or condition?
The core of Utilitarian Bioethics believe that someone should be valued depending on their ability to contribute to society and live a full life. Under their evaluation, disabled people, simple people, uneducated people etc. are all “nonpersons”.
They believe these “nonpersons” should be left to die, or in worse cases culled, so that “normal” or exceptional people can take their places and improve the world.
They use these kinds of arguments:
“Now that the human genome has been decoded, the ramifications of a utilitarian ethic go far beyond socioeconomic and legislative reform. In era of post-genomic medicine, they extend to control of the pleasure-pain axis itself. By unravelling the molecular substrates of emotion, biotechnology allied to nanomedicine permits the quantity, quality, duration and distribution of happiness and misery in the world to be controlled - ultimately at will. More controversially, the dilemmas of traditional casuistry will lose their relevance. This is because our imminent mastery of the reward centres ensures that everyone can be heritably "better than well" - a utopian-sounding prediction that currently still strikes most of us as comically childlike in its naïveté. However, unlike perennially scarce "positional" goods and services in economics, personal happiness doesn't need to be rationed. Within the next few centuries, a triple alliance of biotech, infotech and nanotech can - potentially - make invincible bliss a presupposition of everyday mental health.”
If that still confuses you (and it took me a few reads to get through the wordiness), basically they think in the near future we will be able to manufacture happiness using a combination of biological science and advanced computer technology. Until that day comes, however, a survival of the fittest-esque regime should be put into place that allocates resources to the happy, strong people and allows the “weak” to die out.
In a way, Utilitarian Bioethics is simply another form of Nazism. Breeding out the “nonpersons” to create a perfect race. The main difference is that they don't make death camps and round up their prey, they simply ignore them into destruction.
Let's all remember that Hitler was born healthy, and Stephen Hawking is confined to a wheelchair. Utilitarian Bio-ethics would have tossed Hawking to the proverbial curb. It is a fact that even if we understand the entire genetic code of a human being, we still do not know how they will live their lives. The same Adolf, had he been born today and in different economical standing may have become a charismatic, upstanding President of the U.S. Or a janitor.
In the forthcoming novel Dr. Manikin will be placed against someone who is for these actions, though I do hope to give the idea it's fair say. Sometimes the characters believe contrary to what I think or believe, and that can be very frustrating. I know that Detective Smythe and Mayor Oldsole will be supporting characters, and so will the City of Victoria itself as a microcosm of the world at large.
Please research Utilitarian Bioethics further yourselves if this outrages you too, and remember it in case it is brought into use by a government any time in the future.
In my novel True Monsters Detective Virginia Smythe has to call favours from her longstanding political ally Rob K. Oldsole, fictional Mayor of Victoria and supporting character.
His character can be defined as a “Good Sociopath”. To understand what I mean by that, let's examine the traits of a “normal” sociopath.
To a "high-functioning" sociopath, every single action he (or she) takes is mechanical. It's devoid (by and large) of emotions; of human feelings; of sincerity; of compassion. Everything has an angle; every action is carefully-calculated. They anticipate your moves; they plan five, ten, fifteen steps ahead. In their heads, when they look at the "chess board" of life, they "know" what their moves will be under all kinds of scenarios (in the board).
"Normal" people are highly-influenced by emotions, and feelings. If something bad happens, when they cry in angst, they really feel like crying. When they are worried, they look worried; when they are sad, they look sad. If someone hurts their feelings, they look hurt. When they express an opinion (most of the time), that's really what they believe. In other words, with "normal" people, what you see, is what you get. They are genuine.
To a "high-functioning" sociopath, "normal" people are chumps to be manipulated and taken advantage of.
They observe you; they analyze you; they find out what makes you tick. They find out what your believes are; they play on your emotions. If you are motivated by praise (as most of us are), then he praises you; he tells you how smart are; how good looking; how friendly.
And once he gains your trust, he manipulates you and uses you to get what he wants; to get ahead. He uses every tool at his disposal in every single step of the "game" of life, to get what he wants. When that tool is the ability to manipulate people is all he has, then that's what he uses. When that tool is raw power over you, then he'll use that.
Because of the nature of "power," "normal" people could never, ever, be in charge; rule the world; rule the top organization, and businesses, and society. The "high-functioning" sociopath will always be in charge, unless, of course, we are some how able to build an Utopian society.
I do think that there is a difference between these "leaders" that rule (everything.) And the difference is their motivation.
You have the sociopath that's motivated by pure greed and lust for power. Those are usually the tyrants that rise to the top to rule many societies. That would characterize much of the power structure in the U.S. today, where you have a sociopathic pack of hyenas (as it were) at the top of the power structure, in the form of criminal Wall Street bankers, and organizations like ALEC, etc. And the sycophantic, money-grabbing and corrupt political power structure (both major parties) that use their power to manipulate, subjugate, exploit, and now beat up peaceful protesters in the face (by the new "brown shirts" that are now the "white shirts" tools of the system).
And then, of course, there is (what I term) the "Good Sociopath."
The good sociopath interacts with "normal" people much in the same way that the "bad sociopath" does... There are no emotions involved; every move is calculative (20 steps ahead); he (or she) knows what to do (or how to react) given any particular situation.
However their motivation is different. They are not motivated by greed and lust of power. They are motivated by an altruistic world view. They understand the awesome power they have over others (by the fact that they have no emotions, by and large), and they seek to use that power to help bring about (what they believe is) a better world.
My take is that the "bad" high-functioning sociopaths outnumber the good ones, probably 10 to 1, and that's because since they are mainly motivated by unadulterated greed, you'll find most of them in the "business" side of things, versus government.
What I term as the the "Good Sociopath" usually becomes useful to societies in times of social strife and struggle against oppression.
The reason for that is because, being as much of a sociopath as the oppressors, he understands the mindset. He understands how they think. He anticipates their next moves, and prepares for it. Again, everything is mechanical, automated, devoid of real human emotions, and hence, extremely efficient and effective.
He understands where the "weak" spots are in the power structure; he accurately understands what power (or lack thereof) is available to him, and how to use it.
And the most important part of all, he would know the right moment when he has the power and influence to completely annihilate his opponent, and when that time comes, will do it without hesitation, and without compassion.
This is essentially the character of Oldsole. He is in a position of authority and uses his influence to manipulate people and events to bring about change or peace within his community. He is uncompromising and every word is a statement.
In the third novel of my True Monsters series, Mayor Oldsole will feature as the main protagonist.
The second novel is yet to be written for this series, but it will feature Dr. Adam Manikin and his character will be fleshed out in regards to utilitarian Bio-ethics.
Is murder immoral? This plays into my novel True Monsters quiet significantly. To a nihilistic philosophy all morality is subject to personal preference, while to others (numerous others) it is something outside of our own will. This is something that Overman (the murderer in my novel) addresses, and Detective Virginia Smythe wrestles with.
Murder is wrong and the Earth is round.
The difference between "the earth is round" and "ice cream is good" is one is a statement of fact, the other is a judgement. Statements of fact like "the earth is round" are more or less tautological (assuming they are true)- "roundness" is a feature of our concept of "earth." So if we ask "Why is the earth round?" the answer is "because it's the earth." That it is round is a given of it being the earth. However, saying "ice cream is good" is not subjective if you add the hypothetical "if we are talking about taste" and the qualifier "to me." "If we are talking about taste, ice cream is good to me" is an objective truth (unless I am lying)- who could argue with what I say I enjoy? But there is nothing in the concept of "ice cream" that makes it so. I must apply a subjective judgement to make this statement true.
Now look at it this way. We are discussing the nutritional benefits of certain foods, and I say "Ice cream is good to me." This is not an objective truth, because I am not making a judgement. "Unhealthy" is included in the concept of ice cream, so there is no judgement to be made. Here we add the hypothetical "if I want to be nutritious." The statement becomes "If I want to be nutritious, ice cream is not good for me." This is true because the feature "unhealthy" is included in the larger concept "ice cream."
As this applies to murder, there is a tautological objective truth. Murder is loosely defined as "an immoral killing." "Immoral" is a feature of the concept of "murder." So the answer to the question "Why is murder immoral?" is simply "Because it is murder." However, the question of "Is this specific killing immoral?" (i.e., is it murder) requires a possibly subjective judgement, which also requires a hypothetical. "If we are interested in maintaining society," is a possible hypothetical here. "If we are interested in maintaining society, then that specific killing is a murder" does require a subjective judgement, but comes very close to a sort of objective truth. It does leave us open to some grey areas (like capital punishment and abortion), but in my opinion it's as close as we can come to an objective statement on why killing is wrong (Outside of the concept of the sanctity of life, where we could go on endlessly on what life is more sanctified than another in terms of capital punishment and abortion).
We do demand a justification for the conclusion that the world is round, which is that when we look at, it is in fact round. Believing it to be round is not a justification. We don't demand more of moral judgements. In both instances, we want there to be some justification. We might say that murder is wrong because to allow murder would make society less happy than if we prohibited it. That would be an objective basis for concluding it.
Of course the issue is not quite so simple. We don't, in fact, determine that murder is wrong because we find that it fails under Utilitarian principles (or any theory for that matter). We first itemize what we intuitively know to be immoral, and then in hindsight we construct a theory that attempts to explain why those items are on our list. Should the theory place something on the list that we intuitively know should not be there (e.g. we should kill an innocent person to calm our irrational society), we then tinker with our theory or disregard it altogether. This means that our justification is really nothing more than an attempt at an explanation for our intuition.
Anyhow, this may be beside the point. The question remains whether the wrongness of murder says something about the world at large or whether it simply says something about particular humans and their disdain for murder. If I say that murder is right and you say it is wrong, are we disagreeing, or are we simply telling one another whether it is right or wrong to us (much like ice cream may be good to you, but not to me)?
Well, if we determine whether the world is round by looking at it, and that is adequate, don't we determine whether we or others feel murder is wrong in a similarly non-subjective manner, by "feeling" as we do and ascertaining what others think by asking them or observing their reactions and conduct? We don't as far as I know demand that, once we have looked at the world and have seen it is round, we further establish that the fact we have looked at it is sufficient justification for our claim that it is round. Nevertheless, we require justification for the claim that murder is wrong above and beyond the fact that we are horrified by it. Horror is not enough in the one case; looking is enough in the other. I would say the wrongness of murder does say something about "the world at large" because we humans are very much a part of the world, and what we are considering is human conduct. I understand of course there may be those who maintain that murder is just fine, and there are those who commit murder, but might this be accounted for by the fact that the data under consideration (humans) are complex, and the inferences or conclusions to be drawn are thus necessarily less precise than in other cases? Most humans deplore murder. Most worlds are round. Why should most humans deplore murder? Why should most worlds be round? It seems we insist on asking the first question, but not the second.
Evidently we treat our own desires and conduct as special cases. Do we do so because we continue to believe that we are somehow apart from everything else, not subject to the same rules governing other parts of the universe?
My conclusion is that ice cream makes morality very sticky.
It's Y2K Mark II and it looks like it's a fizzle. Or, this is what the afterlife looks like. Either way, we should still make the most of it.
If there is no Valhalla, Shangri-La, Elysium Fields, Heaven, etc. then this is the only life we have and we should make every moment count for something and for someone because our actions have very clear material consequences. If those places exist, then we should make every moment count for something and for someone because our actions have consequences even after our death.
I would like to say that I am afraid of death. I'm more afraid of the process that leads to death, the possible pain or the unknown moment of when I'm going to die. The concept of death itself doesn't bother me, and it is for the above reason; I either won't know I am dead, or I will know I am dead and be waiting for my loved ones while I enjoy what happens next.
Maybe I'm over-optimistic here, but I don't believe that Hell has any sway in where I am going. If Jesus did what was written of him, then Hell is empty. That means Hitler, Gays, Jews, Atheists, and everyone else that "Christians"* say are in Hell have been forgiven,.
St. Gregory of Nyssa believed that ultimately, all creatures will be reconciled to God. Unfortunately, that teaching didn't catch on.
The Eastern Orthodox generally hold that Orthodoxy is the true faith, and better conduces to union with God than any other religion or any other form of Christianity, but don't make any blanket statements about the fate of non-Christians or heterodox Christians. I remember my pastor once asking me if I had heard of these fundamentalists who "really think that people who don't believe as they do will go to hell." He thought it was an odd and somewhat amusing belief.
It is the opinion of Father George Papademetriou that "the non-Christian may be saved in spite the religion he practices, but only through the mercy of God." St. Theophan the Recluse, asked whether it was possible for the heterodox to be saved, answered, "Why do you worry about them? They have a Saviour Who desires the salvation of every human being. He will take care of them. You and I should not be burdened with such a concern. Study yourself and your own sins." Bishop Kallistos (Ware) wrote, "It is heretical to say that all must be saved, for this is to deny free will; but it is legitimate to hope that all may be saved."
In the Catholic Church, at least three of the last four popes have affirmed that it's possible for non-Christians to be saved. (I don't know about John Paul I.) The Catholic Catechism says:
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity. That seems to imply that people who are ignorant of Christianity have an advantage over people who have heard of Christianity but reject it, which reminds me of the story of the missionary and the Eskimo.
"If I didn't know about God," asked the Eskimo, "would I go to hell?"
"No," said the missionary, "not if you didn't know."
"Well then, why did you tell me?"
I don't know what Luther thought about it. Zwingli thought it was possible for non-Christians to be saved, and Calvin (predictably) did not. There is, however, a small group of Calvinist Baptists in the Appalachian region, the Primitive Baptist Universalists, popularly known as the "No-Hellers," who believe everyone will be saved. They believe that Christ died for the sins of all mankind, and so you will be saved whether you like it or not.
SO STOP WORRYING ABOUT ARMAGEDDON!
*Christians in this sense are those who speak of love, and enact hate. I believe in the true meaning of the word, which means Christlike.
I also know that at least 10-80 people look at my novel on Smashwords.
What am I doing that's not grabbing your attention? I need feedback. I want you to read and appreciate what I wrote, and I also want to generate income for my family.
Do I need more beta readers? More sample chapters? Harder hooks?
I wrote what I want to see in a novel, I wrote what made me throw books across rooms in other peoples works. I feel like I'm screaming into a void here.
Talk to me, people.
No matter how you think about it, pigs are a rather dirty animal. They are considered the scavengers of the farm (created to eliminate any waste on the farm), often eating anything they can find. This includes not only bugs, insects, and whatever leftover scraps they find laying around, but also their own feces, as well as the dead carcasses of sick animals, including their own young.
This in itself can explain why the meat of the pig can be so dirty or at the very least not so appetizing to consume. And while being ‘grossed out’ may or may not be a valid reason not to eat something it’s vital to understand a bit more about pork before reaching your own conclusion.
Pork 101: Know the Facts
Pork is one of the most consumed meats in the world. China is the largest producer of pigs that were first domesticated way back around 7500 B.C.
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that more than 100 viruses come to the United States each year from China through pigs. There are some obvious concerns about this. Aside from not needing more viruses to fight off, some of these viruses can prove to be downright dangerous to humans.
Of course, you’re probably familiar with H1N1, better known as ‘the swine flu.” This too is a virus that has made the leap from pig to human.
But H1N1 is not the only disease to fear from the pig. There are other sicknesses you can get from eating the meat of the pig.
Pork meat is loaded with toxins, more so than most other meats like beef and chicken.
Is Pork Meat Toxic?
There are reasons that the meat of the pig becomes more saturated with toxins than many of its counterpart farm animals. The first reason has to do with the digestive system of a pig.
A pig digests whatever it eats rather quickly, in up to about four hours. On the other hand a cow takes a good twenty-four hours to digest what it’s eaten. During the digestive process, animals (including humans) get rid of excess toxins as well as other components of the food eaten that could be dangerous to health.
Since the pig’s digestive system operates rather basically, many of these toxins remain in their system to be stored in their more than adequate fatty tissues ready for our consumption.
Another issue with the pig is that it doesn’t have any sweat glands. Sweat glands are a tool the body uses to be rid of toxins. This leaves more toxins in the pig’s body.
I don’t have to tell you that when you consume pork meat, you too are getting all these toxins that weren’t eliminated from the pig. None of us need more toxins in our systems. In fact we should all be doing what we can to eliminate and cut down on toxin exposure. One vital way to do this is by choosing what you eat carefully.
Trichinellosis, Pork Meat, and Your Health
Did you know that pigs carry a variety of parasites in their bodies and meat? Some of these parasites are difficult to kill even when cooking. This is the reason there are so many warnings out there about eating undercooked pork.
One of the biggest concerns with eating pork meat is trichinellosis or trichinosis. This is an infection that humans get from eating undercooked or uncooked pork that contains the larvae of the trichinella worm.
This worm parasite is very commonly found in pork. When the worm, most often living in cysts in the stomach, opens through stomach acids, its larvae are released into the body of the pig. These new worms make their homes in the muscles of the pig. Next stop? The unknowing human body who consumes this infected meat flesh.
And while no one particularly wants to consume worms, trichinellosis is a serious illness that you should do virtually anything to avoid.
Common Symptoms of Trichinellosis:
The CDC recommends thorough cooking of pork as well as freezing the pork meat prior to cooking to kill off any worms. I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel good about eating anything that I first have to kill off its worms to eat.
In fact, it’s been theorized that trichinellosis is the exact cause of Mozart’s rather sudden death at age 35. An American researcher theorized this after studying all the documents recording the days before, during, and after Mozart’s death. He found that Mozart suffered many of the above listed symptoms and he, himself, had recorded in his journal the consumption of pork just forty-four days before his own death.
(If you want to read more on this intriguing story you can find it in the Archives of Internal Medicine’s June 2001 issue.)
But that’s not all….
Pigs carry many viruses and parasites with them. Whether by coming in direct contact with them through farms or by eating their meat we put ourselves at higher risk of getting one of these painful, often debilitating diseases (not to mention put our bodies on toxic overload.)
Pigs are primary carriers of:
What you choose to eat is up to you. Myself, I choose to stay away from unclean pork (and shellfish.) The reasons discussed here are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to eating pigs and your health.
Do your own research, carefully consider what the Bible so many years ago warned us about, then make your own educated decision about what you choose to feed yourself and your loved ones.
Plus, can anyone tell me why Christian celebrate the death and resurrection of their Jewish god by eating a baked ham?
I thought atheists were supposed to be smart. Guess not. Here’s an ad American Atheists have paid $25,000.00 to put up in Times Square.
What’s hilarious about this ill-thought out campaign is that the atheists keep telling us they are only interested in evidence. They only want the facts ma’am. They’re thinkers. They’re rational. blah blah blah.
They’re opposed to “myths”. They don’t like make believe. They think it’s a form of child abuse to tell children stories about big sugar daddies in the sky who will give them everything they want. Religion is, they say, an infantile belief system to bring comfort to the frightened, weak minded babies. The atheists tell us they’re down on fairy tales. They don’t believe in magic sky fairies.
But they want to keep a magic elf who lives at the North Pole and flies through the sky with dancing reindeer? They want to keep the fat fairy man who comes down the chimney of every home in the world in one night while drinking Coca Cola? They want to keep jolly old St Nick who lays a finger beside his nose ’cause ’twas the night before Christmas? They don’t want a God who judges, but they want the old man in the red suit who keeps a list of who’s naughty and nice and checks it twice? They don’t like a God who makes his little children feel good, but they want the happy elf who has his bag full of goodies for all the good boys and girls? Do these atheists tell their children there is such a person as Santa Claus? Do they abuse their little ones with such obvious lies?
In the meantime they dub the crucified Jesus Christ a “myth”? In fact, of the two images, Jesus Christ crucified is just about as far from a myth as you could get. It’s about as mythical as a photograph of an Auschwitz corpse or one of those black and white photos of a lynched negro hanging from a tree. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is a bare, hard historical fact. The Romans crucified people. It wasn’t pretty. It happened to Jesus of Nazareth. No myth there.
The crazy and stupid thing about this campaign is that it is, well, so crazy and stupid. If they wanted to make their point they could have tried to picture the things about Christianity and Christmas that do seem more mythical and difficult to believe–like the shepherds and angels and wise men with a star or some such. They could also have chosen something more positive and humanistic about Christmas–something pleasantly pagan and mildly materialistic like two people kissing under mistletoe or people on a sleigh ride or some such nonsense.
Then again, maybe the ad is just what it should be and we should rejoice because anyone with half a brain who sees it and thinks things through will realize how vapid the atheists are who thought it up in the first place.
Here's a link to funny things:
There are so many people who believe that dolphins are intelligent.
I'm sorry, even tuna have figured out how to escape tuna nets. Humans have to design special nets to prevent the killing of dolphins.
Don't get me wrong. I haven't sat down and watched The Cove with a bucket of popcorn and a bottle of ketchup.
I think what happened to the Dodo was a terrible thing, and that bird is considered to be quiet stupid, so it's not an intelligence factor that makes me care one way or another about the extinction of a species.
What I do object to is the wholesale belief that dolphins are intelligent and BECAUSE of this need to be protected. If that's the only criteria then a lot of animals need to go extinct (many humans as well).
My issue lies with said humans. Dolphins are not intelligent. No matter what argument you make, the science just isn't there.
I know I'll hear claim about their advanced language that's so advanced that we haven't been able to figure it out. Much like most adults can't figure out what a toddler who is just learning how to speak says. That toddler must be speaking a very advanced dialect that we adults just can't wrap our heads around.
No doubt I will also hear about how dolphins help people drowning at sea. Those individuals will no doubt have neglected the fact that only survivors are able to tell what happened. How many people were pushed further out to sea or drowned by dolphins? We may never know because those people are "lost at sea". Maybe the dolphins that did help merely got turned around. This would be a sign of intelligence, however. Murder takes planning.
Then there is the rapist dolphin. If this is a sign of intelligence, then dolphins need to be incarcerated for sexual assault.
Wow. This article has really digressed from it's original point.
My point is: Dolphins are dimwits.
Why "Failed Daily"?
Because I fail to update daily.