Dueling Epiphanies

Dueling Epiphanies

Dancing as hours of darkness descend,
Washing reputations while shopping at Tiffany’s.
Wallowing in moonlights’ tumultuous mend,
Bring forth Hollywood’s ass as their god decrees.

Scarecrows are scarecrowed, sitting like new amputee,
Bourgeoisie to bourgeoisie.
Brittle sparrows eating seed for free,
My name is 'unknown', yet thou surely knoweth me.

Toe dipping in the water of mystery,
Is it warm or cold, oh, goat with ancient goatee?
The compasses you burned, once spinning like a wind tree,
But wishes against wishes, God listens to ME, no, ME.

Like an Africanized Bee,
You’re such a terribly sensitive pea.
Disagree guarantee referee,
A short step away for a political detainee.

Space is so cold, fill it with whatever you see,
But why live alone between sands like a beach flea?
So look back far as your eye can see,
What see you looking back at you, but genie…
ology.

Sympathetic imagination draws ecstasy in esprit,
Between orgasmic epiphanies.
Groaning in anticipation, aching to be free,
The mystery of history and human reality.

G-Zeus, Budd-Ha, MohamMAD-dee
Joseph Smith, Pericles, or just Nietzsche.
Whoever hears, whoever cares, is simply real-el peachy,
I’d sing this poem to you, were my voice not so screechy.

My first rap song, I dunno.
Written April 6th, 2003 ©

The behavior of walking into a garage doesn't make one a car. Going to church doesn't make someone a Christian. Our culture is moving away from INTENT to CONSEQUENCE, and individual freedoms are threatened as a result.

An accident is an accident, not a crime. This dangerous erosion of liberty is so fundamental that I'm wondering how people got tricked in believing this nonsense (beliefs are silly, only behavior matters). Ideas, views, or opinions lead to behavior. Behavior without intent is meaningless.

Like it or not, a mistaken 'belief in consent' means that a person lacked intent. At least with crimes, 'criminal intent' is the legal protection ensuring you won’t be sent to prison for accidental crimes. The act is not culpable unless the mind (intent) is guilty. If you don't KNOW (guilty mind) that you are speeding, it is harder to get a conviction. Do you believe you were speeding? Do you know why you were pulled over?

Belief and knowledge are close cousins at worst. But on a more basic but essential level, when someone does something without intent, it's hard to reward their 'behavior.'

When someone's heart is full of love, and it's so palpable, how could a person not know it? Sensitive people FEEL the energy of good-hearted people or mean people, for that matter.

Have people shut their hearts off completely through cynicism, skepticism, or some other negative state of consciousness arising from abuse or injury? Who knows.

Political Landscapes and the Psychology of American Debate

Wouldn't it be interesting to be a little birdie overhearing private meetings where 'the powers that be in the media' decide which candidates will be heard in televised debates?  There is probably an unspoken agreement that only Democrats and Republicans will be considered on the national front, and even then, which ones will be heard?  If there are about twenty-five Democratic contenders who threw their hats into the ring, why were less than half of them heard in recent so-called debates?  No wonder so few people vote.  Not voting is voting, but no one hears the real reason as to why this is true. 

There's been a political power disconnect from the people for a long time; voter alienation is a direct consequence of hearing only the voices deemed controllable.  The national fuse-box is overloaded and will eventually flip the fuse breaker, but that's OK.  The electric meter will be turned back on, and taxpayers will pick up the bill whether they like it or not.  No one is sending out questionnaires to 'the people' as to where they want tax dollars to go.  That duck don't quack.   Mock Duck "taxpayer-representation" has been a point of cynicism among the none-voting public for a long time.  Seems like there was a little revolution that happened over this once upon a time.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is an abdication of personal responsibility.  One of the problems with democrassy (I spelled it right) is that it grows mediocrity.  The average opinion has merit only in terms of the freedom of individual voices.  What good are personal freedoms when they don't have a platform?  We might have a free press, but we are not free of the press. 

Mass Media corporations run for enterprise and profit first and foremost. Freedom is like an adjunct professor requiring 'suits with cameras' outside of their classroom to scare people away from the classroom (and protect he or she from extremist predators) all for financial gain. 

Maybe freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.  Sing it, Janice.