Reincarnation

Lord Krishna to Arjuna and Sanjaya: “Learned men do not grieve for the dead or the living. Never have I not existed, nor you, nor those kings; and never in the future shall we cease to exist. Just as the embodied self enters childhood, youth, and old age, so does it enter another body: this does not confound a steadfast man…. Nothing of nonbeing comes to be, nor does being cease to exist; the boundary between these two is seen by men who see reality. Indestructible is the presence that pervades all this; no one can destroy this unchanging reality. Our bodies are known to end, but the embodied self is enduring, indestructible, and immeasurable; therefore, Arjuna, fight the battle! He who thinks this self is a killer and he who thinks it killed, both fail to understand; it does not kill, nor is it killed…”

–Excerpt from “The Second Teaching” in the Bhagavad Gita: Krishna’s Counsel in Time of War

Excerpts from Confucius

1-4 Master Zeng said, “Each day I examine myself upon 3 points. In planning for others, have I been loyal? In company with friends, have I been trustworthy? And have I practiced what has been passed on to me?”

1-16 The Master said, “Do not be concerned that no one may recognize your merits. Be concerned that you may not recognize others.”

2-2 The Master said, “In the Book of Poetry are three hundred pieces, but the design of them all may be embraced in one sentence, ‘Having no depraved thoughts.'”

2-11 The Master said, “A person who can bring new warmth to the old while understanding the new is worthy to take as a teacher.”

2-15 The Master said, ” If you study but don’t reflect you’ll be lost. If you reflect but don’t study you’ll get into trouble.”

2-17 The Master said, “Shall I teach you about knowledge, You? To know when you know something, and to know when you don’t know, that’s knowledge.” (“You” is the personal name of the disciple Zilu.)

2-19 Duke Ai asked, “What should I do so that the people will obey?” Confucius replied, “Raise up the straight and set them above the crooked and the people will obey. Raise up the crooked and set them above the straight and the people will not obey.”

3-23 The Master instructed the Music Master of Lu, “The pattern of music is something we can understand. Music commences with unison, and then follows with harmony, each line clearly heard, moving in sequence towards the coda.”

4-3 The Master said, ” It is only the truly virtuous man, who can love, or who can hate, others.”

–The Analects of Confucius

Egyptian Ritual of Judgement

I have come unto you; I have committed not faults; I have not sinned; I have done no evil; I have accused no man falsely; therefore let nothing be done against me. I live in right and truth. That which men have bidden I have done, and the gods are satisfied there-at. I have pacified the god for I have done his will. I have given bread unto the hungry and water unto those who thirst, clothing unto the naked, and a boat unto the shipwrecked mariner. I have made holy offerings unto the gods; and I have given meals of the tomb to the sainted dead. O, then, deliver ye me, and protect me; accuse me not before the great god. I ma pure of mouth, and I am pure of hands…

I offer up prayers in the presence of the gods, knowing that which concerneth them. I have come forward to make a declaration of right and truth, and to place the balance upon its supports within the groves of amaranth. Hail, thou who art exalted upon thy resting place, thou lord of the atef crown, who declarest thy name as the lord of the winds, deliver thou me from thine angels of destruction, who make dire deeds to happen and calamities to arise, and who have no covering upon their faces, because I have done right and truth, O thou Lord of right and truth. I am pure, in my foreparts I have been made clean, and in my hinder parts  have I been purified, my reins have been bathed in the Pool of right and truth, and no member of my body was wanting. I have been purified in the pool of the south…

–from The Book of the Dead

Interesting Nutrition Fact

Switched study subjects today. I get to work on my nutrition class. I have a couple chapters to read before Wednesday, and I have to make food diary and a couple other weird projects. Cool stuff to post later. Anyways, I was reading in the textbook and found out an interesting nutrition fact I had never known.

“”Good cholesterol” is not a type of cholesterol found in foods, but it refers to the way the body transports cholesterol in the blood….. Sterols [compounds containing a four ring carbon structure with any of a variety of side chains attached] other than cholesterol are naturally found in all plants. Being structurally similar to cholesterol, these plant sterols interfere with cholesterol absorption, thus lowering blood cholesterol levels.”

— Understanding Nutrition, 11th Ed., pg. 146; Ellie Whitney and Sharon Rady Rolfes

Obscenity and the Law

It’s interesting to see how they decide what can be censored and what can’t. I think that the government goes overboard on somethings, but they’re not really things that affect me so I’m not that concerned.

“Obscene materials of all kinds– words, publication, photos, videotapes, films– are not protected by the 1st Amendment. Most states ban the publication, sale or possession of obscene material, and Congress bans its shipment in the mails. Because obscene material is not protected by the 1st Amendment, it can be banned without even an attempt to prove that it results in antisocial conduct… It is not necessary to show that obscene material would result in a clear and present danger to society, the test used to decide the legitimacy of speech. In order to ban obscene materials the government need only prove that they are obscene.”

“Defining “obscenity” has confounded legislatures and the courts for years, however….. After many fruitless efforts by the Supreme Court to come up with a workable definition of  “pornography” or “obscenity,” a frustrated Justice Potter Stewart wrote the now-famous quote in 1974, “I shall not today attempt further to define [hard-core pornography]…. But I know it when I see it.””

Politics in America, 8th Ed. pg. 508; Thomas R. Dye and Bartholomew H. Sparrow

Isn’t that a great quote at the end? You can’t put a description on it so basically she’s just gonna use her best opinion. I reallt think the Supreme Court is supposed to put more specific and define meanings into things or we as the public won’t know what to do.

” The Court’s first comprehensive effort to define “obscenity” came in Roth v. United States (1957)…. it [the Court] defined “obscenity” somewhat narrowly: ” Whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests.“

For some explanation because, sadly, I will admit I had to look it up to make sure of the definition, prurient means having or causing lust or desires. That’s the summarized definition. So basically obscenity only has to do with sexual things by this definition.

“Note that the material must be obscene to the average person, not to children or particular groups of adults who might be especially offended by pornography. The standard is “contemporary,” suggesting that what was once regarded as obscene might be acceptable today. Later, the community standard was clarified to mean the “society at large,” not a particular state or local community. The material must be “considered as a whole” meaning that even if a work includes some obscene material, it is still acceptable if its “dominant theme” is something other than “prurient” (There’s that stupid word again.) The Court added that a work must be “utterly without redeeming social or literary merit” in order to be judged obscene. The Court never really said what a “prurient” interest was but reassured everyone that “sex and obscenity are not synonymous.”

This time they at least began to give it a definition, but it’s still vague and subject to broad interpretation. Broad interpretation is never really good in law.

“The effect of the Roth decision, and the many and varied attempts by lower courts to apply its slippery standards, tended to limit law enforcement efforts to combat pornography during the 1960’s and 70’s…… So the Supreme Court tried again, in Miller v. California (1973) to give law enforcement officials some clearer standards in determining obscenity. Although the court retained the “average person” and “contemporary” standards, it redefined “community” to mean the local community rather than the society at large…. It rejected the earlier requirement that the work had to be “utterly without redeeming social value” in order to be judged obscene, and it substituted instead “lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

This is a better attempt, but it just goes to show you really cannot define obscenity. What is obscene to one person, may be perfectly fine to another. The court really has no right to limit expression of any kind.

Textbook Excerpt: Gay Marriage

So I’m doing a cram study night for my American Federal Government test tomorrow, and I’m reading the chapter on politics and personal liberty. I think I may have several different excerpts from this chapter to post tonight. After reading this section on gay marriage, I ahve to say a huge chunk of the human race appalls me.

“The Supreme Court has not yet spoken out on gay marriage — marriages between persons of the same sex. Several state courts, including the Supreme Court of Massechusetts, have held that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment entitles gay couple to marry, that to deny them marriage rights while recognizing heterosexual marriages amounts to discrimintation. The issue is complicated by the constitutional provision that requires all states to give “Full Faith and Credit” to judicial proceedings of other states. This provision implies that gay marriages in any state must be recognized in all states. Congress passed a Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 declaring that no state need recognize a gay marriage. But Congress failed to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay sex marriage,”

Politics in America, 8th Ed., pg. 506;  Thomas R. Dye and Bartholomew H. Sparrow

This just absolutely disgusts me. I don’t understand why the Supreme Court won’t step in and make the obvious decision. There is no constitutional right to deny gay couples marriage. I have gay friends and family and they are just as good of people as any one else. Hell, better than most people and I fully think they deserve every single one of the same rights that heterosexuals do. Not a single activist can give a logical reason why it shouldn’t be allowed. All the reasons are emotional or religious, with no basis in anything real or important. It is forcing some citizens opinions on everyone and no one wants that done to them. People are so damn close-minded

I don’t really think this

I don’t really think this is cool for my government class to make me read 9 ch. in one week. That’s just insane!

Anatomy

I am really not liking this chapter in my nutrition class. All about the actual workings of the digestive system and I ma sick to death of reading the word anus, sphincter, and rectum. Really, not enjoying it.