CHARLES NG IS STILL ALIVE
I just watched american justice and they had the serial killer Charles Ng on. In the end, he is in a california prison feeling okay sometimes, enjoying food and sex or some sort or another.... while his victims exist now only in sad memories.
I think of China, where all the legal rangling that kept ng first in canada for twelve years, and now with the other 200 some killers on California's death row, would have been mute. This fuck isn't worth the cost of a bullet.
What is going on with those prisoners' in san quinten anyways, don't they have some kind of code of ethics that involves killing Ng's.
I am writing a book now with some characters who kill, and I thought a lot about what makes a killer, did all the usual research into the childhood signs and all.... read too many gruesome books and watched City Confidential and American Justice enough time to almost alwayts know which case Law and Order is basing their latest episode on. But I never could get to somewhere inside myself that could relate to a certain type of killing, the senseless rape shit.... and I guess I think it comes down to a lack of emphatic abilities (is not conscious of other people's feelings; this is the first thing they work on when trying to rehabilitate gangbangers, by the way). But, it is a mix of genes and environment and brain damage and.... there is no easy answer, obviously, and this is not a site about taking them.....
I like to look at issues from all sides. Stand Point theory is one way of doing it. Standpoint looks at events from the view of the peasents and the losers as well as the winners and the writers. I learned about this stuff ina philosophy class with Dr. sarah hoagland. I could listen to her talk for a year or so. She ithe wittgenstein scholar I mentioned before. She is also a bit too much of a conspiracy theorist for me, and at least sometimes believes in Feminist Seperatism, which basically means that the women have nothing to do with us men. Oh, welll..... I too hate a lot of me.
For awhile, after being molested as a teenager, I suspected the motives of any man I met, and totallyt preferred being with women. I am handsome, so it was easy for me to always have at least one girlfreiind. In my twenties, when I was seeing a female therapist, she finally made me confront this and sent me to a big burly therapist, Mac, who went to men's groups and otherr things that strike me as silly (I have a policy against letting men piss on me; or spit, which is part of at least one of those things).
There is something Nietchien (spelling?) about the men's groups. Like the great blue eyed blond haired pure animalistic man that Nietsche, unwittingly, lead the Nazi's to adapt and warp into their own little religion.
Nietsche declared that god is dead, according to time magazine. Yeats, whose quote is in here, is another of those intellectuals who lived at a time when everyone was desperatly looking for something to replace religion as teh glue of society. They took different paths. Nietsche is more respected, because Yeats became a bit of a mystic. I hate mysticism, religion, and all forms of thought diseases. All of them are many things, but one thing they share in common is that they obscure the truth, hide it behind a veil of words that produce the sensation of 'belief.' in humans. Belief is just a state of mind, not an arbitrator of what is real and what isn't.
Like wittgenstein says, the context of a word determines its meaning more than any fact associated with the word. Like when we say something like justice, which means something different to everyone to such a degree that we spend zillions on our court systems, it means something different in an american court than in a CHinese court. In China, Ng would have been shot right off the bat. We would not have spent 14 million dollars trying him. And that would be justice, but here we have agreed to define the word differently.
I am not saying either is really right (I know the secret police and all the innocents shot that go along without having the rule of law and the thin blue line and all that). I am just saying that agreement is more important in language usage than facts. If you agree there is a god, and whoever you are talking to decides to play a language game where the rule is that there is a god, than in your conversation there is a god. But that doesn't mean that your conversation is tied to any facts in the world, and thus, basically rhetoric.
This is why people can convert to other religions at the drop of a hat sometimes -- all of the changes are made purely in the made up world of words.
Well, if anyone out there reads this and wants to teach me more about any philosopher or anything, I am a student for life.