Ladeer&Co.

(This article was originally posted on my personal blog here and promoted to this [more formal] blog on Oct 28, 2006 for Digg.com access.)

"Every revolution begins with the power of an idea and ends when the only idea left is power."

The TIME cover story on cnn.com sheds light to what has gone wrong within the GOP. It also makes me think whether we shall take a different approach toward corruption. Our traditional expectation of a corruption-free government is perhaps impossibly idealistic; such expectation only breeds coverups. Instead of zero-tolerance for corruption, why don't we manage corruption like how we manage the UV ray (by using sunscreen accordingly)? We shall just publicly admit our shortcoming and forgive one another; intervention is administered as need arise.

For example, if you are a congressman and a pedophile, go public about it! Keep your job as long as you don't serve on the missing children committee. If you once a while send a distasteful email, well, we will forgive you.

What I am saying is of course impossible to implement, so we will forever discover new scandals from respectful figures. What the Republican bothers me most though, is how they are so damn legalistic, or how this article puts it--their lofty moral ground. If you ain't a priest, don't try to act like one because you ain't fooling nobody! (Actually now days, even if you are a priest...) You see, I think the Democrats are more with the people, truer, less perfect and closer to the working class.

Actually this is like the two types of learner theory. To learn about alcoholism for example, some people prefer to learn from a MD who never drank (the authoritative model), while some people prefer to learn from an ex-alcoholist (the incarnational model). I gravitate toward the later kind, maybe because I recognize myself as the most wrestch person constantly. Maybe that is why certain "moral perfectionists" with their naive and sheltered pursuits simply disgust me.

Excerpt from the article:

"If I fold up my tent and leave," said Dennis Hastert (Speaker of the House, the head of the Gang of Eight), "then where does that leave us? If the Democrats sweep, then we'd have no ability to fight back and get our message out."

That may have been the most damning admission yet in the unfolding scandal surrounding Florida Congressman Mark Foley: Holding on to power has become not just the means but also the end for the onetime reformers who unseated the calcified Democratic majority that had ruled the House for 40 years.

Would you choose eternal happiness over eternal sadness?

http://www.xanga.com/jujubean45/538228989/item.html

Interestingly I thought of heaven in a very similar [yet scarily heretic] way.

When I was taught that Christians ought to long for the immediate reunion with Christ, I could not get myself to believe that I really would rather go to heaven at this very moment than [supposedly] continue the suffering on this unjust earth. In other words, Christians with the correct attitude of living should have so little hope left in this world that the instant arrival of the infinite joy in heaven is always preferred.

(So the teaching goes, if you live such a comfortable life that rendered you to think otherwise, you aren't living like a Christian, you aren't denying yourself enough.)

When I thought about this, honestly I was disappointed because 1. I don't have a such godly outlook and 2. I sincerely am not sure if I would really like to live like that.

Perhaps I am not a true Christian, because when I think of spending an *eternity* asexually, metaphysically and homogeneously worshiping God in unison (and supposedly that's what we all yearn for), wouldn't I miss the drama, the uncertainty, the pain, the ups-and-downs, the rise of heartbeats, the utterly stupidity in love, the colorfulness, of this very imperfect world?

After all isn't happiness a relative state of being? When all sadness is removed from our lives, how are we to feel? To me, this world is so beautiful. All the wars, death, disease and sufferings, aren't they things that follow glories? Pains associated with growing up are what make growing up memorable. Speaking of memories, will we bother to keep them if the only memory left is complete satisfaction? Aren't what break our hearts things that give us utmost joy and catalyze the creation of our finest arts? Doesn't Goethe capture our agony in love beautifully in Die Leiden des jungen Werthers?

Honestly when I though of this subject, I often questioned my faith. If I am a real Christian, why can't I figure it out? Why can't the eternal life, the very thing millions of Saints before me died looking forward to, be enough for me to deny this world? Why am I sheepishly indecisive if the [hypothetical] choice of ascension today comes before me? Is this a sign of a lack of true faith? I don't know, but if I cannot figure this out myself, I doubt others could. Then why am I specially given with this mental capacity unlike the rest of the people who could be easily satisfied with a naive and microscopic outlook? Can I pretend the nonexistence of it? No, because that is a coward and irresponsible philosopher. What we shall never let fear is the fear to think. When the fear to think the unorthodox gets the best of us is the moment the value of our faith dies.

Sigh, why were my eyes opened?