Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Senator McCain,

Before I get started I want to inform you that I too was a volunteer combat veteran of the Vietnam war. I joined because I thought the United States was worth defending. I have since been deeply disappointed in discovering that the Vietnamese presented no threat to the United States and discovering that we were in no way interested in allowing the Vietnamese to determine their own destiny as a nation. I had hope that one thing would come from that criminal endeavor that we as a nation would not repeat that mistake again. Then came the present war and the again criminal behavior of the government I was once sworn to defend. I’m angry about these things and I’m not sure if you can figure out why. I’m only telling you these things because the tone of this letter will perhaps show you a bit of disrespect in spite of your high office.

I’m not a constituent of yours, but I once admired you as a conservative. There was a time when I would have voted for you for President, and I suppose even now that you would have made a better one then the fool we have now. I’m just a little bit miffed that I fell for your PR. I suppose that I should be grateful that events since 2000 have revealed you as a neo-con butt licker rather than a standup Republican maverick. At least I’ll know not to vote for you should you get a nomination. Ordinarily I wouldn’t bother to tell you this, since you won’t pay attention a backwoods hick like myself anyway. However, a couple of recent things have gotten me stirred up a bit more than usual, and therefore I’m writing so as to get it out of my head for a better nights sleep.

During the hearing of Robert Gates you asked the Doctor, “What do we say to the families of those young people who died in the first and second battle of Fallujah when we abandon it to terrorist organizations again?” To me this question reveals the intense dishonesty of this government, dishonesty in which you yourself have participated in. The proper answer is these young people died over the criminal lies, arrogance and stupidity of the present administration aided and abetted by an congress full of ass kissing Republicans and cowardly Democrats. I don’t really expect you to tell the truth of the matter, but I just wanted you to know that at least one old soldier sees though the façade of caring for the troops that your question implies. If you did care you would be leading the effort to bring Bush and Company before Senate to be tried for their high crimes and misdemeanors to be removed from office and sent before ICC for their war crimes. Maybe you could tell the families of these dead and of the maimed that you will seek justice for them not to mention justice for the Iraqis themselves. Nothing less than this can any longer be construed as “support for the troops” at least by this troop.

The next matter concerns your drafting of the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act". I don’t know if Senators really believe their own BS or not. I suspect not, but in case you do, I wish to inform you that you are only fooling yourself with this latest bit of bogus concern for children. If you were concerned with the health and safety of children you would be drafting a bill providing all of them with health care as children in any other civilized nation and even Cuba have. This bill is just another smoke screen designed to win a few family values hearts, while getting another angle on shushing the internet to protect government’s and politician’s shameful secrets. I just want you to know that quite a few Americans see through your smoke – not that you care.

Because I pretty sure you won’t bother to respond I’m going to make this an open letter. At least that will get some response even if only hate mail from the 30% of Americans that still don’t get it.

Well here’s hoping that Diebold is unable to win your next election for you.

Sunday, March 26, 2006


The whole idea that we can consciously manage the environment in some sustainable fashion is ludicrous in the first place. Our intellect and the resulting science -- as much as we admire them -- are not up to the task.

Both intellect and science act on the principle of ignorance, i.e. both accomplish what they accomplish by ignoring most, or as much of the noise as possible. Take for example the idea of sustainable fish farming. A woodland pond formed by a family of beaver is already a sustainable fish farm. However, that is not acceptable to our collective intellect in part because our intellect cannot handle all the variables of a woodland pond, and in part because we are sure that our intellects are somehow supposed to be in charge. So we reduce all the variables possible and end up with a polluting monoculture trout pond. In the end we get more trout for gallon of water in the short run instead of unlimited trout over the long run. The former requires a great deal of human energy and fossil energy to operate. The latter works on solar power and needs no human input, except for holding a pole with string, hook, and worm attached. The trout pond will cease to produce trout almost as soon as it is neglected by humans. The woodland pond will continue to produce trout whether any humans participate or not. Mother Culture tells us that the trout pond is better than the woodland pond. Mother Culture does not like Mother Nature. Though clearly Mother Nature is more skilled at raising fish than is Mother Culture, we Takers side with Mother Culture. This means that the secret to raising fish sustainably resides in the noise that our intellect cannot handle.

Some 10,000 years ago a small culture in Mesopotamia discovered that if people worked hard to eliminate the noise of the environment they could force the land to make more human food than the land did when left alone. Unfortunately, within a generation or two the population of humans grew to match the capacity of the land to produce and the land itself started to decline in its forced food capacity. Fortunately some bright young Turk noticed that they now had a surplus of people that could be used to take more land away from the tribe next door. He told the tribe that if they let him be in charge of food distribution so that he could support an army of non-workers he could get them some more land and they could have more food. In exchange the people only had to sacrifice some of their extra food and some of their extra boys. Voila, a King was born soon to be supported by a Priest, and an Overseer. 10,000 years later give or take that culture found itself on the shores of what they would call North America with the Manifest Destiny to quite the noise of Mother Nature's food production in favor of the quiet of Mother Culture’s food production, which by this time everyone knew that God preferred -- except of course for those heathen Indians that tried to live (shudder) sustainably in the bosom of Mother Nature. We couldn't be having that, and now we don't. But there is the rub. For all practical purposes there is no more land to take.

The Enviro Nazis and the Just Get it All Now Nazis are competing groups of Takers. The Enviro Nazis might slow the pace of noise reduction, but they will not be able to stop it, because they are still living in the bosom of Mother Culture who tells them over and over that they can just think their way out of this trouble. The Just Get it All Now Nazis are told by Mother Culture that Jesus will come back soon and give them a new heaven and earth to quite down.

The odd thing is that we already know what is sustainable and know that it doesn't require any human effort to sustain. We just won't let it happen. Mother Culture tells us that every human that could be born and mature should be born and mature no matter how miserable the ensuing life might be. Mother Nature tells us that not all babies get to grow up, because life is sustained by life. However, Mother Culture tells us that the only life that has a right to exist is us, our food, and the food of our food. All the rest is noise. No one likes to disobey their Mother.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Who whould have guessed?

You are a

Social Liberal
(80% permissive)

and an...

Economic Liberal
(10% permissive)

You are best described as a:


Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Embodied Morals

Do not say, “this is a stone and not God.” God forbid! Rather all existence is God, and the stone is a thing pervaded by divinity. (The Kabbalah)


Evolution as the source of the body is the source of morality, but not in the way commonly perceived.  Evolution itself is amoral that is it doesn’t choose its path in a moral fashion.  This is important to recognize because it is a natural thing for humans to judge everything in a moral way.  To say that evolution is about the survival of the fittest is correct on one level.  However, it is not correct on a moral level.  The human tendency is to pick up on the moral metaphor of being fit and then suppose that evolutionary process is about being better, the winner, superior, more advanced, finer, and/or etc.  This is the major mistake of social Darwinism.  It is also the mistake of those that say that Evolution cannot be the source of morals.

Evolution is the source of moral behavior, but not in a directional on purpose manner.  Evolution is not the source of morals in the sense that Frank Lloyd Wright was the source of Falling Water.  It is only the source in the sense that the process produced social animals.  The process in no way had to produce social animals in general or humans in particular.  That means the process in no way had to produce moral behavior.

One objection that the religionist will raise is that the greater cannot arise from the lesser. This in itself is a moral judgment:  Being moral is better than being amoral.  This is true, but only for a social being.  For the universe as a whole morality is unnecessary.

Only a moral being can be immoral.  An amoral being or process cannot be either moral or immoral.

It is difficult (maybe impossible) for a human to move its mind outside of its moral parameters.  Because of this moral judgment on a process is a default mental operation in a human, religionist or not.  For the most part moral judgment operates in the unconscious mind like most of what we do.  

(The outline of the following is from Lakoff and Johnson’s Philosophy in the Flesh starting on page 555.)

“A human is a body” is closer to what is real than “a human has a body.”

Embodied Reason

Conception is grounded in a physical body.  That is human conceptual systems must use the physical senses acquire information that is consequentially shaped by the way the senses operate and the way they are placed in the world.  If for example we could see nearly 360 degrees of the world like a horse does, then our concept of the world would be different, because our visual metaphors would be different.

Conceptualization can only take place through the body.  Humans have no contact with what is outside of their selves except through their physical systems of contact and interpretation. Therefore concepts are framed and shaped by the physical construction of the human body.

Embodied Reason makes use of basic concepts shaped by the functions of the senses and the functions of motor skills as the body learns to move and actually does move in its environment.  This is the mode in which humans have the most contact with what is real.

Sensual and motor information inform rational inferences.  For example we assume that which is best is upright, because we feel best and physically function best in an upright position. If we happened to be rational worms, horizontal metaphors would perhaps predominate instead of vertical metaphors in describing the good.

Since our concepts of the world are inferred from our largely unconscious physical contact and interaction with what is out there truth and knowledge are embodied.

Because what we know of the physical universe comes from the physical nature of our bodies, the mind cannot be elsewhere then the body.  The mind cannot be independent of the body, just as is shown by modern cognitive science. This does not mean that there is no mind, only that there is mind only with a sufficiently functioning body.
Metaphoric Reason

Human reason is grounded in primary metaphor like: Affection is warmth, “she gave me a chilly greeting.”  Important is big, “Howard is Mr. Big now.” Happy is up. “I feel on top of the world today.” Intimacy is closeness. “Sally and I are beginning to drift apart.”  Bad is stinky.  “This deal doesn’t smell right.”  Difficulties are burdens, “Jeff was given a crushing amount of paper work in hopes he would quit.” More is up, “That screaming is over the top.”  Categories are containers, “Blue is in the electromagnetic spectrum.” Similarity is closeness. “That isn’t the right part, but it is near enough to work.”  Linear scales are paths. “Sue’s understanding of our network has gone beyond John’s.” Organization is physical structure, “How does the substance of your argument fit our model?” Help is support, “support the troops.” Time is motion. “Time in prison drags by.” States are locations, “Go to your happy place more often.”  Change is motion, “I’m heading towards the poor house.”  Personal actions are self-propelled motion, “I think I can swing the new mortgage.”  --- and so on. (see Lakoff and Johnson pp.50-54)

All of these metaphors can be shown to originate in physical being. Two examples from Lakoff and Johnson:

Causes are physical forces
Subjective Judgment: achieving a results
Sensorimotor Domain: Exertion of force
Example: “They pushed the bill through congress.”
Primary Experience: Achieving results by exerting forces with one’s physical body on physical objects to move or change them.

Control is up
Subjective Judgment: Being in control
Sensorimotor Domain: Vertical orientation
Example: “Don’t worry; I’m on top of the situation.”
Primary Experience: Finding that it is easier to control another person or exert force on an object from above, where you have gravity working with you.

The human is able to project these base physically derived metaphors beyond basic level experiences into more abstract areas of life: science, philosophy, religion and so on.  Nevertheless the abstract understanding is always grounded in the mundane.

Because this embodied conceptual system is dependant on the subjective experience of individuals and on a range of biological differences in sensorimotor construction between individuals no exact agreement on the description of reality between individuals is possible.  The differences in perception will increase as the experience of individuals diverge, however it will diverge only within certain parameters set by the similarities of physical construction of being members of the same species.

For this reason there will be no universal rational morality that humans can make for themselves.  In addition for the same reasons no externally provided morality will bring uniform behavior between individuals or peoples that would have to relate to that externally provided morality with differing embodied constructs.  Neither objectivists nor religionists will be able to supply the “one right way to live.”  No objective morality is possible because people are always subjects.

Limited Freedom
Most of human thought takes place below the level of consciousness.  Typing this paper is an example for me.  I am consciously aware of the words I want to write while my finger/brain motor system takes care of finding the right letters without any conscious thought needed for the actual typing process.  In addition the words I want to write are only appearing to my conscious attention a few at a time giving the impression that they are streaming out of nowhere – or elsewhere, when what is happening is that the words are being delivered to the conscious attention by the subconscious.

Consciousness is not capable of managing the whole of this task.  If I try to pay attention to where my fingers are going the words I want to write come to me at a much slower pace, and my typing slows down to almost hunt and peck speed. If I try to attend to too many things the whole process will collapse.

The neural construct of my brain is relatively set by past experiences and practices.  I can change it to some degree with new experience and practices by using conscious deliberate acts until the new thing is programmed into my unconscious.  But I cannot make sweeping changes merely by consciously thinking I will.  For example: I cannot become an Arabic speaking Arab thinking Muslim by deciding consciously, “I will now be an Arabic speaking Arab thinking Muslim.”  My free will is limited by how my past experience has shaped me and my present physical limitations including brain/mental functions.  I can decide that I will read the Koran if my copy is in English.  If it is in Arabic then my will to read the Koran must wait on my learning Arabic.  No matter how much will I may exert I will never read the Koran as one that was shaped by Muslim Arab culture.

For these reason we don’t have much conscious control of thought processes and subsequent behaviors as we would like to think.  My will is embodied and therefore will not transcend the constraints of my body.

This constrains what people know as spiritual experience to the body.  Spirituality is real but it takes place in the physical world via physical processes.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

Who Has the Best Plan of Salvation: Ezekiel or Paul?

Sunday, an excellent day on which to consider salvation.  I’m going to assume here that the reader and I both pretty much agree on what the plan of salvation is according to Paul. I’m thinking of the one coming from the likes of those great bible scholars, Billy Sunday, Billy Graham, and Jack Chick:  1. Admit that you are a sinner because we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of god.  2. Be willing to turn from sin because in times past God winked at ignorance, but now commands all men everywhere to repent. 3. Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried, and rose from the dead so that if you confess with you mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.  4.  Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal Savior, because anyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Some churches, which are bit closer in thought with the “whore of Babylon” like the Lutheran, Episcopal, Church of Christ will add 5. Be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for he that believes and is baptized will be saved.  I only add this because you, dear reader, may be from such a church.  Much to the annoyance of my old Church of Christ, Paul didn’t put as much emphasis on baptism as could be hoped for.  The short coming is troublesome because Church of Christ theologists interpret Christ, Peter, John, James, and the OT via Paul like most Christians do.

The salient points of Paul’s salvation thinking are: 1. A person is a worthless pile of crap which naturally God wouldn’t want on his living room carpet. 2. Once a pile of crap, always a pile of crap unless, 3. Someone not a worthless pile of crap has his nose rubbed in it, and 4. I, a self acknowledged worthless pile of crap, believe that this someone did have his nose rubbed in it, then 5. I’m no longer a pile of crap.  So, as long as I can hold this picture in my mind as a logical and loving certainty and necessity I get to live for ever.  

I put the above paragraph in such rude terms on purpose in order that you may more easily see that Ezekiel’s plan of salvation, supported by Matthew’s Jesus, allows one to maintain human dignity and still have a relationship with God.

[A quick note on context: Just because the writings found in the Christian Bible were arbitrarily chosen and pasted together by the early Roman Church does not mean that they are in actual context with one another.  That means that Paul and Ezekiel do actually disagree with one another, and that there is no contextual reason to suppose Paul superior to Ezekiel in understanding God.]

Dear Reader, Ezekiel’s plan of salvation is not well known so you may want to refresh you memory of it by reading through it a couple of times.  Ezekiel 18

Ezekiel writes that what he has to say came right from Yahweh.  Since Zeke made the bible compiling cut, religious folks have to give him some authority.  Paul is somewhat less assertive about the source of his musings.  Paul got his information from the Christ, rather then directly from the head God.  Since Paul also made the cut, how should one judge between them?  As an outsider, I would say go with the guy that reported to the head man especially since he is supported by at least one version of the Son of God and Son Inc.  – More on that later.

You will notice from the beginning God’s description of a righteous man is given.  The righteous man does not eat at mountain shrines, does not look at idols, does not mess with his neighbor’s wife, does not have sex with menstruating women, does not oppress anyone, does not rob, does not take interest on loans (the American Standard is a poor translation here as are most modern translations that dare not speak against capitalism), and in general does not do wrong. A righteous man does return collateral for a loan.  A righteous man does feed the hungry.  A righteous man does cloth the naked. A righteous man judges fairly between man and man.  A righteous man does keep God’s laws.  

Since God can describe a righteous man, one might be given to ponder the possibility that there could be such people born of Eve.  At this point the average Christian will be tempted to guess that God is describing Christ.  However, that is not clear.  “The righteous man will live,” says Ezekiel, but we know that, according to Paul, the righteous Christ must die.  In addition we find that God is disputing Israel’s belief that they, or anyone, dies for someone else’s sin. (Vs. 3&4)  One might even get the crazy idea that Yahweh doesn’t have much sympathy for St. Augustine’s idea of original sin either. Vs.20 “… the son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.”

And then Yahweh says, “The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him,” [!!]  Ezekiel’s Yahweh doesn’t support the idea that your righteousness is useless being only filthy rags.

It is about here that the Pauline apologist will be tempted to claim that the life and death being spoken of is temporal.  However, there is little evidence that temporal authorities ever put men to death for oppressing the powerless, the poor, the widow, or the orphan.  There is little evidence of men being put to death for charging interest on loans except by medieval kings and lords that didn’t want to make good on their debt.   There is even less evidence of people being put to death by temporal authorities for not being charitable.  Indeed these are the sorts of behavior that often lead to wealth and power. Vs.21 puts an end to the idea that Ezekiel’s Yahweh is talking about temporal life and death.  It is impossible for a dead wicked guy to turn his life around by acting righteously.

Not only does the wicked man save himself by repenting and practicing righteousness, but he gets his sins forgiven and taken off the books: vs.22 “none of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.”  This is repeated with more power in vs. 28: “Because [the wicked man] considers all the offenses [the wicked man] has committed and turns away from them, [the wicked man] will surely live; [the wicked man] will not die.
And it is re-emphasized again in vs.30: “Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.”

Warning, Jack Chick wannabes might want to skip over this next bit of vs. 22.  Ezekiel’s Yahweh says “Because of the righteous things he [that’s the wicked man] has done, he [that’s the wicked man] will live.  Hmmm!  According to Paul this can’t happen.  Vs. 24 is a spoiler for those readers who might be of the “once saved, always saved” stripe.  If you are invested in that belief you may want to skip vs.24.

What does this mean if Ezekiel is writing the Word of Yahweh?  Well of course it means that you don’t need a savior.  It means that you can be righteous in the sight of Yahweh by your own efforts to be righteous.  To say otherwise makes Ezekiel’s Yahweh out to be flip flopper at best and a liar at worst.  However, I think that the notion that Yahweh is the same yesterday, today, and always kind of does away with the possibility of Yahweh being a flip flopper.  So either Yahweh is a liar or Paul is.  As an atheist I would say that the problem is just another illustration that shows that religion is what ever the latest James Dobson type says it is.  However, if I were still religious I would lean towards Ezekiel, because doing so solves a number of problems.

The most serious problem it solves is that of being condemned for something you have no control over.  The Pauline idea of condemnation is rather like condemning a dog for not being able to fly.  “Not fair,” I’d say.  But old Zeke said, “don’t whine about not fair!  Of course it’s fair.  You do what you’re told and you’re in.  And, even though you are a measly human, you can do what you are told.”  I like that if only because it prevents Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and their ilk from getting into heaven at the last second via a quick sinner’s prayer.

Since I’m still an admirer of Jesus as a good teacher, sorry Clive, I’m amused and gratified to know that at least one version of him agrees with old Zeke.  Matthew 25: 31-46.

Upon close reading now that you are familiar with Ezekiel 18 you will notice how much Jesus’ picture of the “last judgment” echoes Zeke. To me what is more telling is what Jesus doesn’t mention as being important when standing before God for the last time.  

Nothing about what you believe is mentioned.  No troublesome beliefs are required. You don’t have to believe that Noah crammed two or seven of all the animals in the world in a wood boat for a year with no place to put the poop.  You don’t have to believe in a Virgin Mary.  You don’t have to believe blood is better than Tide for whitening.  You don’t have to believe that you are a worthless piece of crap. By means of silence Jesus clears up all the theological bickering and killing over crap like baptism, communion, trinity, Popes, tongues, etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera.  Heck, believing in God himself is not even required.  Just were you as good to people as you could be given your resources and abilities?  Even I can do that.

Tuesday, January 17, 2006

My Mama vs Bush's Mama

A Constitutional Crisis: "The former vice president warns us what can happen without congressional oversight over a defiant White House."

The White House spin on Mr. Gore’s charges against Bush’s felony spying on Americans is that Clinton’s FBI raided Aldrich Ames’ house without a warrant.  When my mama stopped me from doing a bad thing, I would sometimes say, “well Billy did it”!  Mama would say, “if Billy jumped off the bridge would you?”  My mama is smarter than the nitwits in the White house.  If Clinton did a bad thing, how does that excuse Bush for the same bad thing x 1010 ?  Since John Dillinger robbed banks, I can too? What kind of basic sense does that make? I guess maybe Bush’s mama was too busy doing some society thing to tell George about Billy and the bridge.

I have 2 questions: Do you suppose that one of these days we could have a grownup in the White House?  Why is it illegal to slap that cute chimp smirk off Bush’s face like his mama should have done 50 years back.

Commentary on Happiness and Wonder

The following is commentary on quote sent by a friend.

The test of all happiness is gratitude," Chesterton wrote, and many of us have flunked that test. "Children are grateful when Santa Claus puts in their stockings gifts of toys or sweets. Could I not be grateful to Santa Claus when he put in my stockings the gift of two miraculous legs?"

It is not coincidence that makes the root of happy is hap. The test of happiness is what happens. It is true that we can fake ourselves into an emotion for a time, but happiness is one emotion that does not stick for long, like say hate. I would find it difficult to believe that the sex slave is unhappy because she is ungrateful. Would anyone in his right mind expect her to be grateful for what is happening? And so it is with billions of people that are not as blessed as Chesterton. That happiness is elusive is not strange. Happiness represents the condition of being in equilibrium. Since equilibrium is a fragile condition for a biological being, so too is happinesss. Without continued equilibrium, continued happiness is a danger to life. Unhappiness is compulsion to action. Unhappiness is continual when action does not bring one closer to equalibrium

We feel no wonder at ordinary things; it is no wonder that ordinary things disappoint us. Chesterton could be made happy by the sudden yellowness of a dandelion, but we do not find dandelions delightful if we are constantly comparing them to orchids. "It is not familiarity but comparison that breeds contempt.

We feel no wonder at ordinary things because they are ordinary. As far as the relationship to things out there, the brain is largely a difference detector. Its attention focuses on that which is different in the background of experience. It is not that I don't feel wonder about my legs it is that I don't notice them at all unless they don't walk, hurt, itch, etc. I don't say to myself, "oh poo, just legs, how ordinary!" I just get up and walk without thinking of legs at all. I don't notice them unless they do something (extra)ordinary. Attention is limited and gets assigned to what is new -- wonder. There is no wonder for things already known. Children have more wonder than adults because more things are new for them. I don't find things to be contemptible merely because I am familiar with them. On the other hand, it would be impossible to hold in contempt something I don't have any familiarity with. I would first have to wonder about something before I dispise it. I'm not sure if the author is condemning comparison; if he is, then he is talking nonsense. I delight in the yellow of dandilions in the spring, but by the third time I've mowed them, they are not so delightful. Orchids, on the other hand, do not mess up my lawn. Is the author implying that unhappiness lies in having a favorite flower?

And all such captious comparisons are ultimately based on the strange and staggering heresy that a human being has a right to dandelions; that in some extraordinary fashion we can demand the very pick of all the dandelions in the garden of Paradise; that we owe no thanks for them at all and need feel no wonder at them at all."

There is something in this, though I find it misses the mark. (I just love using those old concepts in new ways.) Certainly we have a right to Dandelions. The heresy is not recognizing that other beings have the same right to the dandelion, including dandelions. The heresy is, "these are my dandelions," or "dandelions may be used only in this fashion and no other," or "this land is mine and dandelions have no right to it." We do owe thanks to the dandelions, but not wonder.

The twin brother of this presumptive attitude is despair, and the two make us sick and tired. "Pessimism is not in being tired of evil but in being tired of good. Despair does not lie in being weary of suffering, but in being weary of joy. It is when for some reason or other the good things in a society no longer work that the society begins to decline; when its food does not feed, when its cures do not cure, when its blessings refuse to bless."

Pure balony. Don't tell me the sex slave is weary of joy. How could she be?