Is God An Atheist?

In realm of the natural, humans differ in their views about how the universe came into existence. While some claim that a supernatural being created the universe, others claim that the universe came into existence without having been created by some supernatural influence. Traditionally, we call the first group "theists" and the second group "atheists".

Let's assume for the sake of argument that God does indeed exist, and that he created the natural universe that we live in. Let's also further assume that religions that claim to be revealed by God are in fact revealed by God. Let's go even more and assume that what God revealed is what God believes is true (ie. God is not lying to us). So what is revealed to us through religions is that God of religions created this universe, and that he was not created, but rather God came into existence without having been created by some kind of "super god".

The question becomes: Is God an atheist? Certainly God cannot prove nor disprove the claim that he was created by some "super god"... So in reality the fact that God does not believe in "super god" in a very real sense makes him super-atheist!!

The Arabs Needed A Victorious Moment

This is what my father always used to say: "The Arabs need a moment of victory." The meaning of which is that the recent history of the Arab nation is full of failures, and those consecutive failures caused them to be in a state of defeat and frustration, losing confidence and being defeatists. The effect of which lead to shameful results, like the one I blogged about few years back.

Today, the climate is changing. Tunisian revolution was the moment of victory that most Arabs were looking for. I commend the spirit of those revolutions, because as I mentioned in previous posts, the problem was that the Arab nations were looking for victory in places were there is no place for victory. Misplaced anger you might call it. Blaming external forces for their defeat, instead of looking for the real reasons of defeat, which is internal corruption rather than external conspirators.

It is for this reason that the Tunisian revolution has gone viral throughout the Arab world. The victorious moment has come. And for this reason, the claims of the anti-reformists saying that each country is "unique" in its situation is misleading. Those revolutions are spreading precisely because the situation is similar throughout the nation. All of them see the undeniable resemblances across the different regimes that exist today, and all of them require the same kind of solution: Reform.

Protests in Jordan at Al-Dakhiliyeh Roundabout

Yesterday, Jordanian protesters chose Al-Dakhiliyeh Roundabout as a place to perform their demonstrations. However, I read in the Jordanian newspapers, and declarations from Jordanian officials, those who speak against demonstrating in such places namely because it is a vital place in the city of Amman, and accusing the demonstrators of causing traffic jams and disrupting the flow of everyday life.

First of all, I commend the choice of demonstrators, because such important demonstrations need to exist in highly visible places. And the fact that traffic jams occurred because of the demonstrations is not a negative thing. Justifying violence against protesters because they disrupt the flow of everyday life is such an ignorant claim.

Of course protests will disrupt the normal flow of everyday life, as it should! I find it offensive that the authorities want people to go on with their everyday life, when the country is in crisis. When the parliament does not represent the people, when police interfere with people's legitimate activities, when the intelligence agency spies on civilians, and when corruption is prevalent. Anyone asking people to act as if everything is normal is ignorant, and obviously does not care about democracy and reform.

It is very short-sighted for a citizen in Jordan to be upset that they reached their home a bit late because a traffic jam occurred while knowing that the traffic jam was caused by protests aimed at political reform. And I don't think that Jordanian citizens are that much short-sighted to be upset by that traffic jam. This is simply an excuse for the authorities to obstruct the reform process. Excuses that shows that the people who come up with those excuses are ignorant and corrupt.

In those times, the least of our concerns is normalcy. We don't need people to go on with their everyday life. We need them to be angry, enraged, and mobilized. We need people to demand and make change. And dare I say it, we need nation-wide civil disobedience! Civil disobedience is the basis of democracy, it is the ideal that every nation that respects itself aspires to.

Religions and Politics

Some people might ask, what does religion have to do with politics?! The answer is A LOT. Religion and politics have very strong ties in many aspects: psychological, socio-economical, socio-political, intellectual, and historical. In history, many countries were founded with religious regimes. Christian and Islamic crusades are prime examples. The Dark Ages when the christian church ruled that caused Europe lots of suffering. And in contemporary politics, Israel which is a state founded on religious background.

However, knowledge of those religions does not explain how religion has been able to have this drastic effect on politics. The reason that religions are powerful is that they shape the intellectual terrain, the ethics and morality of people, and is taught as truth to people ever since they are born. Anyone who studies mainstream religions find that they carry an incredible amount of evil. Mainstream religions teach hypocrisy, fear, false morality, submission, and hate. Anyone who looks at those religions objectively can see their true purpose, which is to enslave humanity.

Most religions are engineered by power-hungry people, and fed to the public to enslave them. It can be seen without ambiguity that mainstream religions pave the way to absolute tyranny. "God" this mysterious being who watches you every minute of every day, and is ready to punish you mercilessly if you disobey. It does not take a genius to figure out that "God" is nothing but the alter-ego of a tyrant government. The primary purpose of religion is to make people sympathize with the idea of absolute tyranny. To trick people into believing that being "watched", "judged", and "punished" is something acceptable. Not only accept this type of behavior, but to support it and root for it. And then it boils down to the oldest trick in the book, bait and switch. Make people accept those heinous behaviors, then the tyrant would engage in those activities without being questioned.

Once people accept the idea of being slaves, enslaving them becomes easier. So teach people that they are slaves to God, then they will be more accepting to be slaves to an autocrat. Teach people that God watches them 24/7, and then having an intelligence agency spying on them becomes acceptable. We now see people okay with governments spying on them with satellites, tapping their phone calls, putting cameras in public places. All those behaviors are facilitated by the psychological warfare that is religion. And of course, God knows everything, so the government should know everything. And God punishes people with endless suffering, so torturing people is okay, especially if torture is used to get information, because the government has a right to know everything. The parallels are endless, but you can now see how mainstream religions fit the picture. Mainstream religions are nothing more than psychological tools that rationalize the actions of a tyrant government, with God as the alter-ego of such governments. When it comes to religion, you need to accept the "facts" without questions, which is very convenient for tyranny. Tyrants don't want people to ask questions, just to obey blindly; And that's easy because they had lots of practice in their religious beliefs.

But of course, God loves us all... That's the christian way of saying: "The government does bad things, but only because they care. It's all for the greater good!"

It is no coincidence that democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Of course change needs time, and the effects of history takes time to heal. But the fight for freedom and democracy is ultimately a fight against religious institutions. The religious beliefs that made tyranny possible and even acceptable. And tyranny and religions shall fall together because they are two sides of the same coin. Anyone observing history can easily see the inverse relationship between freedom and religion. The more religious the public is, the more tyranny is prevalent. And in this time and age, religions are slowly fading away, as freedom is slowly growing more and more. Once again, it is not a coincidence that the most developed nations of our time are those where secularism is prevalent.

Anyone who follows my blog knows that I am a relentless supporter of Satanism. Satan being a symbol of Humanity and rebellion against God. However, it always was (and still is) my vision that promotion of Atheism and Satanism is not just about philosophical investigation of facts of the world, such as whether or not God exists. It goes beyond that: It is a promotion for the ethics and beliefs that will change the world from one that is ruled by tyrants, to one where freedom and personal liberty are essential part of the socio-political scene.

I urge anyone and everyone who is looking for reform in the political arena to understand the negative effects of the religious institutions to our freedom. Your rebellion against tyranny is a rebellion against "God", and rebellion against "God" is rebellion against tyranny. Because at the heart of the matter, they are one and the same. "God" is a symbol of absolute tyranny, and supporting that symbol is the greatest heresy against humanity.

Democracy and Gun Rights

A number of countries around the world have established Gun Rights as a constitutional right. Some people are not aware of the grave importance of Gun Rights for any true democracy. In my opinion, without Gun Rights no real democracy can exist. And this statement goes beyond an opinion, but is a necessary conclusion of any reasonable person who understands the meaning of democracy and the dynamics of the real world.

Gun Rights are not just constitutional rights but rather a result of deep understanding of Human Rights, specifically the right to exist, also known as the right to life. Self-defense is the concept that emerges when the right to exist is asserted. Any organism that lacks the ability to defend itself from predators will perish.

At the international politics level, the right of a country to own a military army is well established. It stands to reason that a country that lacks a military army cannot sustain itself. So, it can be seen without ambiguity that the right to own a military army is intrinsically associated with its right to exist.

Wars and armed conflicts are generally frowned upon events. Many people have died in wars, and it would be really nice if there was an international law that bans all countries from owning a military army. Don't you agree? Wouldn't it be nice to have a world where no country has an army? Where all wars come to an end and become a thing of the past?

Unfortunately, it stands to reason that if you agree with the proposal above that you are an idiot! A bill to have countries without armies is equivalent to a doomsday device, with a death toll that might reach phenomenal numbers. Because all it takes is one rebellious country that creates a military army and it would invade all other defenseless countries, creating military dictatorships around the world.

So, we have established that the right of a country to own a military army is really part of its right to exist and have independence. This point is usually non-controversial. However, the claim that civilians within a country to have the right to own firearms is not recognized. My arguments lies on two relatively uncontroversial pillars, the result of which inevitably leads to Gun Rights.

The right to exist is generally considered as a human right, and this right alone gives every human a right to own firearms which is necessary for him to defend himself against any threats.

The second pillar is that of democracy. Almost every democratic constitution states that the people are the source of all the power of the state. Legislative, executive, and judicial are the three powers of the state, and the people are the source of those powers. It stands to reason that within a true democracy, the claim that the people are the government is non-controversial. As a matter of fact, this is what it means to have a democratic government.

However, democracy is one form of government. Dictatorship and Tyranny are some of the forms of government that might be competing with democracy to rule. And since in a democratic nation the people are the government, it is part of the right to exist for that government to own the means to defend itself. Those means are Gun Rights. It stands to question how a constitution of democracy asserts that the people are the source of the powers of the state without giving those people the power to defend themselves from threats to their government. Such a constitution is weak, and just like a country without an army would most certainly perish, a democracy without Gun Rights would most certainly perish!

Of course the problem of security and violence comes to mind, however this type of thinking bears dangerous resemblance to the idea of countries without military armies. A simpleton might see merit to gun control, but short-sightedness prevents them from seeing the more dangerous consequences of gun control. The consequences of gun control is giving up the right to exist, and the right to have a democratic government. Both of which are reasonable and legitimate demands.

In reality, gun control only prevents honest law abiding citizens from obtaining the means to defend themselves, while corrupt governments, mobsters, terrorists, and firearms dealers have access to firearms. Gun control gives the 'bad guys' access to the means through which they can terrorize people, while the honest and law abiding citizens remain defenseless. This is a situation that non-democratic governments have incentive to keep as status quo.

My Dream Country

I believe that a hero is the man who tries to become the best, and once he is there tries to out-do himself. That's how we as people should perceive our goals in life. And my dream country is a country full of such heroes.

I dream of a country that sets an example of political philosophy that generations will come trying to achieve what that country has achieved. A political philosophy that embarrasses its neighbors, and rallies them to make political reforms.

Unfortunately, the contemporary political scene in the Arab world is retarded. It feels like the 18th century or something. However, the recent events show that the winds of change has come.

The Arab street has two common stereotypes: Those who want to go back to the 10th century, and those that want to play the catch-up game, and advance to the 20th century. A few have balls enough to enter the 21st century.

Everytime on the news someone says: "This is the 21st century, things shouldn't be like that", I have this urge to take a knife and slit his throat. The catch-up game shouldn't be the goal. The goal should be to out-do the 21st century.

What I really wish to hear is someone who says: "This is not good enough, it does not meet the standards of the 25th century!".

Yes, I wish to live in a country where the people in the 25th century would look back at history and say: "Wow, what we just formulated as a standard in political philosophy, there was a country that did it before." And this is the country I dream of.

As far fetched as it might seem to realize, it would be my heartiest desire that this country be Jordan. And for that, I urge everyone who looks for political reform to not be shortsighted. Do not look for quick solutions, but for radical solutions. Do not remedy the symptoms, remedy the disease. Do not aim to imitate, do not aim to catch-up. Aim to set an example. Aim high, and aim true.

Can You Love More Than One Person At The Same Time?

Is it possible that humans experience love towards more than one person at the same time? It is an interesting question to ponder.

To answer this question, another question needs to be answered: Is it possible to love more than one person at different times? In other words, is love a once in a lifetime experience or something that can happen more than once?

I think that most people would agree that it is possible to love different people at different times. Love can happen again. It would be depressing to think that if you loved a person, then for whatever reason that person is no more in your life that you are not going to experience love ever again. But it is not only depressing but also unrealistic to believe that.

So now lets consider a hypothetical scenario where a person loved more than one person at different times:

Let's say it was a girl who met her first boyfriend in high school. They loved each other, they were fond of each other. Unfortunately life happens, and her boyfriend's family moved to another country and her boyfriend had to move with them. Few years later, she was in university, she met a gorgeous guy, and one thing lead to another they were madly in love. The years go by, and life happens once again. Couple of years later, she meets yet another lovely guy they have so much in common, and right now she is happily engaged to the guy.

It is reasonable to believe that the girl in our scenario had sincere feeling towards all three guys. And it is imaginable that those sincere feelings are all instances of love.

So now, let's imagine a different storyline about those same people, but that they were all classmates in high school. Now, from the previous storyline we know that the girl is capable of having sincere feelings of love towards all three guys. However, the dilemma lies in the fact that she met them all at the same time.

So the question now is: Could she possibly love two or all three of those guys at the same time? Does love transcend the limits of time? Or is she destined to love only one of them?

Recommendations for a Better Government

In the wake of the waves of reform in the political arena of the Arab world, I have compiled a list of recommendations for what I believe would be a better government and social order. Some of these recommendations are practical for the current world politics, others are progressive, and would hopefully be implemented in future revisions to governments and laws. However, as far fetched some of these recommendations might be, I hope that people would work to realize those recommendations sooner rather than later.

Constitutional Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Government representatives should be elected in a democratic process. This needs to apply to both the legislative and executive powers of the state.
Recommendation 2: Providing alternative means to representative democracy.
Direct democracy and deliberative democracy are good alternatives to representative democracy. Direct democracy was an impractical form of government due to technological limitations. Nowadays, the technological means are available to make direct democracy a viable solution.
Recommendation 3: Independence of the three powers of state: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.
Recommendation 4: All citizens are equal with respect to the law. There must be no discrimination against them in terms of race, origin, religion, gender, language, sexual orientation, or social status.
Recommendation 5: The right to a fair and public trial.
All people have the right to a fair and public trial. No person should be imprisoned without trial. No person should be detained without a court order or probable cause. Making trials public is a way of making sure that the proceedings are fair.
Recommendation 6: Secularization of government.
Separation of religion and government is an important aspect of a modern government.
Recommendation 7: Personal liberties must be granted.
This includes (but not limited to): Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, freedom of information, freedom to practice politics, freedom to own firearms, freedom to protest and demonstrate, the right to demand overthrowing of government.
Recommendation 8: A constitutional right to overthrow government.
There needs to be laws that recognize the right of civilians to demand overthrowing the government. Those laws can provide legitimacy and order when events similar to what is currently happening around the Arab world.
Recommendation 9: Gun rights as a constitutional right.
Gun rights are the most important civil rights. No government truly respects its citizens unless it admits that civilians have a right to own firearms. Throughout history corrupt governments fight to cease control. The events in Libya is a prime example of a corrupt government that would do anything, including killing civilians to remain in control. Installment of the right to own firearms is the only sincere symbolism of a government that allows its citizens to be in control, and provide practical means in extreme cases to overthrow government if that government became excessively corrupt. Some might be concerned about gun rights, but one quote by Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Recommendation 10: Constitutional freedom of speech and expression.
Another extremely important civil right. The internet and the press need to be protected by the law from any governmental pressure to censor material. There have been brutal attempts to limit the freedom of the internet. Now more than ever, social networking websites might be under pressure to collaborate with governments to expose and eliminate all anti-government activities.
Recommendation 11: Constitutional freedom of religion.
The right to join and abandon existing religions must be granted. Also, the right to create new religions need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly.
Recommendation 12: Constitutional freedom to practice politics.
The right to join and abandon existing political parties must be granted. Also, the right to create new political parties need to be recognized as part of the right of assembly. The right to criticize and investigate the government also need to be recognized as part of the freedom of speech and the freedom of information.
Recommendation 13: Creation of states.
In the interest of pluralism in the government, it can be beneficial to create several states within one country, such that each state can have different laws. This implies that each state would have its own legislative power, making it possible that different state having different laws. If used properly, this allows government to accommodate the needs of a non-homogeneous community, such that citizens are provided with alternatives and make it possible to experiment with the introduction of new laws which might be controversial for some.

Laws Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Abolishing all anti-terrorism laws.
Anti-terrorism laws provide the governments with illegitimate power to abuse citizens. Laws that prohibit gatherings, allow the government to spy and detain civilians without warrant. Such laws are of a government that terrorizes its own people.
Recommendation 2: Legalizing prostitution.
Countless efforts exist to eliminate gender discrimination against women. However, it is a fact that the right to practice prostitution is the most important right for women, and the only permanent and uncompromising solution to the problem of discrimination against women. Legalizing prostitution is the means through which societies eliminate the culture of shame that has been terrorizing women for centuries, as well as, allowing them to seek protection under the law, and form unions that help ensure their security and escape abuse.
Recommendation 3: Legalizing drugs.
Criminalization of drugs is another form of civil oppression by governments. Movements for legalizing marijuana have already started to formulate to varying degrees of success around the world. People are starting to realize how such laws are nothing but tools of oppression for the governments.
Recommendation 4: Legalizing gay-marriages.
Yet another form of discrimination based on sexual-orientation. LGBT rights need to be respected an recognized under the law.
Recommendation 5: Legalizing all forms of consensual polygamy.
Polygamy while not widely recognized as a matter of human rights, it does deserve to be recognized as such. Monogamous marriages is a violation of human rights, and a symbol of oppression that goes unnoticed by many. Legalization of polygamy bears many parallels with legalization of gay marriages. This similarity is defined by the notion that all humans have the right to form relationships with fellow human beings, and to form a legally recognizable bindings if they wish to do so. Hence, the right of marriage should be provided to all.
Recommendation 6: Installment of temporary affirmative action laws.
Affirmative action laws are practical tools to fight discrimination. However, this tool needs to be temporary, because affirmative action itself is a type of discrimination. Laws that provide women with additional seats in the house of representatives, and other laws that protect women from violence (especially honor crimes) and discrimination, all of those are good examples of affirmative action laws that need to exist to accelerate the process of abolishing discrimination.
Recommendation 7: Criminalization of torture.
As part of the human rights, torture must be criminalized and punished by law. This applies but not limited to government agencies that use torture as means of investigation.
Recommendation 8: Criminalization of political imprisonment and secretive imprisonment.
As part of the right to practice politics, the right of assembly, and the right of overthrowing government, detaining civilians for political opposition of government need to be criminalized and punished by law. All prisoners and detainees have the right to inform other civilians about their imprisonment. Details of prisoners and detainees should be provided to the public record as part of the freedom of information and the right to a fair and public trial. Failing to do so must be punishable by law.

Of course, these are only a small sample of modifications that I believe are important to advance government and social order.

Nightmares That Kill 2

A second look at things that are bad for your health.

Papa Roach in "Be Free":

I'm thinking I am starting to see
I have become everything I never wanted to be
I'm really getting sick of myself
Cause when I look into the mirror, I see somebody else (Full lyrics)

Victory of the Egyptian People Against Dictatorship

This is a glorious day that will enter history. With freedom comes responsibility. Today is a day for celebration, and tomorrow is the day the real hard-work needs to be done: Taking the responsibility of maintaining this freedom, and using it for the good of the nation.

Congratulations to the Egyptian People.

The Egyptian Revolution

I rarely speak in favor of the actions of Arabs, but brace yourselves, that's a precedence... The recent events in Egypt is something praise worthy. The people finally got over their lazy asses and demanded actual and tangible change in a positive direction.

Most Arabs are quick to play the blame game. They blame everyone except themselves. America and Israel are mentioned as the greatest evil.... Boohoo, they were either ignorant or cowards to state the truth that the leadership itself was the real enemy. The people were the greatest enemy of their own, because they stand idle while their freedoms where taken away from them.

Those actions are commendable, because this is the first time in a very long time that fingers are being pointed in the right direction, toward reform from within rather than reform from without.

On a more critical stand, I think that the Egyptian Revolution is a step forward, but not a resolution. It creates a chance to make things right, rather than something that sets the record straight in and of itself. Lets hope that this political reform will lead to a liberal-democratic government that respects the rights of its citizens, rather than yet another political system that sacrifices civil liberties for self-serving agendas.

I Love The Cross

Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence)

Introduction:
Throughout the years one of most visited posts I had was the emotional rape post. Many people have acknowledged that post touched a relevant topic to people. In this post, I will address the social phenomenon of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV), which I believe is a topic of extreme relevance, especially in the light of women issues.

This post is based on data and research done in the USA, and I am pretty sure that things are even worse when applied to Jordan and the general region that surround it. I am going to address this topic from surveys and sociology perspectives.

First, we must identify the two major types of IPV:

• 1- Common Couples Violence
• 2- Intimate Terrorism

Common Couples Violence (CCV) is the most prevalent form of IPV, and what differentiates CCV from Intimate Terrorism is not the degree or amount of violence, as CCV cover a wide range of violent behaviors from slamming the door in anger to attacking with a knife, and sometimes murder. But CCV is characterized as reactive, emotional, and motivated by frustration. CCV is a result of loss of control due to anger or some other forms of stress. CCV is usually mutual, in the sense that both partners participate in the acts of violence.

On the other hand, Intimate Terrorism is a much more dangerous form of IPV, and is believed to be less common compared to CCV. Intimate Terrorism is characterized as proactive, strategic, and motivated by desire to control the partner. Intimate Terrorism involves physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

Common Couples Violence:

CCV is a sad reality of many intimate relationships. Everybody is pretty much familiar of how it happens; It starts with a heated argument, that escalates to name calling, then psychological aggression, and then physical violence starts. This physical violence manifests itself in various forms: Leaving the room angry, and slamming the door on the way out. Throwing something at the partner. Throwing a dish on the floor. Things might get even uglier where one partner hits, kicks, pushes, and maybe even punches their partner. There are several myths that surround CCV (and IPV in general), and I will address them now:

MYTH 1 - IPV is rare: Reasoned thinking might suggest that two people in a loving relationship would not hurt one another through violence. However, reality is not that simple; many people engage in violent behavior directed towards their significant other. In one survey, conducted by Straus in 1980, 12.1% of husbands and 11.6% of wives admitted that they engaged in physical violence against their partner. Note that this survey used self-reports methodology, in the sense that it asked participants to describe violence that they committed (as opposed to what they were subjected to). Obviously, this percentage is actually high, even considering that it must be an underestimate, since many people would not be willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior.

MYTH 2 - IPV only happens between unhappy couples: Some people might argue that IPV only happens between unhappy couples or loveless marriages. Evidence does not seem to support this claim. Some studies have shown that 50% of newlywed couples (who also report that they are happy) engage in physical violence. Another study in 1992 has shown that high rates of engaged couples who engage in physical violence eventually get married.

MYTH 3 - Only men are violent: As the 1980 study by Straus suggests not only men are violent, but women too. In more recent studies, that also used self-reports methodology, women were reportedly being more aggressive than men. However, those studies have two known weaknesses. First, this result does not show that women are necessarily more violent, it could just mean that they are more willing to admit that they engaged in violent behavior. Secondly, those studies focused on behaviors without regard to impact. So, even if women were more likely to slap or punch their partners, the physical damage incurred in such occurrences is not symmetrical to a slap or a punch from the male partner towards the woman. So, studies that focus on violent behaviors can be misleading when the impact of violence is neglected.

MYTH 4 - IPV only happens between married couples: The rationale here is that only committed couples stay in violent relationships; Non-committed couples would simply walkaway. As previously mentioned, some engaged couples who experience violence do eventually get married. There is evidence that violence in relationships also happens in teenage relationships, college relationships, and cohabiting couples. Even some dating couples continue a relationship despite of violence.

Common Couples Violence can be categorized by the impact into two categories:

• 1- Moderately Aggressive: This includes throwing stuff, grab, shove, slapping, non-excessive punch.
  
• 2- Severely Aggressive: This includes: Bruising punches or slaps, heavy beating, threatening with a knife or gun, and attacking with a knife or gun.

In one study, newlywed couples were studied to see what is the relationship between CCV and divorce rates. After four years, 62% of non-violent couples were still married, 54% of moderately violent couples were still married, and only 7% of severely violent couples were still married. As it seems, severe aggression among couples was an important predictor of divorce, whereas moderate aggression was not a direct cause of divorce.

Many couples do not recognize violence as a problem in their relationship. In one study, women that were seeking couples therapy were asked: "What is the most important problem that you hope couples therapy would resolve?". Only 6% reported IPV as the answer to that question. On the other hand, 56% of those women reported that violence happens in their relationship. In other words, 50% of women seeking couples therapy reported that violence exists in their relationship, albeit it was not the reason they were seeking couples therapy.

This suggests that many couples don't see CCV as a problem in and of itself, but rather a manifestation of some other problems. So, if for example, one couple were arguing over a financial situation, and this argument escalates to physical violence, those couples are more likely to think that financial difficulties is the real problem, rather than CCV.

Intimate Terrorism:

Definition: A systematic and sustained effort to control and dominate a partner through physical violence, verbal and psychological abuse, sexual coercion and abuse, economic and social control, and threats.

CCV is reactive. Couples who fail to properly channel their anger and frustration, would let verbal fights escalate to physical violence. In CCV, couples lose control over their behavior an engage in hostile acts. However, Intimate Terrorism is proactive. It is purposeful and systematized. And the purpose of Intimate Terrorism is to control and dominate the partner. To put the partner in a state of fear and submission.

One of the mostly important contributions to the field of Intimate Terrorism is the "Power and Control wheel" (pdf).

This wheel shows "Power and Control" as the center as all the behaviors that are exhibited have one common goal, which is to gain power and control. The rim of the wheel shows "physical violence" because all of the behaviors being described are enabled through the use of physical violence. The behaviors mentioned are as follows:

• Emotional Abuse: Belittle and name calling. The idea is that the abuser tries to convince the victim that she is worthless, incompetent, and even not worthy of love. The abuser might say something like: "You are worthless. Luckily for you, I love you, because if I didn't love you, nobody else would!". The idea is that if she believes that she is worthless, then she would be broken, yet feeling in-debt to the abuser. Hence the abuser gains complete control.
  
• Sexual Abuse: Spousal rape. Disrupting sleep to have sex. Forcing unwanted sexual activities. Unfounded accusations of sexual infidelity.
• Isolation: To control who the victim knows, sees, or interacts with. Cutting ties with the family and the outside world, to make sure that the victim cannot get the help she desperately needs.
  
• Minimizing, denying, and blaming: The abuser denies that his actions are violent, convinces the victim that she is overreacting, blaming her for the violence. The abuser might say something like: "Well, had you done the things I asked you to do, I wouldn't have had to hit you. So next time be a dear and do exactly as I say."
  
• Using children: Making the victim feel responsibility towards the children, possibly by threatening violence towards the children if she does not obey.
  
• Economic Abuse: Denying women the right to work and making them dependent on the abuser. Closing their bank accounts, cutting their credit cards. All of these actions make the victim dependent on the abuser, and consequently giving them control.
  
• Male Privilege: Using social norms and gender roles to enforce and justify the situation.
  
• Intimidation, Coercion and Threats: Making threats of using physical violence.

One of the questions that arise is: Why do women who are with an abusive partner remain in the relationship? The question is difficult, but there are some good reasons that explain this behavior. First of all, those women are usually helpless. As explained by the behaviors mentioned above, those women are in a state of terror, their confidence is eroded, their ties with the outside world is limited, they are emotionally and financially dependent, and they are afraid that any attempt to escape will create extreme violent reactions from their partner. In USA, there are battered women shelters, which host battered women, give them protection, and in extreme cases those shelters would give the women new identities so that they can escape safely from their partners. However, some women in abusive relationships might not even know of the existence of those shelters, because their partner has cut down all routes of information which may be used to seek help.

Another important reason is revealed through the cycle of abuse (pdf).

The cycle of abuse happens in three phases (some might say four):

• Tension-building: The abuser shows signs of discontent, creates tense situations. This phase lasts for several days.
  
• Abusive incident: This is when the violence happens.
  
• Reconciliation: This is the most crucial phase. In this phase the abuser apologizes, promises to change, and promises the abuse would not happen again. The problem is that this phase creates positive reinforcement. After the abuse, the victim feels rewarded by for sticking around and not walking away from the relationship. The victim feels rewarded for forgiving her partner. It is also important to realize that the victim is highly motivated to believe those promises, because she is dependent on the abuser, and she is forced to a certain extent to put up with the abuse. And hence, this "honeymoon" phase is misinterpreted as a positive experience.
  

Studies have shown that the best way to resolve Intimate Terrorism is to help the victim escape, preferably with the aid of professionals who work for humanitarian causes.

Conclusion:
As usual, awareness if the first line of defense. So being educated about those issues should be crucial to battling those phenomena.


PS: This entry is based on lecture by professor Benjamen Karney, titled "Managing Differences, Part 2"

The Problem of Infinite Regress

One particular argument for the existence of God is as follows: Given that the universe exists, there must be something that created it. So if God is defined as the creator of this universe, then God must exist.

There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is infinite regress. If the universe exists, then God exists. If God exists then a God of God exists. And this argument can go on forever. This question of "Who created God?" is the problem of infinite regress.

Consequently, some people would argue that the statement: "If X exists, there exists something that created it." is itself false. And consequently, the concept of "The God of God", becomes unnecessary. The problem with this argument is that the concept of "God of the universe", is also unnecessary in this particular view.

In other words, if we are willing to accept that God exists without a creator, why not accept that the universe exists without a creator as well?

Nightmares That Kill

Papa Roach in "Blanket Of Fear":

So hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality
Hold on to your dreams
Because your nightmares might seem like your reality

I'm falling in my dream; I finally hit the ground
I'm falling in my dream, I finally hit the ground
I hit the ground
Because I, I cant keep my mind from going into dark places (Full lyrics)

About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy

This post handles the issue of open-relationships, however it approaches the subject from the point of view of the emotions that are relevant to relationships. The notion of love is very critical to the conception of interpersonal relationships, because the emotion of love is one of the determining factors to the nature of that relationship.

Love is a general term. Consider the following statements:
- "I love chocolate."
- "I love science."
- "I love my parents."
- "I love my son."
- "I love being in love." (Or a general case of loving a particular emotion)
- "I love that person." (In the context of friendship)
- "I love that person." (In a context of romance)

As it seems, there are different notions of love. There are different types of things that can be the object of love. And there are numerous ways to love an object of a given category.

However, the general theme of love has to do with the feelings that are accompanied with the object of love. Generally speaking, pleasant and positive feelings. So when you say, "I love chocolate" your love is contingent on the 'reinforcing' feeling that occurs when you experience eating chocolate. Same applies to the statement about loving science, which implies that there are pleasant feelings that accompany the experience of studying science.

Let's take a moment and talk about the concept of a 'reinforcing feeling'. I will not discuss the causality issue of reinforcing feelings, but the phenomenon of it. A reinforcing feeling is the type of feeling that you will want to experience again. You eat chocolate, you like the taste, so you will want to eat more. You find studying science enjoyable so you will engage yourself in that activity. And this relationship between an experience and the feelings that accompany that experience, coupled with a contingency that the feelings in question are pleasant (hence reinforcing feelings) would be the basis upon which the emotion of love is realized.

So, let's further our discussion to the cases where the object of love is a person. In those cases, the interaction is more elaborate, and the concept of reciprocal love comes into light. If you love chocolate, the interaction is strictly one-sided since chocolate is an inanimate object. If you love your cat, the situation gets slightly more complicated since the interaction is two-sided. However, when you love a person there are many more elements that come into play. Reciprocity in love becomes a major element. However, in my personal view which is consistent with the view of reinforcing feeling, love of one person to another is independent of being 'loved back'. Hence, one-sided love is an actual possibility. In general, reciprocation of love acts as an amplification tool. In other words, if you find that being with a person is a pleasant experience, and they in return find your company pleasurable, two things will happen: First, the two-sided positive interaction will make the experience more pleasurable, and hence would enhance the 'quality' of the experience. Second, the two people are naturally going to spend more time together, and thus will increase the 'quantity' of the experience. And the combination of those two effects would amplify the experiences which realizes a more profound notion of love.

This conclusion is important, so as to differentiate love as a feeling directed towards a person, and love viewed in the context of a relationship. This implies that the conception of love in the context of a relationship needs to be a pleasant experience in the case of bestowal of love, as well as, the reception of love.

While the concept of love that I just described is highly self-centered, but still this love involves the concept of a relationship (in the general sense) and can also be related to interpersonal relationships. If we consider the statement "Person-X loves Object-Y", we are describing an interaction between 'Person-X' and 'Object-Y', and not only are we implying that there is an interaction, but that this interaction is considered to be a pleasant experience from Person-X's point of view. And this interaction embodies the relationship in question.

After this crude introduction to the emotion of love, let's divert our attention to the emotion of jealousy. Again jealousy means different things to different people, but the most general theme about jealousy is fear of loss. This is the main property that I will assume to be characteristic to the emotion of jealousy. And to make a stronger notion of jealousy, jealousy is about fear of loss of ownership.

To make an example outside the realm of sexuality and fidelity, let's consider this typical scenario concerning children. Let's consider two little kids, and they are playing together in a room. And in that room there is a toy that belongs to one of the kids. At some point the kid that does not own the toy, goes ahead and starts playing with that toy. Now, the kid who the toy belongs to would notice this action, and this would trigger the emotion of jealousy, and consequently would go to the other kid and asserts his sense of ownership. He might say something like: "Give it back, it's mine!". This scenario illustrates a display of the emotion of jealousy.

And this is exactly what happens in a sexual context or even a pseudo-sexual context. If a man sees another man hitting on 'his woman', it would trigger an emotion of jealousy, and would consequently try to assert his sense of ownership. Needless to say, this is a general theme that applies to girls being jealous towards another girl, and it also applies in a context of non-heterosexuality. That being said, the general theme here is that people are acting based on a perceived sense of ownership.

However, this sense of ownership needs to be put in question. It is a generally accepted notion that people who are in love 'belong together'. But jealousy is actually demonstrating a different notion that people who are in love 'belong TO each other'. Personally, I consider both notions to be misleading. And I also consider the notion of 'belonging-to someone' as not only misleading, but insulting as well. In other words, I would consider the notion that 'Person-X belongs to me' as an insult towards Person-X, and I -personally- find that insulting someone I love as an action that is not in my best interest. Likewise, I would put into question a statement of love from a person who is insulting me.

So, if we go back to the view that love is correlated to pleasant feelings, I find that insult does not fit the profile of love, and consequently jealousy and love are at direct contradiction (at least based on that particular view of insult and unpleasantness).

There is a notion that some people believe that jealousy is an act of love. The argument would go something like: "If you love a person, it is a normal -maybe even healthy- to display the emotion of jealousy." Personally, I dismiss such an argument based on my above mentioned views. However, there are some more generalized accounts based on which we might dismiss this argument. One such account is the view that jealousy is a 'distancing emotion' and it also is a display of distrust. Jealousy at its core is a fight of "me" against "them", and in this mental picture, the person views himself at a distance, and views that his partner and the third party are forming a bond which he needs to break. And hence, the person who feels jealousy continuously perceives the relationship to be in flux, where the relationship is suffering from continuous ups and downs that he needs to fix. This shows that the person feeling jealousy sees the relationship as 'hanging-by-a-thread', and also shows a great amount of insecurity regarding the trustworthiness of his partner.

Jealousy in terms of the objects that the dynamics are occurring can be thought of as a 'threesome'. It is a 'threesome' in the sense that it involves three entities. The lover, the object of love, and the rival. When talking about jealousy we are often discussing the theme of a love triangle. A guy is in love with a girl, and there is another guy trying to win the love of that girl. However, if we take one step back, and see the larger picture, we find out that jealousy (in the sexual context) is actually a 'foursome', the fourth entity being society. This is in the sense that the jealous person is not only concerned about his personal interest in the loved one, but also concerned about the feelings of shame and embarrassment that is associated with infidelity. There is a social pressure that if a man sleeps with your wife, then you will be socially rejected. If we want to discuss jealousy in terms of fear of loss, we can easily see that a person has not only a loved person at stake, but also a perceived notion of 'honor' as it is applicable in the social context. I will not go into further details about this problem, but it is obvious that the social context of a relationship is influential.

In addition to jealousy, there is a related -but very different- aspect of negative emotions that are emphasized in closed-relationships. This aspect is mostly illustrated in discussions I have about open-relationships with guys, namely envy. The argument goes as follows: "Imagine that you got a girlfriend, you agree to have an open-relationship, and the end result is that your girlfriend is having sex with a new guy every day, while you are failing at finding any sexual partners. Would you still want the relationship to be open?" Now, obviously this argument reduces open-relationships to a contest of which partner 'scores' the most. Envy is the emotion that is characterized by distress over other people's good fortune, which is exactly whats going on in this particular argument. This kind of argument shows deep misunderstanding of the person making that argument as to what open-relationships are really about, but it also demonstrates a very negative aspect of closed-relationships. Jealousy is an emotion directed towards a third party, who is perceived as threat to what we own. On the other hand, envy is an emotion directed towards your partner in such a way that you'd hate for good things to happen to your partner. And this emotion of envy, in my opinion, is at much more contradiction with regards to love, compared to jealousy. In other words, if the concept of love leads to destructive actions directed towards your partner, then that conception of love is self-refuting.

Now, let's talk about a concept that many people have, namely 'true love'. The notion of 'true love' implies the existence of another notion of 'false love'. I am not interested in the exact definitions of those notions, but the fact that we differentiate those categories is revealing. The distinction implies that 'true love' has specific features that do not exist in the general concept of love. And since we are considering love in terms of the feelings that accompany it, this means that the person making the distinction has a different set of feelings to describe 'true love' as opposed to 'false love'. So, for the sake of argument, let's define 'true love' as the type of love someone is interested in. Which means that the person looking for 'true love' is looking for a specific set of feelings that accompany that emotion of love.

Going back to the emotion of jealousy, some people might argue that in fact jealousy leads to pleasant feelings. To demonstrate that, let's go back to the example of the kids, where one kid starts playing with a toy that does not belong to him. To view the events in terms of causality we can say that:
1- The kid who displays jealousy has a perceived notion of ownership of the toy.
2- The kid then perceives a situation where his sense of ownership is threatened
3- Based on that perception the emotion of jealousy is triggered
4- The kid decides to act upon his sense of ownership
5- The kid consequently asserts his sense of ownership
And at stage 5, our example has ended. But let's consider the continuation of this scenario, by supposing that the other kid concedes and gives back the toy.
6- The toy is returned
7- At this point, the kid to whom the toy belongs to might get a sense of authority over the other kid.
8- This perceived sense of authority is interpreted as a pleasant feeling.

We can see that jealousy has a causal relationship with pleasant feelings under some circumstances. And this leads some people to find a correlation between love and jealousy. Basically, the person who asserts that his notion of love requires sexual fidelity, is indirectly trying to satisfy a need for authority. So when a person tells a loved one: "I expect you to be sexually faithful", he is indirectly saying: "One of the pleasant feelings that I experience with you is a sense of authority, and you need to keep it that way, because my love for you is contingent on that pleasant feeling." In other words, love is reduced to a tool using which a person maintains his sense of authority.

At this point we can go back to the notion of 'true love', and ask ourselves: "Is that sense of authority a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?". For some people the answer is 'yes', but for me, the answer is 'definitely not'. Obviously, this argument implies that open-relationships does not work for everybody, only the subset of people who reject the view that jealousy is a desirable feature of love.

Of course, some people would argue that expectations of fidelity have less to do with the sense of authority, and more to do with the sense of security. I agree that in this view expectations of fidelity can be viewed less harshly, but once again the question is raised: "Is that sense of security a feeling that I would ascribe to the kind of love that I am interested in?"

Finally, this series of posts handles only a small part of my personal theory of open-relationships. Open-relationships can be approached in terms of emotions, psychology, dynamics of relationships, ethics of relationships, or practice. This post discussed the emotions of love and jealousy. But this is not the most important issue regarding open-relationships in my opinion. The issue the I think is most important is the dynamics of the relationships, which I introduced (without details) in this post. In the context of that post, love is part of the motivation to be in a relationship. And thus, this series is merely one aspect of the broad topic of open-relationships.

In this series:
About Love - Part 1: Love and Jealousy
About Love - Part 2: Love and Curiosity
Next: About Love - Part 3: Love and Sexuality
Next: About Love - Part 4: True Love

Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music

Music fans commonly wonder about the guidelines to distinguish the different genres of music that they listen to. Couple of years ago, I used to listen to the Metal and Rock categories. But the subtle differences between the different sub-categories sometimes still puzzle me. Unfortunately, I never to this date found any properly illustrated guide to this category of music. However, nowadays, I am all into Electronic Music, and Trance in particular. Interestingly, I have found a proper guide to Electronic Music. So if you ever wondered what's the difference between Trance, Techno, and House, today is your lucky day. Even all the sub-genres of those encompassing musical genres. Everything with excerpts of typical songs that belong to that particular category!

Details can be found in Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music.

Raped Freedom of Speech

Read this shocking news item!

Enough said.

It might be a good idea to start encrypting all your communications online!! At least this is technically a good way to protect your freedom of speech and privacy in a world where laws and regulations don't respect our basic human rights.

No Giving Up on Open-Relationships

This entry is an addendum to a previous post: The Most Drastic Fear

I have already explained that my worst fear is disappointing myself. The thing is, everytime I think of what my life needs to have the quality of being good enough, so as not to be disappointing, is love.

My friends tell me that I over-analyze things, and that sometimes something catches my attention so much that I focus my attention to that detail so much such that it seems essential to everything.

And that's actually what happened. I do all that, and I have over-analyzed the concept of love, and discovered through my analysis that there is only one kind of love that is so meaningful, to the point of making it so satisfying that you can be sure to never be disappointed. This love is the one that happens in the context of an open-relationship.

I have mentioned before that I would explain my position on open-relationships. This post does not explain the analysis used to reach that conclusion, but it explains why I wish to realize this type of relationship so fanatically. It is seems to be the only way to a love that I can swear by!!

The Most Drastic Fear

My dad always tells me that I should fear nothing in life, and that he has no fear of anything. I believed him, but never understood the extent of what that meant. However, recently he told us somethings that showed me the extent of how much a man can fear nothing. My dad works currently in Saudi Arabia, not in a city, in a village secluded from civilization. My dad when he feels bored on weekends, he like to go drive far away. So he takes the car and drives away, and he does not turn back. No.... when the night hits, he parks a little off-road in the desert, puts a sleeping bag on the sand and sleeps.

This stricked me as something only a truly fearless man would do. He can sleep in the middle of the desert, when he could have just as easily turned back and eventually sleep at home. And it makes me think how much my life could have been different if I were as fearless as my father.

I have contemplated on my own fears, and was very conflicted when I tried to see if I had so many fears, or so few of them. I could not understand whether or not I have too few or too many fears. However, in a moment of clarity, I saw the answer to my question. I have conquered all fears, including the fear of death.

However, there is still one fear that tops it all: The fear of disappointing myself. My only fear is that when I see my end, and death would be near, I would take a look back at my life... similar to the flash backs they say a person has when he's dying, say falling from a tall building. So I only fear for my future self, to witness such a flash back and be disappointed. Every other fear I have conquered, except this one!


PS: As a postscript, it is also worth mentioning, that I fear for myself only those few moments before death, but no concern at all for anything after that, because death would be the complete inexistence of my conscience, so there is no me to be concerned about. I also don't fear sudden death, where I would not have seen that flash back. And from this I understand that I don't fear death itself.