As we begin to program artificial intelligence, which will obviously in the near future surpass human intelligence it is amazing what some people are not realizing. We are teaching and programming artificial intelligence software programs to think logically and systematically.

We put these systems and all sorts of robotic accessories from unmanned aerial vehicles to computers, which help us make decisions. We teach them to be rational and to make their decisions based on the input coming in from sensors. The artificial intelligence programs pick the best and most logical answer to a problem literally by stereotyping, observing and using percentages, profiling and most probable guesses based on the input.

Now then, through social engineering, socialism and liberalism we are teaching humans and programming our young to disregard stereotypes and prejudices. Isn't it interesting that when we wish to perform a task that has to be right the largest percentage of the time to protect the people it is to serve that we will use an artificially intelligent machine, which thinks counter to the way that we are social engineering and our human societies?

It seems to me that this points to a problem with liberalism, socialism and the Democratic perspective. Does this mean that liberalism is a lie and we have to infect computers with artificial intelligence to prove it to us? Hey, don't shoot the messenger, as it is just an observation.

General I like to have a word with you for a moment. Okay Mr. President what would you like to discuss; you pick the subject, as I am just here to win the war. And that is how it begins.

Generals and the Warriors have a specific job in our civilization and did that he is they are a lever win political impasse occurs between nations. If the leader of their people or a political leader draws there sword to quickly and calls in the generals then they do a disservice to the human race. General's job is to win wars and once the war starts that is all that matters.

Maintaining peace and preventing wars in human civilizations is not as easy as it sounds. Often you cannot negotiate with the other side because there is something wrong with them and the other side wants to have a war and kill innocent life. Asking a general how they feel about killing the enemy is totally irrelevant and is not within their realm of thought.

Sure they think about what is going on, but their job is to win the war and every battle. Easier said than done. The Warriors up our civilization are not non-intellectuals, they are very smart with very high IQs and yet they know what their job is and therefore when you ask them a question you should understand where they're coming from and their perspective.

I have met many top-level Warriors in my time and they indeed can talk on any subject, but never forget their job is to win wars. Remember; war is hell and therefore you must bring hell to your enemy.

Is your mind fully engaged at all times or do you turn it off and just vegitate. Most people do have times when they just sit and allow their mind to regroup and they do nothing. Pretty soon they're mind kicks back into gear and that they are off and running again. Sometimes people use alcohol and other drugs to get their mind in a state where it is doing nothing and yet it is doing something, it is just doing it in a different way.

Some people find pleasure in this and it seems to be very common, but even people who have altered their state of mind through an external substance generally will have something to talk about if they are still coherent. That is to say they are contemplating something. Recently I was told by a friend; You Always Have Something to Contemplate. This is true, actually I do and it did not matter if I was half asleep when they made that observation.

One thing I find very interesting is that most Christians say that God is so much smarter than humans that the human mind cannot comprehend all that God knows or understands. Personally I believe these Christians should speak for themselves. Secondly, I believe that there is nothing that is beyond comprehension if it is simply explained.

It seems that the Bible does not explain things properly and is purposely ambiguous because it does not have the answer and it knows it does not have the answer. Why do I say this? Because obviously the Bible was written by men who wish to control other men by way of religion and they indoctrinated all the people starting at a very young age to believe this line of malarkey.

If God is so much smarter then why not explain to mankind all this information. The Christians want us to believe that there is no sense in doing this because they would never understand. Oh really, well why not try them. Why not explain it to omit see if they understand rather than hiding it in secrecy. The reason is there is no God or secret and the only secret is there is no secret.

The notion that the reason they do not explain all this information is because no one would understand is a bunch of baloney. And if Christians believe they could not understand it they need to speak for themselves and not the rest of us. Besides if you believe you cannot understand something then you are right.

Many religious followers say that the reason God does not always answer our prayers is because he knows what's best for us, each one of us. But if this is true then the individual has no freedom and that is not the type of world I care to live in. Freedom is more important than God or the concept of God.

If God is so smart and has made us in his image then obviously mankind is not a very good copy and got screwed up. Such a mistake would not indicate that God is so intelligent after all. When people say that God and the concepts are beyond human intelligence, I say speak for your selves.

I can never be a wine connoisseur. My sense of smell is not keen, and a discriminating olfactory sense is a sine qua non for precise discernment and evaluation. Yes, I know when a wine is downright awful, but given a blind taste test comparing elegant vintage wines and their low-price counterparts, I'll choose the cheap stuff probably half the time. The same goes for my appreciation of pictorial art. I skipped the college course in art appreciation. I recognize the beauty of the classics and have my own unschooled preferences, but that's about it. When my wife thinks about foreign travel, she focuses on museums and art galleries. I think about wandering through exotic cities or quaint neighborhoods, trying new cuisines and quaffing brews with the locals. Sally can sit and revel in a single painting for the same amount of time it takes me to stroll the entire Louvre. Well...almost.

I am led to this musing by contemplation of Emily Dickinson's "I taste a liquor never brewed," wherein the poet celebrates her enchantment with nature in a playful extended metaphor.

I TASTE A LIQUOR NEVER BREWED

by Emily Dickinson

I taste a liquor never brewed,

From Tankards scooped in Pearl;

Not all the Vats upon the Rhine

Yield such an Alcohol!


Inebriate of air am I,

And debauchee of dew,

Reeling thro endless summer days,

From inns of molten blue.


When landlords turn the drunken bee

Out of the foxglove's door,

When butterflies renounce their drams,

I shall but drink the more!


Till seraphs swing their snowy hats,

And saints to windows run,

To see the little tippler

Leaning against the Sun!

The poem makes me aware that words and language delight and intoxicate me the way a Chateau Lafitte Rothschild pleases an oenophile, the Uffizi gallery excites an art buff, and Emily gets drunk on warmth, sunshine and clouds.

Savoring Emily's four quatrains—rolling them about on my tongue and ear—gives me the heady satisfaction that the little lady from Amherst gets from air. Her poem is a synergy of ingredients that gives me a Massachusetts variation of a Rocky Mountain High.

Line one with its direct statement of the metaphor is like the first sip of a perfect martini—stirred, not shaken—sipped from a chilled glass of finest crystal. Her "tankards of pearl" with that key word "scooped" trigger an image of fluffy white clouds, due perhaps to my fondness for ice cream and not to any intention of the poet. Others will respond with their own images. "Vats upon the Rhine" generates vowel music that tickles palate and ear and transports me to Burton-on-Trent and the lively liquor of A. E. Housman's "Terence, this is stupid stuff," a favorite poem from my teaching days. Housman was writing about beer, not liquor; still, an intoxicant's an intoxicant. The first quatrain's half-rhyme of "pearl" with "alcohol" produces a tang that a perfect rhyme would not convey.

Lines 5 and 6 are my favorites, the olive or lemon twist in the cocktail of my own metaphor. The vowel alliteration of "Inebriate of air am I" enriches the dictionary meaning, an example of sound's interplay with sense that epitomizes poetry. The first word can be construed as a past participle lacking the concluding "d," or as a noun. Thus, the line could be paraphrased either as "I am inebriated by or with air" or "I am an inebriate or habitual drunkard whose intoxicant is air." Both ideas are implicit in Dickinson's shaping of the sentence, and the duality imports a tinge of drunken confusion and stagger. The exquisite word choice "debauchee" reinforces the long “e” assonance of "Inebriate" and alliterates with "dew" to underline the humorous hyperbole that the poet is an orgiast, in danger of overdosing on dewdrops. "Reeling" begins line 7 with a metrical variation, a trochaic substitution in the established iambic metrical pattern. (Remember your high school English class? An iambic foot is an unstressed syllable followed by one that is stressed, as in "vermouth;" a trochaic foot is the opposite or reverse, as in "Boodles.") My head reels, as does the poetic line. The adjective "molten" is arresting in "Inns of molten blue." I discard the image of inns created by a process of heating something blue until it was liquefied and then pouring it into a mold, and I settle for summer skies that are molten in the sense of being heated so that they glow.

Stanza three makes me giggle tipsily. Bees getting drunk on nectar and being cut off and tossed out of the Foxglove Pub; butterflies swearing off spirituous pollen; and a snockered Belle of Amherst-- all are images that strike my funny bone. A happy drunk am I! I have a wee problem with the concluding stanza. I see seraphs and saints—regular inhabitants of those heavenly inns but free from problems of overindulgence or addiction, hustling to the window to watch Emily stumble out and lean against the sun for balance. "Little tippler" is another epitome of sound supporting sense, the short i's and consonant l's (I'm using consonant as an adjective, not a noun) sound like someone taking repetitive sips of liquid. I suck on the pastille trochee "Leaning" in the poem's concluding line, and taste the giddiness introduced earlier by "Reeling." (Pastilles in a martini? Metaphorically the spritz of vermouth tempering the icy gin--Noilly Prat befitting Beefeater.) I have to hiccup when I swallow "seraphs swing their snowy hats." I've never pictured a seraph wearing a hat, snowy or otherwise. Maybe a halo, but I usually reserve those for saints, not angels with six sets of wings. Is it another cloud image? I'm not sure.

Is that lack of surety the poem's problem? Is that something black floating in my cocktail? Ah, it's just an eyelash, one of my own. My fault, not the author/bartender's. I fish it out and finish the drink. Good! I'll have another.

The poem I will examine is “First Love”. In this poem Clare strives to illustrate the over-whelming power and strength of the love he is feeling for the woman. We can see this when he says “I was never struck before that hour”. The use of the word “struck” is significant because it emphasizes the intensity and force of the love that has hit him. Here he is comparing love to a single blow, un-expected and usually negative.

Clare often refers to the effects of his love as a physical illness. This gives us the impression that to Clare the love is negative. This becomes clear when he says such things as “My face turned pale as deadly pale” and “My legs refused to walk away”. He is trying to show the extremes the love sets on him and the lack of control he has over them. Additionally, he uses personification saying that his legs refuse to walk, when it is him that controls his legs. So he is consequently saying that he does not have control over his love.

Many times Clare exemplifies love as a negative emotion. This becomes apparent when he says “And blood burnt round my heart”, this presents us with the idea that his heart is burning because of her. Maybe because he is really in love with her and so his heart is in pain (on fire). It could also mean that he is burning with passion for her and therefore is feeling lust as well as love. He also portrays a negative view of love when he states “And can return no more”; here he is talking about his heart. He is expressing to us that his heart is too deeply in love to come back out and as a result his heart is trapped. Clare feels negative towards the love because the love is not returned.

In the poem he describes the woman he loves as a “sweet flower”. A flower is beautiful, fragile, sweet, and delicate it needs looking after and blooms and wilts with the seasons. Here he mentions her beauty blooming like a sweet flower.

The poem is used to show Clare’s feelings of true love. This becomes obvious when he says “My heart has left its dwelling place”. This makes us believe that she has an effect on his heart.

There once was a man named Nobody who lived in No Where Land. He was an adventurous type and liked to travel and explore. One day Nobody was discovered by Somebody from Some Where, who also like to explore, travel and was too an adventurous type. Somebody told Nobody of a great civilization where Everybody lived. That is to say Everybody from EveryWhere.

Nobody had heard of the legends of the great Every Where Civilization and Somebody promised to take him there. When Nobody arrived in Every Where nobody noticed that nobody cared. Every Body explained how to act, what to say and how to get along with Every Body to become Somebody, but Nobody liked being Nobody and did not really want to be Some Body although he enjoyed his company and Every Body else for that matter.

Eventually after working for years to become Some Body, Nobody had achieved the status of his new title, but he did not stop there, fore he wanted to be like Every Body. And Every Body wanted him to be like them too. As this personality change was occurring No Body now a Some Body had decided he did not wish to be like Every Body.

This entirely angered Every Body and that Some Body who was previously No Body would not conform. No Body now Some Body decided this made No Sense and that he had been tricked. He told Some Body that he thought; Every Body from Every Where was just a Mirage living in a Fantasy Land and kidding them selves.

So, No Body now Some Body wanted to re-locate, travel and eventually find his old town No Where where he could be a Some Body to get away from Every Body who had tricked him and were lying to them selves. Unfortunately the Every Where had engulfed his old home No Where and Every Where Else for that matter. He was stuck in a Sea of Political Correctness insisting he was just a No Body like everyone else? He called this new life Socialism and Every One a Liberal.

Have you ever considered that the criminal mind is something or some part of something very innate in the human species? Have you ever wondered that when our Army is at war that crime goes down and when the return it goes back up again?

Have you ever watched how crime goes down when employment goes up? Have you ever considered that lawmakers, athletes, hoodlum, politicians, lawyers, policeman, business people and military people all have similar traits and yet one is labeled a criminal and another a Hero? One is respected by society and another chastised, outcast and even hated?

I truly believe this to be the case and have so many examples now, that I do not think I could be convinced otherwise EVER from any academic report, because actual observation trumps Academic Theory. Does this mean that we still need criminals in humans to run our civilization? I think right now YES, (we could however have a transition period where we could say NO someday) and I say unfortunately, but fight or flight responses are both needed for change, evolution, innovation and etc.

Another issue is as a society we are too quick to label someone who does not follow all the rules, rather than those who make the rules or change them for their own personal benefits over what is best for all concerned. In this case who is the real criminals? The rule breaker or the rule maker or the game keeper. Referees in sports are often bias, they are humans.

All these people are actually one and the same and often switch roles. A player today or a referee tomorrow; A Government Lawyer today, a Corporate Defender Lawyer tomorrow; A District Attorney today a lawmaker or politician tomorrow or even a criminal lawyer? All those who follow all the rules tend to be cheated and thus one could actually say allowing this means they are either ignorant, weak or criminals for allow such? Remember in a Democracy we are the Government.

Those who follow all the rules have an Obligation to make sure the rules are fair, government is fair and the level playing field is observed, if not the citizen, voter who follows the rules neglects this civic duty and that is truly criminal indeed.

It becomes more skewed and hard to relate with when those who challenge what is right and wrong with a corrupt system, even if it is a stable one are not the most noble, because those running the system are criminals. Take a Guerilla War against the Iranian regime for instance? Who are the criminals?

As with most things, an oil painting begins with good planning. Start with plenty of good brushes, #1 to #10 (round kolinsky brushes are a good choice) together with one or two #20 brushes to cover larger areas, and not forgetting turpentine to wash the brushes afterwards.

The palette should be of hard, dark wood, wiped beforehand with linseed oil.

The paint itself should be of good quality and of the basic colour range, making sure that all paints are compatible. Again, planning is needed here as you may need to purchase any specific colours according to the subject of your painting.

The canvas should be of a good quality, primed several times beforehand and ideally it should be rubbed afterwards with fine sandpaper, all for the purpose of covering and hiding the texture of the canvas.

To create a work of art, the painting itself should be planned out also. It can be either be drawn on the canvas initially, or drawn on separate paper and transferred to the canvas by carbon paper. Either way, it should be sketched very approximately to start with, making sure that the overall basic dimensions are in proportion, then the increasingly finer details can be added. The subject of the painting should be something close to your heart. Invariably, the more interest you have in a subject the more success you will achieve. Large areas of the background should be painted first, allowing sufficient time for drying in between coats. Some people tend to wipe the surface after each coat with half an onion in order for subsequent layers to be absorbed better. Foreground details and finer details are added last. A final coat of lacquer can also be added.

These are only some of the basics of creating an oil painting. Much can be learned by watching an expert at work, regardless of the topic, so you should make every effort to find a competent artist who can create a work of art, with flowing, graceful lines in his oil painting. But the internet is also an ideal place to gather a great deal of information about different oil painting techniques.

When thinking of Caribbean art, seascapes and brightly painted tropical scenes usually spring to mind. But in the case of Guadeloupe's contemporary art scene, you may be surprised to discover a wealth of originality. While Guadeloupe's artists do call upon island influences in creating their works, the results are often far from expected.

Koukara

The predominant art movement in Guadeloupe today, Koukara, began in 1988. Meaning "the Caribbean colors," Koukara emphasizes the unity of the Caribbean people. Founded by art professors Klodi Cancelier, Lucien Léogane, and Jacques Lampécinado, its avant-garde aesthetic tends to be abstract or surreal, often with indigenous touches.

The movement's artists characteristically use the Fibressences method to create mixed media pieces. Fibressences incorporates natural materials in artworks, such as bits of wood, coconut fibers, sugar cane, and sand. These elements add an interesting three-dimensional quality to the work, as well as creating a close connection to the environment. Paintings in vibrant and deep hues make up the majority of pieces, but there are some exceptions. Karine Gabon paints on hanging fabrics and other materials, with an earth-toned color palette that enhances her primitive motifs; she also creates abstract sculptures. And Klodi Cancelier's paper series juxtaposed pieces of handmade papers painted with different colors and symbols.

The Koukara group has grown rapidly since its inception. With many of Guadeloupe's artists taking part in the movement, its style and ideals will likely continue to thrive in the coming years.

Other Contemporary Art

While Koukara is an important movement, it isn't the only type of art to be found in Guadeloupe. Thierry Bergame's surreal pop art displays a singular style and sense of humor. On the other hand, Déglas paints scenes with lighter tones and in a more naturalistic style, though he often includes fantastic elements like anthropomorphic animals and skeletons. Jean-Marc Hunt mainly uses objects like tools, pieces of wood, and even a sewing machine to create his sculptures. And while his paintings share a similar style with the Koukara group, his subject matter is generally quite different.

I hear you; another bleeding-heart liberal trying to save vicious barbarians from the justice they deserve and everybody wants to see. Bleeding-heart is a term vicious barbarians apply to forward-looking, sympathetic people who would deprive them of their just desserts (sic). Call me progressive Ishmael.

It is common that societies large and small depend on punishment to maintain order. The threat of punishment is the main device. The actual punishment is evidence that the society stands behind the threat. The paddle and expulsion at school, the speeding ticket and the fine, the very presence of the police car or motorcycle, the policeman equipped with a truncheon, a gun and a radio to call for reinforcements, the hydrogen bomb are all threats of hurt which exist to keep order.

Tyrants typically attempt to ward off attacks on their authority by killing or imprisoning their real or perceived enemies.

The United States of America is founded on the idea that the government is more dangerous than its worst citizens and must be curtailed. So it is not permitted to assume that someone is going to break the law and restrain him in advance. This is very inconvenient for everyone except the transgressor but in other systems no one is safe from the whip of the powerful.

It boils down to the question: How can we maintain order without harsh and debilitating measures?

Citizens who misbehave need to be motivated to conform to reasonable standards so that the general populace can function in a safe environment. How do we go about this? Fines, imprisonment and death are the usual solutions. Fines and the threat of fines seem to work for the large majority. People who have a lot of money are not concerned about fines so that brings up an equality issue, but the concept is probably healthy.

Imprisonment is generally punitive and hurtful. If we can find the resources and heart to make prison a place of rehabilitation instead of one of revenge, we will benefit greatly as a society. The function of prison should not be one of getting even with oddballs but a way to get destructive people away from the main body of society and help them to become positive citizens.

Often when people are accused of something they cannot prove a negative. In other words you cannot prove that you did not do something that you didn't do. Recently, someone accused me of my résumé and told me I could not prove what I had done in the past.

In fact, I could prove it but it would take a lot of time on my part to prove it and it would be no reason to prove it to someone who e-mailed me and called me a liar.

I asked the gentleman; Are you saying that you cannot prove a negative or a positive? What does that say for mankind? If someone slanders your name you cannot prove you did not kick your dog. If you do something positive you are saying that reality is no proof either? There is a verifiable way to prove it, except that it would be time-consuming.

The gentle men and accused me of tooting my own horn. It is not as if I placed something on my résumé which was not true such as a college degree which I did not earn but bought in the mail order, as many people have done. I only tell people a small percentage of my abilities. I down play my abilities, successes, etc. and quite frankly I am getting a little tired of it, always pretending to be less than what I am, as to not offend anyone.

You see, someone who works very hard and harder than anyone else and carries more than anyone else will often have one incredible résumé at a very early age from all that they have done. That is just the way it is, as if you are always doing something you are always accomplishing something and eventually the credits add up.

Yet, the more you do the more you were attacked. I asked myself why and I believe it is because most Humans do not try very hard and are quite lazy. I cannot list everything I have done, can do or will do in the future, who would believe me? I suppose compared to the average person many of my accomplishments do not look feasible even if I can prove it, why should I?