Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion

The war’s dragging on, people are dying, Oklahoma has been under a heat advisory for almost over a week solid now, the government is gleefully stripping away our rights on both sides of the isle, and all the other outrages I may have missed have largely been unreported. So I have to ask this question;

Why is it, with all the things Americans should know and be aware of both within our borders and regarding the world at large, that when I turn on CNN I don’t see an article about any of that but a story running about how a 73-year old geezer is the most popular porn star in Japan.

Seriously, CNN, what the fuck?! Why is this news?

At best, I was a half-hearted supporter of Obama’s. I was never overly enthused by him, though there were some periods where I thought I’d be able to call myself an Obama supporter with a measure of dignity. Over the last few weeks, that illusion has been shattered.

For all his talk and all his charm, Obama’s showing me now what I can expect in the future; more of the same old G.W.B. bullshit. As I look on his stances on the FISA amendments and now the faith-based bullshit, I can’t help but be left to reflect on our current situation.

Over the last 8 years, two presidential terms, George Bush has pulled some of the most unlawful actions in American history with impunity. Anything he wanted, he got on a golden platter. Anything illegal he did was turned a blind eye to by those sworn to uphold the rule of the law. I am now convinced that this attitude has forever ruined American politics and will lead us into a new age where corruption runs unchecked.

Obama now knows he’s got a 50-50 chance of getting the presidency and that Americans are pretty pissed at Republicans so the pressure’s pretty well off him now. And he’s been shown that the president can snub his nose at the law and Congress will roll over like the impotent, toothless tiger that it’s become.

And really, what choice do we, the people, have but to grin and bear it? There’s nothing that I know of which can force a reform to the corrupt politicains we now have in office. There’s no third party I can vote for because rarely, if ever, does a third party get on the ballet here in Oklahoma. Any time a third party gets media attention, it seems, it is laughed down until it crawls back under it’s rock.

The only thing I can think of, which I’ve mentioned before, is revoke the guarenteed spots on the ballots for Republicans and Democrats, but I know that won’t happen with the government the way it is now. I honestly want to know what can be done to change the way things are. I know, call my senator and voice my opinion, but even then the shit that shouldn’t be passed through congress is still being passed.

I thought I was going to vote this year, but I’m now seeing myself with the same options as when I thought Hillary Clinton was going to get the nomination; a choice between a Republican and a Republican Lite. Which one will shit on the Constitution less?

Obama, I thought you were the voice of change, I thought you were a voice of hope, but now I see what’s under the sheep’s clothing and I’m not impressed.

Will America ever return to the way it was before Bush got into office?

According to a May 17,2008 AP article, Alabama’s county sheriffs are are given $1.75 per day to feed a prisoner - and are allowed to pocket the difference, if they can do it cheaper.

The report says “critics charge that Alabama, in effect, is paying law enforcement to skimp on food and might be rewarding sheriffs for mistreating prisoners. “It’s a bad system, and it ought not be that way,” said Buddy Sharpless, executive director of the Association of County Commissions of Alabama.

I don’t understand the negative reaction to the fact that Alabama’s county sheriffs are allowed to profit by, in my opinion participating in what amounts to legal graft, by scrimping on food for prisoners. (Alabama jails bank on cheap meals - Law allows sheriffs to pocket leftover food allowance, AP May 17, 2008)

What’s the big deal? Isn’t this exactly what private prisons do? While condemning the practice by county sheriffs, I’m sure Mr. Sharpless would listen attentively to executives from Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) making their pitch to privatize public jails and prisons.

CCA claims to save states and counties money by negotiating a per-head fee for housing and feeding prisoners. They profit by pocketing the difference between what they spend and what they charge the taxpayers. Contracting-out public services had been a gold mine for ARAMARK, too. In addition to prisons, ARAMARK also turns a tidy profit feeding children attending public schools.

I agree with Mr. Sharpless opinion, “It’s a bad system, and it ought not be that way.” As a taxpayer I want to know my dollars are going to provide public services, not lining the pockets of CCA and ARAMARK.

This week, CafePress sent us a cap as a free sample, to get us excited about selling clothes using a technology they call InfiniStitch. It’s a way to get an image made on a computer automatically stitched as a badge on a piece of clothing.

That sounds really great, but there’s a problem, as seen on the sample cap filmed in the movie below: The stitching doesn’t actually look very good, and the words in the stitching are almost impossible to read.

That’s small stuff compared to the problem I found on the tag: The cap is made in China by a company called Alternative Apparel. The name Alternative Apparel sounds great, but there’s more to a business than just a name.

Alternative Apparel makes a lot of promises when it comes to the ethical treatment of workers in its Chinese factories, and it says that it inspects factories a few times a year in order to see if things are on the up-and-up. However, Alternative Apparel doesn’t really know what’s going on in those factories in China except on those special inspection days.

What’s going on in Chinese factories has been exposed: Forced prisoner labor, worker abuse, and even child slave labor. The New York Times recently reported that “Big corporations have stepped up inspections of factories that produce goods for them. But suppliers have become adept at evading such scrutiny by providing fake wage and work schedule data that suggest they abide by labor laws.” They report the use of Chinese child slave labor as “quite typical”.

Alternative Apparel surely knows about these problems, and the insufficiency of inspections in revealing the problem. Yet, they choose to do business in China anyway.

Why? That’s easy. They do it for the money.

Alternative Apparel chose to have the clothes it sells made in China in order to save money, so that they could make big profits. They knew that China has low labor costs because it has low standards of worker protection.

Alternative Apparel chose to outsource its manufacturing to China in order to avoid American laws that guarantee fair treatment of workers and environmental protections.

Do you want to support that choice? It’s your freedom to do so, but if you buy from companies like Alternative Apparel, please don’t act shocked when you hear about children being forced to work as slaves in China. You helped make it happen, after all, with every cheap thing you bought that was made in China.

There is a true alternative in apparel. You can buy a shirt from Skreened, which prints here in the USA, only on shirts that are made in America, by American Apparel.

American Apparel is the real thing. They follow American labor and environmental laws. Alternative Apparel doesn’t. They went for the ethical loophole. They’re just posers.

Do you want to wear clothes made by posers?

I just saw an article at AfterDowningStreet.org claiming that Hillary Clinton, when employed by the House Judiciary Committee in investigating Watergate, was dishonest and unethical. The writer spoke to, among others, the committee’s chief of staff, Jerry Zeifman. Clinton was working on a memo supporting the position that Nixon had no right to counsel before the committee; Zeifman told her she should read and cite a recent case that gave the opposite precedent; when she finished the memo, he found that she had (a) ignored that case, and (b) removed it from the committee’s files. Apparently, she was taking this position in the first place because her political patron was tied to the Kennedys, who didn’t want Nixon defending himself too well—he could have excused his own abuses of power by digging up JFK’s.

There’s more (including from the chief Republican counsel), but, to me, that’s the worst of it. If this is true, then Clinton probably committed a crime, in order to strengthen her patron’s political standing.

How clean is John McCain? For that matter, how clean is the news media? Bloomberg news, which as a telecommunications company is mixed right up in the very telecom lobbying business it purports to report objectively upon, has quoted “a senior adviser to John McCain” as saying that John McCain is not inappropriately influenced by the large number of lobbyists that he associates with. This “senior adviser to John McCain”, Charles Black, is quoted as saying that “John McCain does no favors for, nor gives no special treatment to, any lobbyists — even if they are a friend of his.”

The thing is, Charles Black isn’t exactly a neutral, objective source in the matter. Charles Black is a top official in the John McCain for President campaign, but what’s more, Charles Black is a lobbyist himself.

Charles Black is the chairman of BKSH & Associates Worldwide, a powerful lobbying company. Here’s what BKSH itself has to say about its lobbying work “BKSH’s capabilities encompass a broad range of economic, social, domestic and international issues. Our professionals have managed “front-page” issues and have worked quietly on behind-the-scenes projects. Our mission can be as targeted as securing the inclusion or deletion of specific language in congressional legislation, or as broad as strengthening the bilateral relationship between a foreign country and the United States.”

Charles Black runs a lobbying firm with the goal of “securing the inclusion or deletion of specific language in congressional legislation”. So, what is he doing serving as a top adviser of the presidential campaign of John McCain, a member of the U.S. Senate? Why is John McCain forming close political alliances with lobbyists who have openly declared their intention to help their corporate clients manipulate congressional legislation?

Furthermore, why does Bloomberg News cite Charles Black, a lobbyist who is professionally dedicated to influencing legislation in Congress through contact with politicians like John McCain, as a credible source to reassure Americans that John McCain does no special favors for lobbyists?

To use lobbyist Charles Black as a source on this story, Bloomberg reporter Edwin Chen makes himself appear either incompetent and naive or as corrupted by the influence of media business lobbyists as John McCain.

The three trillion dollar budget viciously cuts programs that benefit the American people, so how come it’s still the biggest federal budget in history? Part of the answer is that the budget proposed by George W. Bush contains the biggest military budget since World War II.

Are we really supposed to believe that the “War On Terror”, a fight against Islamic terrorist riff raff, our generation’s equivalent of a war against pirates, costs more than the global struggle against the forces of the Soviet Union and other Communist nations? No, don’t believe that for a second - you’re being asked to believe something even worse.

You see, when they say that the military budget requested for 2009 is the biggest since World War II, they aren’t even including the nearly trillion dollars extra that the Bush White House is expected to request for the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where is the money going this time? It’s going to fund corruption, fraud and waste. It’s going into the pockets of some very well-connected individuals - people in what the charitable refer to as the “defense” industry who have close working relationships with the Bush White House and members of Congress.

The military-linked corruption isn’t only going to the Republican side of the aisle, either. Think about the whopper unloaded upon the good people of Missouri by Democratic Congressman Ike Skelton: The Chicago Tribune cites Representative Skelton as saying that the military budget is necessary to ensure the health of the military.

The health of the military? My foot. The budget increase for the Pentagon ensures the financial health of military contractor corporations, and their investors and executives who are linked to politicians in Washington D.C. It’s a financial scheme for which members of Congress will be rewarded generously in the form of campaign donations. It’s dirty, rotten, stinking corporate pork barrel in the form of bullets and bombs.

En lieu of the recent posts on the main blog about the FISA ordeal, I thought I should share this little story I came across when I logged on to Yahoor today.

(Link)

Senate delays eavesdropping vote
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer2 hours, 39 minutes ago

The Senate on Thursday signaled support for granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government conduct warrantless eavesdropping, a sign that the contentious provision may be headed for approval next week.

On a strong 60-36 vote, senators rejected an amendment that would have killed the immunity provision and strengthened the powers of a secret court to oversee the surveillance of phone calls and e-mails that involve people inside the United States.

Further action on the legislation was delayed until Monday, pushing Congress closer to a Feb. 1 deadline for enacting a new law. If a new law is not signed by the president by then, some eavesdropping practices that are now legal would be prohibited.

The Bush administration is insisting that any new law also protect from potentially crippling civil lawsuits those telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, R-Nev., blamed Republicans for the delay, saying they were trying to block a series of amendments majority Democrats sought to offer.

“It appears the president and Republicans want failure. They don’t want a bill,” Reid said.

The draft bill, written by the Senate Intelligence Committee, would update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The law, first enacted in 1978, dictates when federal agents must obtain court permission before tapping phone and computer lines inside the United States to gather intelligence on foreign threats. Agents may tap lines outside the country without court oversight.

It was the second time in six weeks the Senate had taken up the FISA modernization bill, only to see action stymied. Reid abruptly closed down debate in December when it became clear the Senate couldn’t finish work before the holiday break.

Most vexing to the intelligence agencies, without an extension of the law the government would return to needing individual court orders to listen in on any communication that passes through U.S. telecommunications switches and computer servers — even those that are between people who are outside the country. This is not required by FISA, according to legal experts, but became the practice over time to provide firms with legal protections.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., on Thursday proposed extending the existing law for 30 days to buy the Senate additional time to produce a bill. The House completed its version of the bill last fall.

In a move to resolve the immunity issue, the key impasse on the legislation, the White House ended months of resistance Thursday and agreed to give House members access to secret documents about its warrantless wiretapping program.

The Bush administration is trying to persuade the House to agree to retroactively shield from liability those companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans without the approval of the FISA court. About 40 such civil lawsuits are pending against telecommunications firms, and the administration says if the cases go forward they could reveal information that would compromise national security. It also contends that the companies could be bankrupted if the lawsuits are successful.

The companies were helping the administration carry out the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, a still-classified effort that intercepted communications on U.S. soil without oversight from the FISA court from Sept. 11, 2001, to Jan. 17, 2007.

Reyes and Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House intelligence panel, requested access to the White House documents in May. House Democrats say they will not support telecom immunity without seeing them first. Some senators were given access to the documents last fall.

The documents include the president’s authorization of warrantless wiretapping, Justice Department legal opinions going back to 2001, and the requests sent to the telecommunications companies asking for their assistance.

I’m trying really hard to be surprised these days…really hard…

I’m still lazy, so here’s another comic;

Mike Huckabee loves to tell people about how he is an ordained Southern Baptist minister. What he has been more reluctant to share is that he took tens of thousands of dollars from a cigarette company while he was Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas.

Forty thousand dollars is more than what many Americans make from an entire year of work, but it’s what Mike Huckabee got for making just one speech in front of the group representing a secret source of money, which was in turn funded by a cigarette company. Huckabee claims not to have known about that, but witnesses place him meeting with an executive from the cigarette company about the fund and where its money came from.

Taking money from big corporations while he was in public office was no big deal, says Huckabee. If that kind of payoff is okay with you, then Mike Huckabee for President may just be your favorite campaign. If not, vote for a clean, progressive candidate for President instead.

(Source: Newsweek, December 17, 2007)

[This is the 4th post of the serial discussion regarding vital queries on existence and life. The 1st, the 2nd and the 3rd posts are “Is the Truth Attainable?”,“Evidence of Essential Existence in the Nature” and “Life: Evidence of Essential Existence” respectively.]According to the verdict of reason the ever-changing natural world is a possible existence and so its primary source must be an Essential Existence.Followers of religions believe in Essential Existence, however not by this name; they have given this Existence different name in different languages. That doesn’t matter. In English language this Existence is called God and for the sake of language we see no problem to use this name. But the problem is the definition of the Essential Existence or God. Religions differed each other regarding His definition. To solve these differences we must rely on the verdict of reason that is universally, irrespective of religions, common standard, hence should be accepted.Reason can find some positive attributes those are unavoidably necessary for the Essential Existence and some negative or relatively negative characteristics from which He must be free. In a nutshell we can say that He must have all the attributes necessary for perfectness and He must be free from all the characteristics those indicates directly or indirectly deficiency, weakness or need. Now we shall discuss regarding these attributes of perfectness and negative characteristics.

1) Life: The first attribute the reason can find essential for the Essential Existence is life. A lifeless existence can create neither a living thing nor a lifeless thing. A lifeless thing cannot inject or inspire life to a lifeless thing. Because we are living, so the Essential Existence must be a living existence. His life must be eternal i.e. beyond time. He is the Creator of time too, so He may not be limited within time.

2) Power: The Essential Existence must have unlimited power to do everything including creation of material and non-material living and lifeless existence, natural rules etc. If He had no absolute and unlimited power then He couldn’t start creation from nothing.

3) Will: The Essential Existence must have will to do or not to do anything, otherwise in spite of having absolute and unlimited power He wouldn’t create anything.

4) Knowledge: He must have absolute knowledge i.e. complete knowledge of His own existence and knowledge about all forms of past, present and future of His creation. Absolute knowledge means He is capable to plan and execute the plan of creation and its management. Otherwise He couldn’t do this or couldn’t do this in the best manner.

5) Unlimited: His existence must be unlimited, because limitation represents weakness. So He must be free from all sorts of limitations including that of space and time. Due to the same reason none of the created things; even the whole space can contain Him. So He cannot enter into the body or self of a creation.

6) Invisible: He must be invisible, because visibility is the characteristic of some material existences and they are naturally limited.

7) Non-Material: He must be non-material. Even He may not be semi-material. Matter and semi-material things are naturally limited. Being limited is one of the signs of weakness and imperfectness. So the Essential Existence cannot be material.

Without Limbs or Body: The Essential Existence must be free of having limbs or body. Body limits an existence, so the Unlimited Existence may not have a body and for the Existence without body question of having limbs or organs does not arise. Why do we need limbs, organs or physical senses? We need due to physical and qualitative limit of our existence. We see with our eyes, but all the scenes are reflected in the Essential Existence, so He does not need eyes; He can see without eyes and can see better than us. We have ears to hear and listen, but all the sounds are reflected in Him; He can hear and listen without ears and can hear and listen better than us. We smell with our noses, but all the smells reflect in Him. So He does not need any nose. We taste and talk with our tongues and throats, but He is the Creator of tastes and informative sounds, so all the tastes reflect in His Knowledge and He can transfer any message without voice and if will can create informative sounds or voices in ears or minds of listeners. We touch and catch with our hands, but everything is within the control of His will, so He does not need hands. We need our legs to move from one place to another place, but He is beyond place or space and is the creator of space, no space can conceive Him, so question of having legs for moving from one place to another does not arise for Him.Though no example, particularly material example matches to the very existence of the Essential Existence, yet to make the point more clear we can put an example. Suppose there is a living being with unlimited expansion of existence to the extent that all the material creations are within it and every particle of that existence has the capacity to see, hear, smell, taste and preserve & transfer all kinds of information of everything. Then should such an existence need eyes, ears, nose, tongues, throat, hands or legs? Then how may it be thinkable that the non-material unlimited Essential Existence, who is the creator of all material and non-material limited existences, should have necessity to have body and limbs or organs for Him? He does not need ears; He can hear.

9) Non-Dissectible: The Essential existence may not be a complex existence composed of parts or particles or atoms. Because an existence composed of parts is dependent on its parts, and the Essential Existence must be free of all kinds of dependency. So His existence must be non-dissectible and beyond analysis. He must be non-dissectible both from physical point of view and also from intellectual point of view i.e. from development of the very existence and qualities. Any kind of development is related to imperfect existence or quality that does not suit to the Essential Existence.

10) Oneness of Existence: It means any quality of the Essential Existence is the Existence Himself, not different from His very existence. So when we say that He is living it means His life is not different than Him. We can assume a human being or any other living being as lifeless too, but He Himself is His life. Similarly when we say that He has willpower it means He Himself is His willpower. On the other hand He sees and listens without separate seeing and listening power, but He Himself is His seeing and listening power.Though He is above any kind of material example yet this point may be understood to some extent from some worldly examples too. Generally people think that ear or hearing sense is necessary to hear and eye or seeing sense is necessary to see. But there are animals void of ears such as snakes that have no separate ears; a snake listens with its tongue besides tasting. Similarly an ant sees without eye by the help of its horns. So we can think about a living being that its body itself substitutes all of our five senses. This is regarding weak and imperfect created beings, so it is quite clear that the very ‘existence’ of the Essential Existence is capable of doing all the works those we do with our senses. Because He is the creator of senses, so He is free of the necessity of senses or qualities other than His ‘existence’.

Relative Qualities:

We can assume some qualities of the Essential Existence those focus upon His relationship with the creation. It means those are not essential for His existence for being essential existence, but emerge as the relationship with the creation Therefore, we can term these qualities as relative qualities. If He wouldn’t create anything then these qualities wouldn’t be conceivable. In a nutshell these qualities are: He is the initiator or creator, manager, guide, all-knowing, all-seeing, kind, judge, just, executioner of punishment etc. Some questions may arise and clarifications may be necessary regarding this attributes that may be discussed separately. We think in the present topic only mentioning (as done) is enough.

Why not Similar or son?

Some people ask question: If God is all-powerful then why is He unable to create another God or a Son for Him?

Such kind of question is illogical. Because, ‘being created’ is related to possible existence; related to neither the Essential Existence, nor impossible thing. If He creates anybody with all His qualities, yet due to being created and being limited within the frame of time, it may become neither eternal, nor essential, so it may not become His similar. The question of son is same. Son of a man must be a complete man and son of an ant must be a complete ant. So if the Essential Existence has to have a son that must be Essential Existence. But due to the same cause mentioned above a second Essential Existence is impossible.

In 1970, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize for literature, but could not give the address. In the speech he prepared, however, he wrote:

“Let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose falsehood as his principle. At its birth, violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood.”

I like the sound of what he says, but is it true? Isn’t violence a brutal form of honest communication? Isn’t any falsification of the violence separate from the violence itself?

If not, where does the falsehood come in, afterwards?

[This is the 3rd post of the serial discussion regarding vital queries on existence and life. The 1st and the 2nd posts are “Is the Truth Attainable?” and “Evidence of Essential Existence in the Nature” published in The Irregular Times on the 9th and 28th November 2007 respectively.]

This universe and everything in it (generally considered as material beings) are ever changing and dominated by some set of natural rules or causes and effects. When pre-conditions of emergence of something are prepared then that thing comes into existence. Thus all the present things are debtors to previous things. Thus we may go back to the primary source of this universe. But the source dominated by cause and effect rule cannot be the primary source, because in that case a cause would be necessary for that cause or source. So according to reason the primary source must be non-material and above domination of cause and effect rule, rather initiator of not only the first material existence, also initiator of cause and effect rule or natural rules. Such a source must be ever-existing i.e. above beginning and ending, birth and death, development and decaying. Such an existence is essential for the beginning of all the conditioned existence of our experience - existence of which is conditioned to preparedness of necessary causes. So we may term these material existences as possible existence and the initiator of the possible existence and natural rules dominating over these existences as the Essential Existence.

But materialists, particularly the atheists are not ready to accept this simple truth. They blindly deny the existence of the Essential Existence behind this material world, though they are not able to explain the origin of the universe that wherefrom emerged the material world and the natural rules dominating the world.

The origin of such kind of blind conception is their blind faith that existence is equal to matter and there is nothing other than matter. So they can’t understand the existence of a living all-powerful wise non-material Essential Existence. In this way of blind faith they advanced to the extent that they deny the existence of life, or in other words existence of themselves. They claim that life is nothing but chemical reactions of matter. Do they really “feel” it? No doubt that matters have physical and chemical reactions. But matter itself can’t feel anything. Then how do they “feel” it?

We may understand the reality of life from another characteristic of human beings. Mechanical reactions of matter are straight and there is no room for hesitation in such reactions. For example, if a piece of iron is put between two magnets on a point with same distance from the both free from other influential material elements, then it would proceed to the stronger one without any hesitation. But in question of many deeds we see hesitation in human beings before doing the work; they analyze many aspects of a work to take decision whether to do or not and if the decision is positive then they do it. Analysis of a future work by a human being sometimes includes not only material aspects of its reactions, but some non-material aspects, such as moral, cultural etc. too. Sometimes physical and biological needs and their fulfillment are explained as automatic physical reactions in the material sense. But it is evident that physical reactions are not mere material reactions. Because there is a personality in every living creature, though quality or level of personality varies among different kinds of creatures and among different individuals of one kind of creatures. But the non-material characteristics are more evident in human behaviour. When a hungry cow sees some grasses it do not hesitate to take it. But when a hungry human being get a fruit and sees no hindrance in front of him that may resist him/ her taking it or may create danger in future for him, yet sometimes he/ she does not take it. Here a non-material characteristic popularly called as morality resists him/ her from taking it. In fact terms like morality, kindness, honour etc. are purely non-material and are not applicable to matter. Human beings debate regarding many things including the existence of the Essential Existence and existence of a non-material entity in human being. Also this debate proves a non-material existence popularly known as soul or personality or self in the human being, because there may be no room of debate in matter. These characteristics do not conform mater. So it is quite clear that works of human beings are not limited to material reactions, but there is at least one non-material existence in a human being. It is beyond doubt that lifeless matter cannot create such non-material existences like life, soul or personality even through a billions of years’ process, because these sorts of existences are superior to mater and it is evident that inferior existence cannot bring a superior existence in to existence, rather there must be an existence more superior than these superior existences. This superior most existence must be the Essential Existence. The system of continuation of all the species and their inter-relationship is wonderful. Some species, such as plants and trees and some kinds of worms and germ-like small animals take non-living food items from the nature. Some species take only grasses and plants. Other species take at the same times mineral items, leaves & plants and flesh & blood of other animals. In general superior animals take other animals as food. But some animals having superior development than others take leaves and grasses instead of taking inferior animals and are used as food by animals those are superior to them. If this kind of animals (such as cows, ships etc.) would take meat like tigers, lions etc. then it wouldn’t be possible for human beings to make them domestic. Then they couldn’t collect enough meat. We see some categories of trees are giving fruits and human beings and birds take those. Many of the fruits have no direct relationship with reproduction. There are plants and trees those produce only seeds for their reproduction. Some plants and trees produces seeds those are fruits at the same time and are taken by other animals beside their role for reproduction. But there are other fruits those produces fruits having seeds within and other animals take these fruits leaving seeds. So the eatable parts of such fruits have no role for their reproduction Was there any harm if these trees and plants would produce only seeds for reproduction like the first group? So there is no doubt that these fruits grow not for those trees and plants but for other animals.

Another characteristics of living beings other than a few such as germs and viruses, is being male and female. However it was possible that every species would be genderless having capacity of reproduction or would be female having capacity of reproduction without help of the male. But then generations of every species would be like a tree having branches and sub-branches, instead of present network form. But that wouldn’t be enough helpful for sustaining of species. For example, at the present system, among many of the species after giving birth of child or laying egg one of the couple stays beside that or those for protection and the other goes for searching food. If only one was to do both the works then their enemies would easily take away that or those. Moreover, for superior animals particularly for human species this system helped formation of society and mutual cooperation and its benefit is evident. Progress of science and technology wouldn’t be possible in absence of social system in tree-like generation system due to absence of necessity of cooperation that exists in network system.

And the sex; it is the evidence of a wonderful programming. Sexual instinct is the strongest instinct after thirst and hunger; even sometimes it defeats thirst and hunger. This inspiration bounds the male and the female to unite and take the responsibility of continuation of the species. We see sexual instinct remain at its peak during the period the female has reproduction capacity (those who are unable to reproduce are in fact naturally defective or ill). It indicates that aim of this strong instinct is to make them bound to play appropriate role for continuation of species.

We can find the same target behind the affection and love for children without which the human race couldn’t continue its existence. Also the thirst for having children in human nature is very strong to the extent that in spite of risk for life women want to become mother. However, the western materialistic culture injected into human beings the tendency of consumption and enjoyment avoiding natural responsibility on the one hand and has invented methods elements to help sexual enjoyment avoiding responsibility of having children and risk-free delivery on the other. But during the period when there was no method or element for risk-free delivery women used to have children more than the present era though they were not unaware about the trouble and risk of delivery. Though sexual instinct is a very strong natural instinct, yet one can suppress it or can fulfill it through unnatural way to some extent and can avoid the risk of delivery. But always in the past the women folk used to welcome this risk. Why? Only due to the strength of the instinct for having child in them to the extent that it defeats the fear of life-risk. No doubt that this instinct assured the continuity of the human species.

Is it possible for the lifeless blind nature to programme the living creation in such a way even in billions of years? It is possible only for a living, wise and all-powerful Existence Who initiated the creation from nothing other than by His will.

If one stress upon one’s claim that the nature has done it, then surely the nature would be an existence other than matter and natural rules dominating the universe and He must have created matter and rules. Then the Nature (in this sense) must be everlasting, ever-living, willful, almighty and wise whom we call the Essential Existence and we have no objection if you call Him the Nature just like others who call Him God, Allah, Jehovah, Ishwar etc. The definition of this Existence is our concern, not the names given in different languages or groups of people.