Buy Xanax Without Prescription Best Prices Guaranteed

Of all the works of the Bible, Ecclesiastes stands out as the most profound, probably because it is unlike any other chapter in either the Old or the New Testament. Written post-Exile, likely composed by a single writer, it is the greatest of all wisdom literature. It distills the essence of a deeply Hebraic worldview, which is why I prefer to refer to it by its Hebrew name, Koheleth, which means roughly "speaker to an assembly." What sets it apart from everything else in the Bible is its focus on mortality and the struggle of the here and now, rather than the otherworldly paradise to come. It preaches what are essentially pagan concepts, having more in common with the Stoics in many parts than with the early Jews or nascent Christians, although it is at its core a Jewish work. The writing is evocative and sonorous in the King James translation; a worthy rendering of what are universal truths orated by an idiosyncratic personality. I want to gesture at why Koheleth is one of the most important pieces of writing ever set down and why it remains a personal touchstone for my own life. Life is presented in Koheleth as a wonderous, but ephemeral gift, and the more one understands this, the more sorrowful and painful life becomes. This lies directly in constrast with the Christian tradition, which has always been more concerned with prudential wisdom, acting as a guide to good life and good works, its focus on how to maintain the straight and narrow path that leads to the Gates of Heaven. Christ's life is something to be emulated, serving as a guide for the Christian on how to live. Catholics have refined that instinct by creating constellations of saints, each serving as specific models for the believer. There is a "total wisdom" to be captured in the Christian tradition (with the exception of early gnostic writings and gospels), there is a final and complete wisdom that is excrutiatingly difficult to achieve, but resides as an endpoint and goal. The Hebraic wisdom, reaching its apotheosis in Koheleth, invokes a much different conception of wisdom. Wisdom, rather than being a propulsive force that pushes one towards a telos, is a murky pool that deserves endless and eternal rumination. Fate and fortune, randomness and chance, absent from any other part of the Bible, are embedded in Koheleth, introducing a painful awareness that life is often beyond are control, incomprehensible and remote, endless, yet brief. It is, as Harold Bloom puts it, the wisdom of annihiliation and Koheleth is the only sustained treatment of this essential truth. The first verse speaks more eloquently to Koheleth's designs than I ever could and I lay it here in its entirety and encourage the reader to speak it aloud, for it has the cadence of golden tongued oration.

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh; but the earth abideth forever.

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and haseth to his place where he arose.

The wind goeth to the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

All things are full of labor; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing wherof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

There is no rememberance of former things; neither shall there be any rememberance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

The Preacher was king over Israel in Jerusalem.

And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.

I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.

That which is crooked cannont be made straight; and that which is wanting cannot be numbered.

I communed with mine own heart, saying, Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem; yea, my heart had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.

And I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly; I perceived that this is also vexation of spirit.

For in much wisdom is much grief; and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

This is harrowing language, obsessed with the dual and dueling impulses of life: to quest for knowledge and to succumb to death. One engenders the other, making this intertwining the very core of all meaning and creating the most fundamental paradox that lies at the hearts of all men: our greatest mandate while alive is to gain wisdom, but the more we accomplish this goal, the closer to annihiliation we arrive. I have ruminated on this passage many times and always find it illuminating. I want to return to an exegesis of Koheleth in the future, as this opening verse merely introduces a more sustained and particularized discussion of these initial concepts. But there is ultmately little I can say that will be of value, for all is vanity and the world neither remembers nor cares.

The attorney general of most states has quite a bit of power over nonprofits. He is generally charged with the responsibility of supervision and oversight of charitable trusts and corporations and can bring actions against nonprofits to protect the public interest. The following are some of the specific powers attorney generals wield over nonprofits registered in their state: the power to investigate, subpoena witnesses, require the production of books and records, annul corporate existence (corporate death sentence), corporate dissolvement (ultra vires), restrain unauthorized activities, remove directors and trustees, enforce member rights, supervise indemnification awards, investigate transactions and relationships between directors, bring quo warranto actions to assure that absolute gifts are applied according to their terms, etc. The attorney general is a necessary party to litigation against nonprofits, he must receive notice when a suit is initiated by others, and nonprofits must register and file annual reports with his office. Judging by this cursory listing of attorney general powers, it would seem as if nonprofits are comprehensively overseen by the government. Yet, despite the existence of such powers, attorney general oversight remains more theoretical than deterrent. Here is why and here is the solution. Despite the enormous range and depth of powers at the attorney general's office's hands, there is very little litigation brought against nonprofits. In an age where nonprofits have proliferated wildly, it would be surprising if untoward activities were not occurring at a greater rate, yet the statistics (as far as can be compiled) do not show an increase in prosecution. The two main culprits are staffing problems and a relative lack of interest in monitoring nonprofits. Only thirteen states have specific charity sections within the attorney general's office. Attorneys general have much power in many legal realms and they must triage their duties. Nonprofit oversight often finds itself at the bottom of the heap. In ten states, there is no general system of registering and reporting at all. Before moving on to look for solutions, it must be said that the vast majority of nonprofits behave honorably and with good faith, their directors, members, and executives carrying out their fiduciary duties with high fidelity. Charitiable fiduciaries have generally internalized the norms of right behavior and adhere to the best practices promulgated by professional associations such as Independent Sector. One proposed solution to the twin effects of increasing number of charitable organization and decreasing enforcement is to create a new state agency that deals specificly with nonprofits. Kenneth Karst first wrote about this idea in the 1960s, envisioning an agency that would take over the role of the attorney general in this sector and would consolidate all the nonprofit information spread across mutliple agencies. To me, this sounds like a terrible idea. It would be one more bureaucracy prone to laziness and corruption. It would merely be creating two agencies to accomplish what only one did before. If this was the desired type of solution, then why not just divert more tax dollars to the attorney general's office with the purpose of hiring more lawyers to police nonprofits? A better and more efficient solution would be to increase the use of relators, as suggested by some, including James Fishman and Stephen Schwartz. "Relator" in this context refers to a party who may or may not have a direct interest in a transaction, but is permitted to institute an action in the name of the people when the right to sue resides solely in the attorney general. As of now, most states do not allow the general public to instigate suits against nonprofits unless they have been directly and particularly harmed or have a specific and particularized interest in the transaction. This is generally a good thing, shielding nonprofits from vexatious and unserious litigation. Expanding the use of relators by statute would avoid the problems of broadening standing, preserving the constitutional controls that require one to have been directly hurt in some way to initiate a law suit (there are some exceptions to this basic standing rule, but that is for another post). The relator could, with the permission of the attorney general, bring the suit on behalf of the affected interests. The attorney general would retain control over the general conduct of the law suit if it wanted, but the relator would be liable for cost and damages. Relator status has been granted to bar associations in California, cemetery plot holders in Kansas, directors of other state departments in Illinois, and members of social clubs in Florida. The biggest drawback is finding people or entities that want to bring suit knowing that the attorney general can take control at any point during the action and the entity would still be liable for damages found against the plaintiff. Regardless, there are interested parties that are willing to take that risk out of ideological or other concerns. Frivolous lawsuits would remain at a minimum because the attorney general could refuse to grant relator status. But for those cases where suits have merit, but the attorney general's office is too busy to handle them, relator statutes can serve to keep nonprofits in check without exhausting our tax dollars. What do you think? Does this seem a reasonable solution or is it enough of a social good that it is worth throwing more money at the problem?

NOTE: I just want to sketch out some potentially abhorrent ideas I had. I am quite aware of the gaping logical holes that follow. Consider this fodder for discussion rather than an attempt to create a cohesive argument. There are three basic justifications or rationalizations for state punishment: incapacitation, rehabilitation, and deterrence. They are all generally considered to be acceptable to some degree depending on your philosophical disposition. There is a fourth justification that underlies the other three and is the most convincing for the atheist. First, there is incapaciation, the simplest and most straightforward. The idea is that there is a subset of criminals who need to be segregated from society to protect society. The easiest and most visceral example is the serial pedophile. This type of pedophile will continue to molest children if allowed to roam freely. He is imprisoned to make it impossible for him to continue to molest. Prison functions solely to stop him, and only him, from harming others. Second, there is rehabilitation, the most popular and least realistic justification. Originating with the Quakers in the 1800s, this penal theory holds that prison should be used to educate and help criminals learn to be moral citizens. While locked away, prisoners are given the tools to become better people. Once they learn the error of their ways, they can be released back into society as productive and law-abiding citizens. Third, there is deterrence, the most popular scholarly justification for state incarceration. This simply means that the state imprisons people in order to send a warning to others: if you commit crimes, you will be punished. This warning then reduces crimes because it makes criminal acts less attractive because they are more risky. There are two types of deterrence: specific and general. Specific deterrence is concerned with deterring the individual criminal from committing more crimes. Once they know what it is like to have their liberty and freedom taken away, they are less likely disobey the law because they know the severity of the consequences. General deterrence is concerned with everyone. People in general will be less likely to commit a crime because they know that there is potentially a negative consequence to their actions. Deterrence is a favorite of utilitarians, like Benthem, who sometimes create faniciful moral calculuses to determine the requisite level of punishment needed to maximize the deterrence effect. None of these justifications are discrete. Incarcerating someone to deter others necessarily also incapacitates him. Rehabiliting someone in prison does not remove the stigma from having to be in prison, so deterrence is still present. For the religious, none of these justifications makes a difference in the final analysis. There is a fantastical being in the sky who records all your thoughts and deed and remembers them without forgetting. When you die, you must face this infinite bureaucrat who performs a celestial accounting of your life. If you have done good, you are rewarded. If you have done bad, you are punished. What does it matter what the state thinks is the best justification for punishment when there is someone far more vast and important who performs the final arbitration? The believers know that there will be personal justice for them at some point, even if justice in the world is meted out by and for the benefit of the state. Divine retribution awaits everyone. For the athiest, there is no solace in a just afterlife because such a utopia is a foolish delusion. Punishment must come in the here and now or it will never come at all. The intutive sense of justice that most people have can be explained through genetics and evolution, although I am not going to make that case here today. The argument rests on the assumption that for the reader, concepts such as "justice" and "fairness" have meaning without the foundation of natural law, derived from spiritual or scriptural sources. The religious person has the personal satisfaction that evildoers will receive their just deserts. The athiest can only have that personal satisfaction if people are punished solely for the sake of punishment. Deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation might all be byproducts of the punishment, but the punishment is just regardless of whether any of these other effects occur. Revenge as justification for punishment is considered barbaric by many, but it is the most basic justification, the one that resides deepest in our hearts. Modern society has purged this instinct, replacing it with "rational" philosophies. Who hasn't considered the atrocities they would commit if someone tortured and raped their mother? This is so universal, it must be genetic, perhaps a evolutionary response to and a way of supporting the bond of reciprical altruism that binds us together and which allowed civilization to be born. The danger is that individuals would carry out the revenge-punishment themselves, turning to vigilantism in lieu of the courts. This would remove the procedural and substantive safeguards built into the justice system. To avoid this problem, the state should carry out the punishment on behalf of those affected by the crime, channeling the revenge in order to insure its fairness, rather than treating all crimes as ultimately offenses against the state. This would provide the satisfaction of revenge for the athiest, who cannot rely on a otherwordly satisfaction to come.

Jason pointed out the potential for embarassment that could be caused when you confuse words that have two or more meanings. Sometimes two words will be different but very similar and one might accidently use the one when they mean the other. This also causes great shame. A common example, which every schoolchild knows, concerns the words Phar Lap and Pharlapsicus. Phar Lap is, obviously, Australia's wonder horse, who won the Agua Caliente Handicap in 1932. Then he died a fortnight later. You don't have to be the a wizard of "Oz" to know that (but it helps)! Pharlapiscus (note: this name is so popular, it appears as an external link to a HotBot web search for the term Chalicodoma pluto!) is also a creature, but it is no regular horse! It is an irregular horse, also known as a short-snouted Australian sea horse. Do not underestimate the potential for awkwardness if you mistakenly confuse the two terms. For instance, upon hearing these two terms the inimitable Albert J. Klee chuckled. I wrote this post because I once made this mistake and it cost me my family. Here is an easy mnemonic that will help you remember the difference: "A horse (with legs) runs a far lap around the racetrack and is blessed, but a sea horse who runs a far lap is cursed. Make sure you really slur the word "cursed" or the mnemonic doesn't work. The world is an amazing place full of wonder, don't fuck it up by sloppily confusing words. Note: the words are so similar because one was named after the other, although which came first is an etymological mystery for all time.

All My Children recently featured a long discussion about the muscian Mike Patton. "WTF?" is as overused as standing ovations, but sometimes it fits. WTF?! It reminded me of when Ryan Starr from American Idol did a Sun0))) song. [youtube]inQlkhZr0ec[/youtube]