Inner Undulations: December 2004

Jabba the Hutlike, Michael Moorlock oozes and exhudes, and the Eloai purr and coo. In cherished Jabbaspeak (imagine Jabba after inhaling helium), Michael Moorlock makes pronouncements and the Eloai nod their woolly heads, sagely.

"Baaa," they intone, answering Michael Moorlock's "Wubb wubba wub wub."

Interpretation into English:
Shame on you, Mr. President, for launching your fictional war, for your fictional reasons, with your fictional rhetoric, and fictional fictions. Lie, lie lie, LIE lie lie, LIE LIE lie lie, lie lie lie. Thank you very much, and thank you for the Oscar. Yippee!

The Eloai clap their hooves, they wag their woolly tails and nod their woolly heads. Amen, they say, hurrah and hallelujah.

Iraq, you say, linked to terrorism? Don't be absurd. Didn't you hear Sean Penn, he talked to the Iraqis and they love everybody, they feel that everybody's religion is just as valid as anyone else's, and everybody deserves an equal break, everybody deserves a big ole group hug. And poor misunderstood Saddamn Hussein, he only wanted to beautify his country, he wanted every Iraqi to get some time serving their country (the torture chamber gotta be cleaned, you know? all that stainless steel needs to be polished and hygenic) -- none of these good spiritual people wanted to get their collective ass kicked by the good ole U. S. of A.

So what if Saddamn Hussein sends bounties to the families of the exploding Palestinians, this isn't terrorism, it is only a humanitarian effort by the "great man." Link to terrorism? Absurd. Link to 9/11? I think we can all agree that Saddamn Hussein was not flying EVEN ONE of those lethal jets that punched into innocent American targets. How can those rightwing nutjobs even IMAGINE connecting Iraq to terrorism? Haven't they listened to the "Wubb wubba wub wub?" Don't they realize that 9/11 was a fictional day?

The Eloai flock together, they raise their right hooves, they chew the green grass. Baaaa, they agree.

And Michael Moorlock guffaws, he snatches a sweet Eloai and tosses it whole into his gullet. A guy has got to eat, don't he? And Michael Moorlock sells the truth, so for the greater good, for the collective conscience, what does it matter if an individual or two adds to his fat cell storehouse? Prophet, entertainer, salesman and poster boy for double supersize portions, Michael Moorlock, he wubbs, and the Eloai baaa. When the big ole tummy of Michael Moorlock grumbles, the Eloai ever prove sweet.

DCLWolf Links:

twitter

https://twitter.com/DCLWolf

facebook

https://www.facebook.com/dclwolfArts

Douglas Christian Larsen website

www.DouglasChristianLarsen.net

fine art america

http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/douglas-christian-larsen.html

imagekind

http://DCLWolf.imagekind.com/

lulu

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/DCLWolf

pinterest

https://www.pinterest.com/dclwolf/

Think about it, the people that favor abortion, generally decry capitol punishment. So death to the innocent (generally soft-termed "right to choice") allows humans the right to end the life of a person that has never made a choice, but disallows humans the right to collectively put an end to someone who has chosen to end a life.

Does this make sense? It is okay to kill an innocent, but inhumane to kill the perpetrator guilty of a heinous crime.

Probably it all comes down to what is seen and what is not seen, what is little and what is big. A human fetus is very small, it hardly looks human, and it is unseen (hidden within a woman's body), whereas a mass murderer is comparatively big (in relation to a fetus) and is generally not hidden within a woman's body, and usually passes for human. So we cringe at terminating the life of a big person which appears human that we can see, but find it reasonable to end a human life because we cannot see it and it hardly appears human.

When does the fetus cease to be "part of a woman's body" or a "woman's choice?" Is it when it is separated from the host? So that a baby whose umbilical cord is severed is a human on its on right, no longer a piece of flesh sprouting from another person -- at this point it would be a crime to jab a scalpel into its head, correct?

Is this right? Does it make sense?

But when the baby's head has not crowned, it is not a person, and a sharp instrument that is inserted to find and destroy the baby, a penetration that rips and tears the infant brain mass, perforate the tiny beating heart, eradicate the fluttering bloodstream and process of cell production, ceasing all life functions -- this is nothing more than removing a tumor from a patient's body? Or liposuction? It's just fat, fluid, matter, no substance that any yuppy would affix a price tag. As long as the human being is hidden within another human being, it is not a human being, but part of the body which it is hidden within, isn't this the logic prevailing in our society today? It is not a baby, because it has uttered no discernible cries, nor has its tiny fingers gripped an adult's pinky finger, it has made no choices, consumed no products -- it's just not human. It is wet and disgusting and helpless.

(Of course, five minutes later, cleaned and sponged, screaming like the Dickens, it is recognizable as a human, and we can place diapers upon its lower half thus ensuring that it is now a consumer of our goods, and so of course this is a baby, don't be stupid!)

And yet a sociopath, someone who judges themselves to be "real" and other people outside their orbit to be mere inflatable objects -- when this sociopath goes on a wanton killing spree and ends the lives of ten to fifteen people and even boasts of his feat, comparing himself to other serial killers he has idolized -- we as human beings do not have the right to terminate this sociopath's life, correct? Isn't this the logic prevailing in our society today?

Isn't this Michael Moorlock Think?

But it's not a baby, the Eloai protest, it cannot live on its own, it is a mere parasite attached to an innocent host, it cannot be called human! And the sociopath? He's not guilty of his crimes because it is a callous society that has created him! Frankenstein's monster is not guilty because Doctor Frankenstein created it, so as a society we cannot punish Frankenstein's monster, but only shackle it and keep it from hurting future torch-wielding peasants.