Thirty three or When Nietzsche threw up.

The miracle of stupidity. This is the sentence that pronounces itself in my head when I see a film as simple and as false as "When Nietzsche Wept". Anyone with any interest in psychotherapy or Nietzsche should avoid this stench of a film. How such stupid films are made to see the light of day are beyond any rational explanation. If someone recommends that you see this film I suggest you either beat them over the head with something heavy (The Will to Power) or run away and forget you ever knew them. Perhaps pinch yourself as hard as you can and repeat the mantra, "I hate you." (Nietzsche's psychological advice to his doctor on how to get rid of the love for his ex-patient in the film.)

My only genuine question here, is: "How did author of the book, Irvin D. Yalom come up with such an insipid novel, he being an accomplished existentialist and psychotherapist?"

Thirty Two or The World is hiccuping, what do I do?

It is more difficult living in today's world than at any other time in history. In times past, the world was "bigger", but that has been changing since the industrial revolution and today's technological advances have shrunk the world into a small ball.

Earthquakes and tsunamis and radiation in Japan, civil wars in Africa, Orwell's 1984 in North Korea, Canada's government has shut down- not that it's sent shockwaves out into the world- causing me to think that life without the state is quite possible in our times. Then there is the middle east. Yemen, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, are just some of the countries where citizens are in an uproar protesting, demanding democracy, justice, and equality in their governments now. The shady dealings of Euro-American imperialistic greed is finally seeing the fruits of it's "labor". With people being shot point blank in the head in Yemen to people to tens of thousands of people feared dead in Japan as citizens of the world, and citizens of the US, a pang in our conscience brings rise to an air of helplessness. The question arises, "What do I do?" or "What CAN I do?"

The answer is simple and uncomplicated. Get involved. There is plenty you can do as Americans, where we still live in one of the freest societies in the world despite the government's efforts to quash those freedoms on a regular basis. Spending your time on Facebook or worshiping at the altar of some sports team, however, will amount to naught, and life that's not fought for is not worth living.

Thirty One or The Problem of Tolstoy.

As someone who reads quit a bit, and fancies himself a thinker, as laughable as that may be when I stop and gawk at the enormity of other writers past, there is almost no one who intimidates me more than Lyev (Leo) Tolstoy. The sheer volume of his writing is gigantic and on its own, daunting, but marry this to the fact that wrote some of the greatest masterpieces of literature in the history of the world and well, nearly everyone falls into his shadow.

What is surprising is that unless you're a writer, and a writer who actually cares about literature, it's history, etc. at that, the "problem" of Tolstoy hardly enters into reading lists of most people I've met; nor does he enter their consciousness, which I find appalling to the point of ridiculousness.

There are many reasons for this, two of which I already mentioned, but consider this: his one book, which is not even the one that comes to mind when someone mentions Tolstoy, that belongs to War & Peace, The Kingdom of God is Within You, was passed along to a young Indian living in Africa by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Martin Luther King Jr. took Tolstoy's teaching of non-violent resistance and, well . . . I don't need to go any further.

The title of author Mark Kurlansky's 2006 book, "Nonviolence: Twenty-five Lessons From the History of a Dangerous Idea" may speak volumes in comparison to anything I might have to say about the effect Tolstoy has had on the world in addition to literature period. To call non violence "a dangerous idea" can seem highly self- contradictory, but delving into that is perhaps better saved for another time.

I have not read any Tolstoy fiction or philosophy, that didn't leave a profound imprint on me. Read Tolstoy and be stupefied by his stark honesty, his immeasurable writing skills, his keen mind. Don't read Tolstoy and remain stupid.

The Big Thirty or Uprooting God

Over a long period of time now I've been in a spiritual whirlwind of sorts. When I was a child I was told God existed, and God was Jesus Christ, etc. An odd day for me was the day I saw pictures of my baptism, which I always thought odd in the sense that I was that infant, but I did not comprehend what was happening.

When I said whirlwind above, I meant it. My "spiritual life" has been tumultuous or perhaps just indecisive. I spent time as an altar boy at several points in my life and at some point was contemplating on entering a monastery and becoming a monk. I'll spare you the details even though I could probably write endlessly about my experiences.

For some time I have been teetering between agnostic or anti-theist. Surely one has to be completely and utterly blind and irrational to read a history book and not come to the conclusion that religion and religious belief has been used to perpetuate some of the most vulgar and stomach churning atrocities throughout history. The reason I've been teetering is because none of my friends, atheist, or believers really took the subject to heart. No internal debate occurred. The atheists were atheist because they don't know anything about it, basically atheism derived from laziness, and the believers for the same reason, although, I will say that my religious friends, who are few and far between, their arguments are some of the flimsiest I've ever heard, a house of cards suspended on a wet paper bag.

One interesting notion put forth on the subject, which I find refreshing, is that God exists, indeed, all of them do, in our imagination and only there, and they're to be tapped into when needed. I find this view refreshing because it is a stance that respects both views, something I find lacking on both sides. This brings the question, "What is our imagination?" forward, which to me is a much more important question.

Twenty-nine Woops

I went back on my promise to myself that I'd be writing every day. Months have passed, my computer needed to be formatted, the link to my own blog was lost and in fact I totally forgot it existed till a friend asked me for the link, and here I am. I had to search for my own writing on the internet. Very odd feeling that. So thank you Thoma.

Twenty Eight: Clarification.

Blog entries 25 to 27 are not written by me and blog 24 was not written by me either. Just the translation. I posted them because I think some people would rather listen to the ordinary common and personal in a blog rather than clicking on a news link.

Stay tuned.

Twenty Seven: Read it and Smile

Danish police have been ordered to pay tens of thousands of pounds compensation to hundreds of climate protesters, after a court ruling today. The unprecedented ruling coincides with the release of an audio recording from the policing of a protest outside the UN climate talks in Copenhagen last December, which allegedly shows Danish police ordering officers to beat activists and journalists.

A year to the day after the Reclaim Power protest outside the Bella Centre, where the talks were being held, a Danish judge called "illegal" the actions of police – who pre-emptively arrested nearly 2,000 people during the summit – and ordered them to pay £500-£1,000 to 200 protesters. They may have to compensate a further 800 , meaingthe final bill for the police could potentially run to £1m.

The lawyer Christian Dahlager, part of the team who brought 200 of the complaints to court, said: "The other people who formally complained may well have cases for compensation."

This is the biggest verdict of its kind ever in Denmark, he believes. "In the past we have had cases like this of just a couple of people and the police are only ordered to pay a couple of hundred pounds. But this is a turning point for Denmark. We've been travelling down a certain road for a long time and now finally the courts have stepped in and said that the police have gone too far."

The verdict has coincided with the release of a film through the national Danish broadcaster which contains a police radio transmission that appears to include orders to hit protestors and media. According to a translation posted on activist website Climate Collective, the officer speaking tells his men "I want to see that stick in use," and adds: "There are media between the cars. They will get the same fucking treatment. Now's the time to fight."

The verdict and the film have electrified Denmark. The minister of jjustice, Lars Barfoed has issued a statement promising to look into the issue, and has been questioned about it by the political opposition, with Line Bafod of the Red-Greens saying: "It is completely unacceptable for a senior police officer to urge violence against journalists on the job. This does not belong in a democratic society."

The president of the Danish Union of Journalists, Mogens Blicher Bjerregård, said it is "appalling that an incident commander can give such orders. It becomes very dangerous for journalists to do their job."

"It feels as if we're finally beginning to get to the truth of what happened last year," said Helen Medden, one of the two film-makers of a documentary called Climate Crime. "I started to make the film as a positive one about young Danish people campaigning about the climate, but halfway through it turned into something completely different, and became a film about police behaviour."

The Guardian has been unable to reach the Danish police for comment on the trial, but the Copenhagen police director, Johan Reimann, said: "When the media chooses to mingle with demonstrators, we are not able to differentiate precisely ... But when the media identifies itself with a press card, we of course respect that." Asked if he thought the language used by his officer was too "bombastic", he replied: "When you are out there on the edge, the language used is different than when you are just standing there and having a chat."

The police are appealing against the ruling.