...Sour Gripes... and other sophistry

Capitalism for All... Except Me

2010-01-27T08:38:00.001-08:00

Gotta tell you, I've been trying not to write about this.

But, since our economic climate serves as such a potent petri dish for interesting perspectives -- and seeing as I'm frustrated with a scarcity of materiel -- I have to write about the following:

The absolutely ridiculous, shallow, ideologically schizophrenic, Me-First brand of "Populism" apparently sweeping across our country in these dire economic times.

Yes, I'm aware that this represents nothing unique or catastrophic; it's just the annoying result of the Right's current political strategy, the Left's inability to deal with it, and, in all, exemplifies the hypocritical, short term mentality most people employ when meandering through life. As such, it fits perfectly into the little ideological cubbyhole I've dug on this blog.

As you may recall, an earlier post of mine covered this populist groundswell whence it arrived with more steady handed, Libertarian overtones. At the time (Somewhere in August or September, if I recall correctly), I was intrigued by the possibility of a genuine Libertarian movement of sorts.

Well, not so lucky. Silly, naive, ideological me strikes again.

The proto-Libertarian reaction to the severity of our global recession has turned out to be nothing more than a standard angry mob. Nothing even worth sniffing at in the historical sense, just a bunch of jobless louts hoping to latch their helplessness and guilt onto others in the form of generic blame. There's practically no coherence to any of the expressed gripes -- aside from the fact that tea partying conservatives, pink coded progressives, and indolent independents are presently unemployed...

And the benefits they receive from their conspiratorial "Shadow Government" provides just enough to preserve their Internet access.

Now, I could rant all day about the many sorts of disagreeable morons one may encounter in our current politico-economic maelstrom. But I will instead describe one particularly cogent, ubiquitous aspect of the mess:

When the going gets tough -- I mean actually tough, not simply inconvenient -- the most professedly ardent Capitalists are the first people to demand what they would normally brand as Socialism, and the most open-minded Socialist types get rather nasty, brutish, and short.

For now though, the Hobbesian hypocrisy of the more Progressive types being routinely clear, I will discuss the Conservative/Independent reaction to our economic plight.

To keep the discussion from ranging off into the purely abstract, let's be clear on exactly who I'm talking about:

Try to remember the "America, love it or leave it!" kind of guy.

Bring to mind that one gal who wanted all those "damned lazy jerks" to get a job, because it's "all about individual effort and perseverance and desire and pulling yourself up by your own boot straps, like grandpa did."

Recall, if you will, Joe the Plumber, and the scores of willfully ignorant yokels who call themselves "Independents" to cover for the fact that they're simply in the market for the best political bullshit money can buy, sold by the best slick-haired Good Old Boy whose message most matches the emotional tenor of the day... anything but a solid principle, or anything to stave off the pesky peek functions of the human brain, or the inevitable need to speak coherently when taking a position with respect to someone who might potentially disagree with them.

I'm talking about the sort of folks who, when times are good for them -- and, as always, when discussing some other person's misfortune -- deliver a pompous diatribe about wasteful spending on social programs, the principled merits of individual effort, of personal responsibility, of competing to be the best, of playing the hand you are dealt to the best of your ability, and not complaining.

Now, you would expect that such "Proud American" types would be most predisposed to riding out the current economic storm, right? Just hunker down, right? Just sacrifice and get by with the thin hope for tomorrow, a la the "Great Generation" during the Great Depression.

Such proud, upright people certainly know it's a Capitalist system, and thus they are well aware that we are in a trough.

As they've spent a great deal of their time deriding "Communist China" or the "Damned Liberal Socialists" and such, surely they are aware that this trough, this recession, is perfectly normal. Regardless of their specific causes, recessions are a standard part of the Capitalist framework. Many argue that this "up and down" movement is a simple result of material reality -- things like "cause" and "effect", for example. This particular recession will be over in five or ten years, so I'm sure they understand that there's really nothing to worry about.

As regards bailouts and such, surely they would understand that, in a Capitalist system, only the Capital (i.e. "Wall Street") gets bailed out. Only Capital gets help, because Capitalism is about, well, Capital, not people.

Only Capital gets the help, because in Capitalism, people don't suffer; economies do.

People don't need help; economies do.

Sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, aunties and neighbors aren't actually unemployed. They are not really suffering. They may tell you they are, but they're just taking all of this the wrong way.

There's no need to make it personal, sheesh.

See, in Capitalism, people don't loose jobs; jobs are just "lost". It's all a simple matter of "Structural Adjustments" and ensuring "Market Synergy". See, we have these nice little phrases for states of economic unrest, for economic change as conceived in the Capitalist framework. We know what's going on.

It's all a part of the plan, and it will all be ok so long as we all work harder for lower wages. Not a thing to worry about!

We have "Synergy" and "Structural Adjustments" in the same economic moment. Can't get that in Socialism folks. The Yin and the Yang. Two for one. What a deal!

And in all, such recessions present an abundance of opportunity! Yeah, that's right. I know you ardent, "Proud American Capitalists" looooooooove you some opportunity.

So don't be upset that you don't have a job. Get out there, take on the world you patriotic dynamos! Hooray for Reagan Democrats and all their personal responsibility!

Not so fast. Nowadays, most of these "Proud American Capitalists" are finding that it's not so easy to pull one's self up by one's own boot straps -- even if you leave physics out of the equation.

But instead of noticing hard nosed, "American" perseverance, all I seem to hear is a panicked chorus of sobbing morons clamoring, "Where's my bailout? What about Main Street?"

What about it? You tell me, Mr./Ms. Capitalist.

Since you folks have so ardently upheld and so passionately expressed the tenants of America's Capitalist culture, I must say I am quite shocked at your position.

Hadn't you heard? Your bailout isn't coming!

Although, to be honest, I am not totally surprised by your (disingenuous) astonishment.

I am in fact appalled by the sheer audacity of your demand. You expect help in the form of goods and services from the very same "Big Government" which, when it helps anyone else somehow morphs into a giant, evil, Communist monster?

Of course, when people made similar demands before you crashed the party of the woefully downtrodden, you called those people whining, lazy, free-riding dolts who were trying to tear apart your society.

So now, what are you exactly?

This all reminds me of something I heard in a lecture a while back. Some political theorist in the 1900s said, to paraphrase, that Capitalism is "Socialism for the best Capitalists." Makes me wonder, with today's so-called Liberals and Conservatives in mind, whether or not the following is also true:

In Socialism, politics is a competition for the benefits of personal property; in Capitalism, politics is a competition for the benefits of the welfare state.

Mull that one over for a minute.

Oh, and before you Conservative/Independent types go, why don't you tell me how it tastes... your own medicine, that is.

Cameron's Crossword Puzzle Trivia

2010-01-08T08:53:00.000-08:00

What's a six letter word meaning "To fetishize"?

Oh, right.

AVATAR.

I'm hoping you've all seen the film by now. It’s wildly entertaining, a top rate visual spectacle.

The movie has become a steamy topic for discussion too though, hasn't it? The whirlwind of speculation gushing over its alleged politics has even led some to confuse it with significant art.

Examples abound. My friend Amanda told me about a LA Times story on how conservative pundits are reacting to the film -- negatively, depicting it as a showcase of anti-American Liberalism. More liberally minded people I've discussed the film with laud its empowering, ultra-hip, anti-corporate, ostensibly anti-imperial brand of progressive environmentalism. A few philosophical types, like Obi, simply expressed disenchantment.

As my own mind toiled to strain meaning from Avatar's neon pulp of loud decor and hulking movement, the film periodically revived a disdain for American foreign policy that so colored my long slog towards a bachelor’s degree.

Thankfully, this fervor lost traction when the action stopped. Formulaic, video game-esque dialogue and clichéd plot devices exposed the utter lack of effort Cameron and Co. had put into sculpting the film’s emotional core. Like Cameron, the characters inspiration and development relied upon the apparently three dimensional objects floating about Pandora's brilliant scenery. There wasn't a thought provoking "message" to be found in any of it.

Instead my emotional engagement plodded alongside an awkward attraction to the more amply simulated blue side-boob of the film's heroin.

With that, I came to prefer my girlfriend's review of the film. It was revealed in the following conversation:

Me: "So babe, what'd you think?"

Her: "It was fun. Are you hungry?”

That's it folks. Avatar is made of empty calories; it is at present the ultimate bubble gum of cinematic experiences. Chew it up and spit it out.

Or just skip the chewing and move on to more fulfilling fetishes.

Hey, I heard they're putting Coca Cola in a blue can.

Sound Absent Voice or Voice Absent Sound?

2010-01-04T15:21:00.000-08:00

I've plenty to say. But I'm not sure how any of it is to be said, how any of it can be transmitted.

Oh yes, I have been writing everything down. I've meditated on the variety of ways one might enter any number of topics. I've certainly been tapping away at the keys as well, churning out a number of clever phrases and intricate arguments. There's been no lack of effort, of wiping sweat from my steaming forehead in the cool of a moonless midnight.

Yes, I've been inspired. While my days are increasingly rosy, I'm still quite agitated by all sorts of phenomena -- too many to count, which is essentially a net change of zero. Of course, if we must use numbers, I'm sure any one of you could name at least four things you know would send me off on a tangent.

Nonetheless, I've found it very difficult to actually press "Publish" as regards any of them. Even after laboring over a given piece for hours, I seem to be favoring "Delete".

I rarely even use "Save".

Worst of all, I'm not entirely sure why.

Am I somehow too happy to publish? Well I am happy, but not so blissful that I can't gripe. Here I am, after all, griping about being gripeless. And I was at least as happy before as well, even when freely expressing my negativity on this blog. So it can't be happiness.

Am I too sad, too negative? No. It's not so much a crisis of existence as a difficulty with expression. And even if I were extremely depressed, I've never been too sad to express it with verbosity.

Am I burnt out? The holidays definitely wore me out. Then again, I still find a great deal of excitement in all sorts of areas of life, some established, some new. I've been cooking up a storm, trying my hand at some more advanced French and Italian cuisine with relative success. I cooked an awesome filet mignon with a fennel/pinot noir reduction and moved on to a spicy Sicilian sausage soup. I've picked up the guitar again, this time with an ear towards incorporating pounding funk and mellow blues into my existing toolkit of Metali-Slayer riffage. I had a very successful first semester in Grad School. Work is fine. And like I said, I have been writing. So in all I still appear to be growing as a person. Can't be the traditional sort of plateau.

Or am I just floundering through my first few attempts at making sense visa vi actual people instead of abstract argumentation? Was my reliance on the crutch of punditry masking a genuine lack of perspective?

Perhaps. Maybe I made a mistake in abandoning the Op-Ed vehicle; the mistake being that I failed to prepare a landing before taking the leap. In doing so I've inadvertently crossed from essay writing to the realm of art, or more difficult still, a combination of the two which somewhat resembles philosophy.

These are tasks for which I am apparently, sadly, ill suited at present. As this post reveals, while I have no problem ascribing a number of words to a given subject, I have a hard time nailing anything down.

I seem capable of uttering nothing but such confessions.

A New Year Begins With An End to Op-Eds

2009-12-16T10:54:00.000-08:00

I know it's still December, but I think I've found my New Year's Resolution.

I am giving up the NY Times’ and all other online Op-Ed sections.

Coming clean here: I’m addicted to online Op-Eds. Absent daily doses of their manufactured expertise and contrived punditry I have a very hard time maintaining even basic adult functionality.

I’ve become one of those people who sit on their porch and listen to talk radio from sun up to sun down. Only instead of Michael Savage, Catholic Radio or Al Franken, it’s Ross Douthat, Paul Krugman, Marueen Dowd and their Op-Eds that have my neck boiling with indignation and my head reeling from one non-starter to the next.

I must have a copy of the Times or a bright yellow pacifier with me at all times.

AT ALL TIMES!

*Fondles binky*

My precious…

Like a tiny planet, the standard orbit of my day now blips around with a relativistic gravity born from the stars’ superseding spin; but instead of granting sound guidance in the order of magnificent heavenly bodies shining full-spectrum light through deep space, my little stars vie for attention like a caged pack of horny Chihuahuas yipping and yapping from the obscure nether regions of the World Wide Web.

Of course, with so many capable blogging heads and competent data miners accessible through the myriad mediums poised at our button-lusting fingertips, who the hell needs Krugman and Dowd? Herbert? Freidman is ok I guess, but Brooks? Kristof?!

Please.

Why can't we just render such "expertise" into obsolescence?

Assuming most of us are capable of at least some form of critical thought, why can’t we just become “experts” ourselves?

Or I could just ask whether or not the media we’ve begun replacing TV and Radio with is truly destined to repeat the same classical formula, truly doomed to occupy the same increasingly archaic social space reserved for the pompous types we invoke to begin arguments, or cite to end arguments, or blame to wash our hands of sincere attempts at communicating with those with whom we’ve never honestly tried to agree.

Perhaps. Maybe I just need to establish myself contra commonly recognized “others” to realize self or signify discourse. Maybe I really have to create a buffer of social (and thus emotional) distance when engaging tricky subjects. Maybe I must establish social scope for exchanging offensive opinion without offending.

Maybe there is no “social” absent the great, authoritative other.

Then again, I’m wondering why we can’t just refer directly to one another and achieve similar or better results. Must we refer to well known people in order to contextualize the realities we create through our more run of the mill interaction, the interaction which, as it turns out, makes up the vast bulk of our lives?

As with anything it could be invented for or applied to, technology should (in theory) enhance existing modes of behavior and problem solving. The fact that I and so many would rather use it to spin in and out of our own ego or brow-beat shames me; because, despite the heavily capitalistic modality of its meteoric rise, the internet was not simply intended to increase our already prolific access to furiously marketed opinion (Dare I say propaganda?). And heck, even if commerce and crooked communication were the only reasons for unleashing the dot com era, so what? The internet can also be used to expand rather than contract the already limited space our way of life leaves for genuine social interaction. Such technology should also allow us to seek out less mainstream realities, more particular realities, or even create new ones we can unite behind when we get around to it.

Not to rush you all, but with the internet, we can skip the damned reference points – the Glen Becks, the Michael Moores, Al Frankens, Olbermans, Hannitys, and their counterparts in print. We can talk directly to each other and at the same time access a world of potent information – literally simultaneously. Could we thus enhance and recycle our existing demand for each other and our unique “expertise” in ways which may lead to, oh I don’t know, actual solutions? True innovation?

The contrasting view some could take from this general theory would be that technology already has enhanced what we value – egos, insecurities, and mass persuasion. Well, fine. Probably true for many people. Certainly has been for me at times. If this is true, then fine, I should be getting back to my porn now. See ya.

Not likely true though. Fact is, even such transgressive social functions presuppose a desire and capacity for genuine interaction. Even if disagreeable, illegal, or outright unethical, the seedy or sordid side of the internet is merely the shadow of our greater social edifice (or post-edifice, if you insist).

Either way, no more thinking by the numbers for me folks. With the internet, I don’t have to wait for someone else to generate excitement, to broach subjects or predictable lines of “common” inquiry. We can all use the internet to draw random dots, to connect them with more abstract creativity, and to create new pictures, draw new inferences. I am no longer required to interact by tracing around the silhouette of standard ideas.

And so, I will no longer.

At least not in 2010.

The Qu'ran says...

2009-12-11T10:31:00.000-08:00

(In some sort of odd old-englishy translation)

"And walk not on the earth with conceit and arrogance. Verily, you can neither rend nor penetrate the earth, nor can you attain the stature like the mountains in height."

"This is (part) of the al-hikmah ( wisdom, good manners, and high character, etc.) which your Lord inspired to you. And set not up with Allah any other god lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected ( from His Mercy.)"

[Translation from the Quran 17:33-39]

"Those who believed and led a righteous life are the best creatures."
[98:7]

"O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in Gods sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware."
[49:13]

"And the servants of Allah . . . are those who walked on the earth in humility, and when the ignorant address them, they say 'Peace'"
[25:63]

"The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto: but if a person forgets and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah."
[62:40]

"They are the ones who examine all words, then follow the best. These are the ones whom GOD has guided; these are the ones who possess intelligence."
[39:18]

"Not so the worshippers who are steadfast in prayer; who set aside a due portion of their goods for the needy and the dispossessed; who truely believe in the Day of Reckoning and dread the punishment of their Lord (for none is secure from the punishment of their Lord); who restrain their carnal desire (save with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them; he that lusts after other than these is a transgressor); who keep their trusts and promises and bear true witness; who attend to their prayers with promprirude. These shall be laden with honours and shall dwell in fair gardens."
[Penguin p.110-111; 56:1-56:56]

Foucault said...

2009-12-04T09:22:00.000-08:00

The most defenseless tenderness and the bloodiest of powers have a similar need of confession. Western man has become a confessing animal.
----History of Sexuality Vol. I, p. 59

Power is everywhere: not that it engulfs everything, but that it comes from everywhere.
----History of Sexuality Vol. I, p. 121-122

A 'soul' inhabits him and brings him to existence, which is itself a factor in the mastery that power exercises over the body. The soul is the effect and instrument of a political anatomy; the soul is the prison of the body.
---- Discipline and Punish

What is true for writing and for a love relationship is true also for life. The game is worthwhile insofar as we don't know what will be the end.
----Truth, Power, Self : An Interview with Michel Foucault (25 October 1982)

Long Shot

2009-11-19T09:41:00.001-08:00

Not that it's very important, but for some reason I was tickled by the notion that people can "protest" or "make a political statement" by carrying an unloaded gun around on their hip.

While reading this SF Gate article on the so called "Open Carry Movement":

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=51902

a few of potentially disparaging thoughts whirled like a vortex in my highly amused mind.

1. The only "statement" you dudes are making is that there are only two types of people who can walk around with a gun on their hip and not get shot at by the cops: other cops and white people.

Seriously. Everyone else is shot and killed for lying on their belly at a BART station or pulling out a cell phone at dusk, yet these "Open Carry Movement" guys are able to saunter unchallenged through the clearance section at Barnes and Noble with a .45 on their hip. Hmmmmm...

Wait... I get it! That is your statement! Wow! Suburban white guys drawing attention to our society's disparate treatment of people of color by walking around with weapons and acting oppressed...

Satire at its best folks. Man, you guys sure are clever!

2. It also occurred to me that political "movements" are a means of catalyzing or signifying the arrival into the political mainstream of a given, previously unheralded cause of the downtrodden and disenfranchised people. Gay Rights is a movement. Fighting for "Civil Rights" for people of color, labor groups and women was/is a movement. Ending wars that kill untold numbers of innocent people is a movement. Large shifts in mainstream ideals that hold potential benefits for disenfranchised portions of society are political movements.

So let’s take a look at your "movement": You want to carry firearms, and you feel disenfranchised because people disagree with you about that. Well, we’ve been able to carry firearms as a common right since before we abolished slavery, and those who object to it are not worried about your political “preferences” so much as your ability to, hmmm… kill people?

Sorry folks. A bunch of fat suburban car salesmen walking from their condo to Starbucks with a BlackBerry and an unloaded gun on their hip is less a "movement" in the political sense, more so in terms of passing stool.

But what the heck, you guys can have it. Enjoy walking around with your manhood on the outside of our pants.

Hell, you want to carry a gun to "protect yourself"?

Go right ahead! It's clear that the police who stopped you to ask you about the firearm you're brandishing in front of children in a quiet suburban neighborhood aren't doing their job, right? Crime is rampant in Walnut Creek, right? You think you could do it better, right?

Well, by all means.

Go ahead Captain J. Wayne of the Team America Brigade. Shoot 'em up! Because you're judge, jury, and executioner in all matters of the rough and tumble social geography that is Northern California’s suburban jungle. In a ‘hood where chai tea soy lattes come dangerously over heated, where shamefully oaky Cabernets offend your palate with overbearing tannins, and pesky kids run rampant on your lawn as they revel their youthful imaginations, only you have the courage to destroy the evil enemy, whoever they are or whatever they are doing... which you can't articulate at this point in time without sounding racist, but your publicist tells me that you can tell me with absolute certainty that "they" are out there. I know it. You know it. We all know it.

"They" are out there, whoever “they” are.

Seriously though, I got to thinking that maybe holding a gun isn't such a bad thing. It would be great to go gallantly about my town, protecting my loved ones, my neighborhood, my Constitution, my country.

As a matter of fact, since we have the right to carry guns, I'm going to get one. Yeah, that's right; I'm going to walk around with a firearm on my hip.

Better yet, I’ll one-up you "Open Carry" dudes by proudly displaying my firearm in a place where I could, I don't know... actually use the protection!?!?

I've never lived in such a neighborhood, and I don’t know if you guys have either; but I'm pretty sure things go down like this:

The good guys wear white hats, and the bad guys walk around in black hats. The bad guys also wear red and blue bandannas over their face so that they can't be identified, even though it makes it easier for everyone to spot them.

I will valiantly journey to the edge of the neighborhood, the liquor store. Its ramshackle edifice will hover over me like an emblem of unearthly evil. The gum sticking to the sidewalk will remind me of my long lost lover’s embrace – she’s so far from me now. It’s me against the world.

The sidewalk is cold and wet, but I can smell the evil simmering around me, hot and sticky as summer in Larkspur.

As I step around the discarded Frito-Lay packages rolling around my feet like urban tumbleweeds, I'll walk up to a black clad bad guy and say, "Well there stranger. You from 'round here?"

He'll say, in an evil tone, "Actually, yes I am. I live over there.” He’ll point to the church across the street before asking me, “Are you from this area sir? Can’t say I’ve seen you here on Sundays past."

I'll respond with the stank eye as I gesture to my trusty friend.

He'll ask in that wry, evil tone, "Uh, are you sure you want to do that?” Perplexed but unafraid, he’ll match my bravado. Tricky bastard. My gaze of glory will let him know I mean business.

“I mean, I'm just on my way to get more bread so the kids at Bible study can have toast,” he'll stammer, afraid as he rambles on something incoherent like, “But some people around here might feel threatened by your blatant display of violent potential. You might be perceived as a threat to some people’s interests here. Maybe they think you're a cop even. It’s like you’re asking for trouble or something. Have you thought this through?"

"Now wait a minute varmint," I'll reply strongly, brave in the face of evil. "You've got no right to tell me what I can and can't do. Now turn around, pace out ten steps, and damn it pilgrim, you'd better draw before I do. I came here to clean this town. No more black hats 'round here."

"Suit yourself," he'll say as he pushes by me and enters the liquor store. I will then frantically pull ammunition out of my Dale Earnhardt Jr. fanny pack (since, peaceful and law abiding as I am, I'm will not carry a loaded gun or keep ammunition near it. It’s against the law).

When I'm organized, the evil bastard will lurk out from the liquor store hiding pathetically behind an armful of cheap white bread. Doesn’t he know they used bleach flour in that bread? He’s contributing to childhood obesity, that evil prick!

I'll give him one last evil eye as my clip clicks into position. A round enters the chamber. I'll shout my best combination Clint Eastwood, '90s action movie one-liner.

"Lock and load, punk!"

And he will run into the church, no doubt to cower before God and ask for forgiveness! Huzzah! The bad guys are running. Score one for the white hats! Yeeehhaaawww!!!

And as I turn to walk back the other way, a random fifteen year old plants a shank in my back six or seven times. I get one shot off before I hit the ground and bleed to death on the sidewalk.

As I fade to black, I lay with the comfort of a warm gun in my palm, secure in my ignorance of the fact that my desperate, prideful discharge killed a little girl walking home from church on the other side of the street.

So, congrats to all you political spaghetti-westerners out there. I’m with ya.

Keep the movement alive.

Compare/Contrast Jiddu Krishnamurti to Slavoj Zizek

2009-11-11T12:29:00.000-08:00

Jiddu Krishnamurti contrasts with Slavoj Zizek, the man quoted in an earlier post, in too many ways to count. But, somehow, I find parallels in their work. I wonder what you will find?

On one hand, Slavoj Zizek (quoted in the post below this one) is a skittish, hyperactive, psycho-analytical Marxist, even a confessed pseudo-Stalinist, Continental Philosopher. However, he regularly pokes fun at Marxist academics, and he would agree that Marxism as such is essentially dead.

Focusing on ideology, Zizek comments on everything, from international politics to toilets to David Lynch films. He primarily cites:

The late modern Catholic Theologian Chesterton (who says that Christ himself exemplifies atheism while crying out for God on the cross); Hegelian state analysis (State law is justice, de facto); and French psycho-analyst Jaqcues Lacan, who asserted that humans act to fulfill a "Death Drive" (fetishizing immortality while being repulsed by it) and maintain a psychological process called jouissance (a french word best translated to mean "enjoyment" in the context of "orgasm") -- the circular rotation of desires around a central object which is never itself realized or "touched".

Zizek thinks that we cannot escape this feedback loop until we withdraw, devote ourselves to theory, and concoct a new Utopia that is not so reliant on allowing individual enjoyment.

Jiddu Krishnamurti, on the other hand, is a man who is difficult to describe in standard academic jargon, and he would likely appreciate that. While he may agree with Zizek on a few, rather particular aspects of human psychology, he takes a different (not necessarily opposite) perspective on the struggles Zizek analyses to death.

Krishnamurti would be most simply classified as a philosopher... but not really. I appreciate that he is more genuinely described as a sincere, "spiritually" deep thinker. Glad to know there is space in this world for such people.

He didn't like extended conceptual or empirical analyses. Instead, he preferred focusing on the problems inherent to the human experience, not the interaction of consciousness with the object it creates.

He didn't really like being quoted, and he is not easy to quote. But, here goes...

"And when you are so enclosed so bound, can any help reach you? But when you are open, there is unending help in all things, from the song of a bird to the call of a human being, from the blade of grass to the immensity of the heavens. The poison and corruption begin when you look to one person as your authority, your guide, your saviour."

"Interest, curiosity, is the beginning of acquisition, which soon becomes boredom; and the urge to be free from boredom is another form of possession. So the mind goes from boredom to interest to boredom again, till it is utterly weary; and these successive waves of interest and weariness are regarded as existence."

---- Excerpts from the book COMMENTARIES ON LIVING SERIES II

"In the same way if you negate what is not religion then you find out what is true religion; that is, what is the truly religious mind. Belief is not religion, and the authority which the churches, the organized religions assume, is not religion. In that there is all the sense of obedience, conformity, acceptance, the hierarchical approach to life."

"Therefore a religious mind is a mind that is constantly aware, sensitive, attentive, so that it goes beyond itself into a dimension where there is no time at all."

---- TALKS AND DIALOGUES SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA A.B.C. TELEVISION INTERVIEW 20TH NOVEMBER, 1970

"Religion, politics, society are exploiting you, and you are being conditioned by them; you are being forced in a particular direction. You are not human beings; you are mere cogs in a machine. You suffer patiently, submitting to the cruelties of environment, when you, individually, have the possibilities of changing them."

---- 1933-12-30 2nd Public Talk, Adyar, Madras, India

"We are not loved because we don't know how to love. What is love? The word is so loaded and corrupted that I hardly like to use it. Everybody talks of love - every magazine and newspaper and every missionary talks everlastingly of love. I love my country, I love my king, I love some book, I love that mountain, I love pleasure, I love my wife, I love God. Is love an idea? If it is, it can be cultivated, nourished, cherished, pushed around, twisted in any way you like. When you say you love God what does it mean? It means that you love a projection of your own imagination, a projection of yourself clothed in certain forms of respectability according to what you think is noble and holy; so to say, `I love God', is absolute nonsense. When you worship God you are worshipping yourself - and that is not love."

(Skip a paragraph or two)

"Throughout the world, so-called holy men have maintained that to look at a woman is something totally wrong: they say you cannot come near to God if you indulge in sex, therefore they push it aside although they are eaten up with it. But by denying sexuality they put out their eyes and cut out their tongues for they deny the whole beauty of the earth. They have starved their hearts and minds; they are dehydrated human beings; they have banished beauty because beauty is associated with woman."

(Skip a paragraph or two)

"Love is something that is new, fresh, alive. It has no yesterday and no tomorrow. It is beyond the turmoil of thought. It is only the innocent mind which knows what love is, and the innocent mind can live in the world which is not innocent. To find this extraordinary thing which man has sought endlessly through sacrifice, through worship, through relationship, through sex, through every form of pleasure and pain, is only possible when thought comes to understand itself and comes naturally to an end. Then love has no opposite, then love has no conflict. You may ask, `If I find such a love, what happens to my wife, my children, my family? They must have security.' When you put such a question you have never been outside the field of thought, the field of consciousness. When once you have been outside that field you will never ask such a question because then you will know what love is in which there is no thought and therefore no time. You may read this mesmerized and enchanted, but actually to go beyond thought and time - which means going beyond sorrow - is to be aware that there is a different dimension called love. But you don't know how to come to this extraordinary fount - so what do you do? If you don't know what to do, you do nothing, don't you? Absolutely nothing. Then inwardly you are completely silent. Do you understand what that means? It means that you are not seeking, not wanting, not pursuing; there is no centre at all. Then there is love."

--- Quotes on Love, 1980

Slavoj Zizek Says...

2009-11-10T14:00:00.001-08:00

The one measure of true love is: you can insult the other.
---- Slavoj Žižek

The stance of maintaining a proper distance towards the beloved object in order not to disturb its spell is a sure sign of false love: true love is "not afraid to get close", it is a readiness to accept the beloved object in all its common reality and, simultaneously, retain its sublime status...to recognize the rose of the sublime in the cross of everday vulgarity.
---- Zizek, The Sublime Object

Tolerance makes everything boring, we need more conflict!
---- Slavoj Zizek

Niels Bohr said of a superstition: "It works even if you don't believe in it".
---- Slavoj Zizek

Science today effectively does compete with religion, insofar as it serves two properly ideological needs, those for hope and those for censorship, which were traditionally taken care of by religion. [...]
In a curious inversion, religion is one of the possible places from which one can deploy critical doubts about today’s society. It has become one of the sites of resistance.
---- Zizek, Violence.

Step back; [It] enables us to identify a violence that sustains our very efforts to fight violence and promote tolerance: rampant pseudo-urgency.
---- Slavoj Zizek, Violence

...Don’t be - don’t feel guilty for withdrawing from immediate engagement, for trying to understand what’s going on.
---- Slavoj Zizek

Atheists strive to formulate the message of joy which comes not from escaping reality, but from accepting it and creatively finding one’s place in it. What makes this materialist tradition unique is the way it combines the humble awareness that we are not masters of the universe, but just a part of a much larger whole exposed to contingent twists of fate, with a readiness to accept the heavy burden of responsibility for what we make out of our lives.
---- Slavoj Zizek, Violence

Leave God Out of This

2009-11-10T09:06:00.000-08:00

Then again, I could do the same... apparently.

Some of you are far touchier than I had expected. Surprising. Again, like I said, it was not my intent to tear your world apart.

I was simply trying to spark a few questions. However, it appears you've already embraced some eloquently opaque prophets who, after examining the problem on terms that can never be addressed, have supplied you with many expressive answers...

Or was that what I was asking you to avoid?

Moving on, it also looks like my last post led some people to believe that I'm in need of mental help.

Well... not quite what I had intended. Sorry. Life is good! Thanks for caring! False alarm folks.

You can relax now. I'll stop shaking those warm, fuzzy boxes of yours.

You're right though. I'm no prophet, and I suppose I ought to avoid breaking them all down if I've no desire to be one.

Just understand that, while it may be your prerogative to identify with whatever higher calling or whatever God you choose, the trappings of these wildly liberating thoughts provoke an extended set of consequences you've likely not considered.

I've exemplified that, if nothing else.

In any event, I have a paper to write. So I'll just pepper this site with some random quotage over the next few weeks. Maybe I'll quote a philosopher or a nutcase psychologist or two. I'll probably also go with the Koran and work my way to the Bible, the Upanishads, and then I'll Wiki some Jainism or Taoism or some artistic stuff. Maybe some Foucault, unless any one of my folks wants to contribute? Some of you had asked before, if I recall correctly. Feel free to stop by.

Later.

Intro to "Lights Out" Theory

2009-11-05T11:45:00.001-08:00

WARNING

If religion is a very touchy subject for you, I must warn you against reading the next few posts. No, I will not be abusive or intentionally disrespectful. Many of my readers are friends or family members. But while I don't like the idea of hurting people, considering the honesty I insist upon when examining this subject, it may be inevitable.

There. I've warned you.

Now, I encourage you to read the following. It may, believe it or not, provide comfort to you. If nothing else, it may prove a testing ground for your faith.

Ahhemm...

Introduction

If you read my last post in its entirety, you would understand that when it comes to death, I am a fan of the Lights Out theory. Literally, Lights Out means that you go nowhere.

That's it.

Done.

Finished.

Dead.

Figuratively, the Lights Out theory may also mean that we simply have no means of shedding light on what happens when we die, at least not beyond the purely speculative theological explanations which emanate from, shall we say, questionable sources.

But aside from the fact that I think you're too happy, why does this even matter? Even if there is no life after death, what's the harm in simply believing in a paradise, a heaven, or reincarnation so long as it helps people get through this life in a generally decent state? Death is a personal issue, right?

Well... not really. This is not simply a personal issue for the very reasons many of you are at this point feeling some level of discomfort. First off, you don’t like the idea of someone else’s actionable notions of death limiting your own perspective and experiences in life. Along these lines, evangelical types are proof positive that attitudes about the proper entrance to a given afterlife are inherently political. I am also evangelical in this sense: what you believe to be the best path to Heaven or Nirvana -- or whatever -- places an onus on everyone else who is living, whether they seek that same paradise or not.

So stop pretending you know where we're headed!

I, for one, am tired of people clinging (yes, in the face of all that science and philosophy have brought us, folks are indeed clinging) to essentially autocratic, theological perspectives that limit rights, limit increased individual and social access to greater human potential, and lead to improper, unjust uses of state power against otherwise innocent people. I am particularly weary of people claiming that conceptions of morality and justice are inherently tied to some notion of a God who's authority emanates from his part in deciding where you are placed in an afterlife.

On this basis I am sorry to conclude that, even if you are a good religious person, as a point of fact, your immortal fantasy harms people directly. Theological notions of an afterlife provide a basis for preventing otherwise intelligent people from realizing a higher degree of their potential human experience, for continuously granting people license to hurt and abuse, and for providing refuge to otherwise despicable, draconian power politicians.

Now, it may be that many people would do horrible things in a world without religion. I agree that this idea is not simply possibly true but nearly impossible to refute. It is also true that religious faith has been a very positive force in reversing oppression, and the practice of valuing education finds its roots in many ancient religious movements, Judaism and Buddhism in particular. However, while a world without a theological basis for notions of immortality and infallibility will certainly not be perfect, a world without religion provides fewer excuses, fewer loopholes for domineering, abusive, oppressive, and ignorant behavior. Most importantly, there are ways to fight oppression and value education that provide less gravity for the ensuing tribalism. Ironically, mine is the theory that leads to fewer negative consequences.

Yes, the Lights Out perspective is a theory. Can't say I've been completely dead before, so I can't really say where we go after we die, or that we don't go anywhere at all. That said, theory is not synonymous with opinion. I resent the idea that Lights Out theory is opinion. It is certainly not based on some notion of what I would like to have happen when I die. Instead, Lights Out theory derives its authority from honest, even dour examinations of what it means to die in light of our (verifiable) reality. If nothing else, it is a theoretical position employable as a means of questioning those who attempt convincing us to misplace our precious faith.

Still, many assert that notions of an afterlife operate entirely on the basis of mere opinion. If a matter of simple opinion, it should be stated that my opinion is still better than competing opinions. Why? Those who have formulated or simply conjured up competing opinions were also not dead when doing so. We are at least equal on these grounds.

From this point, my competitors begin enhancing the validity of my Lights Out theory. While making positive assertions, my competitors provide no valid or consistent reasoning to back up their belief that there is an afterlife, let alone their ostensibly factual account of what it's like or how to get there. Perhaps resulting from their lack of dying, they can give no examples. I on the other hand am not required to provide examples, because I make no such claims.

Further, there is a rather understandable, rather pervasive bias operating amongst my competitors. It is rather easy to see that most people believe in an afterlife, because they just don't want to die. While I've no desire for death, I have discounted my love of life in order to honestly consider this problem. Therefore, it is fair to say that I have done a great deal to dilute this bias where others have not even tried. As I have little or no reason to lie to myself about any of this, I have done a great deal towards preventing myself from giving you false information. I am therefore much less likely to parrot falsehood as truth.

This in mind, I ask that you not confuse my obvious distaste for religion with some similarly mindless worship of “Science and Logic”. This is perhaps the most crucial point of my introduction. Again, I am not trying to say that “Science” with a capital “S” has proven my theory. And while I may use logic and scientific methodology in my own treatment of the issue, I do not think these modes of thought are cure-alls. They are simply the best available salves. I do not wish to hide behind their ever thickening veil of truthiness. Science and Logic are in no way comprehensive methods for addressing the many problems inherent to human consciousness. So please understand that I am not a callous atheist (I prefer non-theological to atheist). I am not a fan of the ivory tower, Richard Dawkins set. My goal is simply this: to clear the table of the many dogmatic, fantastic, theological assumptions currently limiting our individual as well as collective ability to face the notion of an ultimate end.

The notion of an afterlife is the central promise of any religion. Personally, I draw the line for Buddhists when they speak of reincarnation in terms of immortality and literal rebirth. In adopting this notion of an immortal, the notion that there is no death, one crosses the line from philosophy to theology. So central is such a notion of immortality to religion that to believe in a religion without accepting its promise of an afterlife, without its promise of salvation, is to attempt driving a car without an engine; it is to believe you are going somewhere while admitting that, to the best of your knowledge, you clearly are not. Those of us outside the car are not sure where you are trying to go, and we are at a loss when we find your car parked on our front lawn.

We have an engine or two for you to try. Mine has been integral to running the distance our species has covered these last few centuries. My competitors, on the other hand, have sought to park or reverse our course. But my view, the negative, slate clearing act of defiant disbelief, is only half of hard science methodology, and it is only a fraction of the human art. Alone it would be simple nihilism. I must offer something as a substitute, lest you write me off entirely. Please accept that, as a matter of my positive faith, basing an understanding of your mortality on its truly stark terms is the most efficient, cleanest burning fuel for your future vehicle.

In Part 1 of this 4 post series, I will show religious "faith" little respect as I disprove a swath of theological perspectives, especially the silly, impotent notion of "Spirituality". As I have never met or in any way interacted with Gods, I will not attack Gods. I will, however, prove that no one else has ever interacted with a God or "higher power" of any kind. Therefore, I will help you conclude that religions are essentially bare opinion in the order of ridiculous fantasy, and that religious faith offers no authority on any subject, least of all the notion of an afterlife.

In Part 2, I will elaborate on why specific religious positions towards the afterlife are ridiculous and even self-contradictory to the point where they are clearly the result of human psychology.

In Part 3, I will introduce a few brief arguments to show you why I am in fact quite justified in so harshly requesting you update your millennium old social software for a less viral form of actually dealing with life!!!

In Part 4, the real thrust of all this, I will conclude by elaborating on the power of faith. Unlike a Protestant and more like a protester, I will ask that you to cut out the middle men and put faith directly into yourself.

Stay tuned for Part 1: Leave God Out of This

Choosing to Look Back

2009-11-03T10:19:00.000-08:00

This morning, on my way to work, I contemplated the usual. I thought about being dead.

No, this has nothing to do with the recent Halloweening. Nothing to fear in death, as far as I'm concerned, so there's nothing to celebrate about it either, right? Besides, these days, Halloween has as much to do with the dead as Christmas does with Jeebus.

Are they selling Santa hats yet?

In any event, I choose to look back on death quite often. I began thinking about death on the train this morning as I remembered how I woke up next to my wonderful, beautiful girlfriend. For Pavlovian reasons I will describe below, warming, comforting feelings bring me to thoughts of death. Also, I am now writing this because the Happy Day's blog on the NY Times web site published an article by Clemson U's Todd May on the subject of death(http://happydays.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/happy-ending/).

I reflected on this article, and I decided to present my own direction.

If there is some meaning for you to find in my oddly casual attitude about death, it would likely be found amidst my past struggles with the idea of dying. Therefore, for your sake, for the sake of my own evolving relationship with the thought of dying, and for the sake of honing my well established narcissism, I will elaborate on how I've adopted a routine of choosing to look back on death.

Because of the many physical and emotional scars I've been awarded through my lifelong, symbiotic relationship with a diverse range of medical conditions (most of them cardiovascular in nature), I've been in essence forced to consider my demise as a practical matter from very early on. I was therefore, in a sense, robbed of the potential to be naive about death.

While this unfortunate necessity combined with my intellectual greed to forever banish me from the tempting psychological confections displayed in the Pantheonic sweet shop of America's religious glut, it also allowed me to embark on a very painful yet infinitely rewarding process of understanding life as it was. That is to say, while I've come to understand almost nothing about living amongst you all, I've developed a cool, secularized perspective on the notion of leaving this forsaken place. I choose to look back on each new morning as if I've already passed.

Allow me to explain.

By age nine or so, memorable evenings and happy events involuntarily sparked some notion of my inevitable demise. I came to dread wonderful events like birthdays, the first day of summer, the first day of a vacation, or even Christmas morning. Warm happiness inevitably produced a sinking feeling, because I was always afraid I would not wake up to enjoy it again the next day. When I did awaken, I always feared how I would remember the day ahead. I feared that, in death, I would forget it all. And what’s the point in living if you will disregard it all in the end?

Say what you will of this thought process. But when doctors have been telling you that the simple act of running or walking might kill you since you were, uh... let's see... able to hear, the idea of dying from a heart attack at a young age is not so far fetched.

Nonetheless, I once agreed with many of you. I used to think that the above thought process meant I was crazy.

In many ways, I was. I began to overcompensate for my constant dread with a near constant desire for emotional evaporation. I wanted to be alive as a statue is when you look into its eyes, as gone yet as substantially present as when you look away.

To this end, I purposefully developed a hollow point in my psyche by repeating pointless activity. I would do basic things to foster the mutual understanding between myself and others that I was still alive, but at the same time, I avoided acting in ways that mandated feeling much of anything. There was no wrist cutting or pain infliction or anything of that nature, no call for help. As I understood my position, even if help came, the help would eventually die and I would die soon after.

Inevitable death meant that memories themselves brought pain. Why inflict mortal wounds to create painful memories? Why create more scars? Instead, I would stare at the grass outside from my dim living room or the rain from underneath the gutter outside my house. Occasionally I would stand in the rain, just because. I would sometimes open a book and pretend to read, but I would just stare at the pages as if they were white slabs. You see, I never wanted to experience the story. I just wanted to verify that there was still scenery. I wanted context as form, but I feared context as meaning.

From this approach to life, I eventually developed what I thought was an ability to excuse myself from the world. What I developed was a penchant for fantasizing about a world without death or material restraints. I wrote, produced, and directed a number of in-my-head "movies". I lay for hours at night, pretending to sleep while I dreamt of the life I wished would fill my undying days. I developed a means of rewarding myself for this behavior by fantasizing about possessing great powers. Chief among these was my fantasy of achieving immortality.

Of course, even with all this effort, I never really believed this. Living in your head is a generally poor strategy for avoiding painful memories. Certainly, pretending you can't die does not work very well, especially if you are genuinely interested in actually avoiding death. Therefore, in the name of maintaining a social economy through which I could procure sustenance, I would do a lot of overtly obnoxious things to remind myself and others that I was in fact alive, and to ensure that no one would catch on to my (psychotic) plan. I spoke out, I cried a lot, and I hit a girl or two. I had friends of course, but, as they may have been able to tell, I was rarely interacting with them so much as I was interacting with avatar personalities -- their social representatives as displayed by my fantasizing within the loosely controlled environment in my head. Thus, while I was able to interact with people on a relatively normal level, a level that allowed me to simply live, mine was still a world of incredible fantasy.

Looking back, I can see how this result came by design. I wanted to avoid sincere interaction so that I might avoid genuine memories. Again, true interaction scars you. Actual interaction creates actual memories, and the act of remembering reminds you of what has passed. Remembering genuine moments felt to me like death itself, so I avoided them at all costs.

But I did not stay this way. While I wanted to "go away", I wasn't truly interested in disappearing either. The idea of total disappearance was actually my greatest fear. So, by age twelve or thereabouts, I wanted to be counted, but I wanted nothing more than that.

Obviously I could not hope to kill myself. As I saw it, on one end, I could fail in my attempt and be remembered as a nut job or a looser. On the other hand, I might succeed in stellar fashion. Such success would have, in my mind, granted me a degree of fame. If you are alive, fame forces those vivid memories I was avoiding, so I nixed that idea. Then again, what fun is there in being famous while you are dead? Either way, killing yourself to avoid death is a rather stupid idea in the first place. Having realized all this in the span of my tween years, suicide seemed pointless as I entered high school.

So I decided I would try a little harder to live. Life became my new focus. Yet I viewed the future in terms of the inevitable future, death. So instead of living vividly, I remained gray. A stone edifice of my potential, I decided to let others color me as they saw fit.

But how? How does one live with the ever present fear of death and a prevailing absence of theological opiates? First, I tried to be "cool". I worked out a lot, which is fun and exhilarating. But old habits die hard, so I worked out with many fantasies in mind. I was doing something real, but I thought it best to measure my results in light of my perpetual fantasizing.

Oddly enough, it appeared that the physical fulfillment of my fantasies was not allowing any solitude. In high school, as you know, one is not so able to simply disappear, even if you feel like you have. Too many other people are searching to fit in with the scenery, and so the scenery is often the worst place to be when trying to “go away”. Most people are learning form in high school, so context as form becomes the context of meaning I had been trying so hard to avoid as a child.

When my own fantasies failed to achieve for me a state comfortably social anonymity, I compensated by haphazardly picking and choosing from the market place of self imagery. If you are a partially mature adult, you know how that goes. Overall, this method of coping with my life until its ultimate end doesn't work for me.

Next, after it became clear that I was not becoming what I was trying to purchase with barrels of money and hours at the gym, I turned to a few semi-genuine social activities. I say "semi-genuine", because these social experiences were heavily lubricated with substance abuse.

That is to say, I drank my ass off. It was fun! I also smoked my brain into oblivion quite regularly. That was even more fun!!!

We of course know what this type of "fun" can lead to. While I never truly devolved into a cock sucking crack addict, I've had some close calls as a result of my substance abuse. I’ve since resolved to mitigate my use of these substances, but I doubt I will ever completely abandon the use of substances for many, many reasons.

Did I mention it's really, really fun?

But seriously, while this method is a very attractive means of coping with a nihilistic worldview, a frail consciousness may become trapped in it, and the real issue is thus never solved. In examining this cliché, we could also say that the reasons such behavior does not solve the issues I had with death are also the very reasons engaging in it is so attractive: a) you can't remember moments of intense instances of abuse, and b) it stems from and engenders the death wish/immortal fantasy, depending upon which aspect you plan to emphasize while ingesting your substance of choice. Social substance abuse provides a standardized form of social formatting into which many of us may disappear without feeling like it; the drug itself forces a pleasant contextual meaning while "other people" provide context as form.

For a time, substance use proved the perfect salve. Then again, there is a difference between use and abuse. Use is one thing, but I argue that one is not really using a substance unless they are already capable of a more mature frame of mind than I was in. When using a substance, you are enhancing your enjoyment of life or perhaps simply unwinding so that you may work towards a greater goal when the opportunity presents itself. Substance use is a form of self management preformed by a mature human being. Even though I did not die from these drugs or loose a job or even go to jail, I still consider myself to have been abusing these substances. In abusing, one may also enjoy the pleasure of the high, the relaxing and such, but you accomplish nothing. You simply medicate yourself while you wait to die.

This is what I was doing. And so I drank beyond my limit to prove I was invincible, to feel immortal, but also to wallow in misery as I fell towards doom. I smoked to sink into my own body, to fly out of my mind, and thus become amorphous, timeless, immortal form for formless thought.

One particularly timeless moment occurred while I sat alone late at night in the hot tub at my parent's place. They had left town for the weekend, so I decided to unwind a bit. After a few beers and a light toke, I slipped into the soothing water and stared up at the crescent moon. It was wonderful. It was one of those moments I had avoided all of my life. The warm water and the shimmering stars presented a comforting, vivid memory, and nothing in me could stop it. Then I remembered death.

And so I sank into depression.

I asked myself, "Why? What is the point? It is clear that there is no God, no spirits as such, so what of it all? Why am I cursed with making these memories only to forget it all forever? Why must I live so much, only to die?"

The answer erupted from my then empty consciousness, "Because this is what you are doing, and that's because this is what there is for you to do."

"Besides, what else you got going on? You're here and that in and of itself is a reason to live... jackass."

Frank as I am with myself, this was not the end. Figuring out why it is OK to live is one thing. Figuring out what to do with your life is another, and what it all means to you is another thing on top of that.

On these questions, I've few means of advising anyone, at least not before I discuss religion, why it's silly, and what I've come to substitute it with. That's for another post.

But should my rather thin advice on how to treat the thought of your imminent death –- get over it -- cause any dire existential introspection, I've only this odd, similarly thin treatise to offer:

As we've nowhere to look from but the past and present -- the poor yet prolific predictors -- the future is always rich with the memory of fantastic histories.

Seen as the future, as a void of memory bursting with potential histories, living toward tomorrow offers no clear choices except how to die, if you choose to.

Yet, it was never your choice that you will meet death. Thus, death can be seen as the end of choice, the end of you.

You being a choice -- a will to live, to die, or how to go about either -- looking to the future as an ultimate end begets a best case scenario of living towards the given options for dying: to die as this or that, to die in this or that way, or in this or that state.

And yet, the future is arrived at as much from choice as it is from memory, for memories.

Your choices, you, are also memories. Death is then also the end of memories, and living is the process of their reproduction.

In context of form and meaning, choices are what form you, and your memory is your meaning.

Understanding well that you cannot reach the present except as choice and memory, you find that, even as you flail towards the future as choice and memory, you in fact are the past.

Knowing this, and knowing all we can choose of ourselves at present is how we think and feel about the past, look even farther back so that you may again see forward.

Thus, you may see from a point where the future is behind you. Once here, you may safely assume that you are already dead.

While you are not, while there is in fact still a potential for the reproduction of memories, you are now free to ignore your fear of the future as their end, a fear which only results in neglecting your attention to the past.

Understanding your new dominion over history, cultivate your past as you wish it to be remembered.

In all, have no fear of your history or your future. Recall your life as it is, cherish your past, and become its future author as you remember onward.

Happy Monday: Woman with Cancer Survives Optimism

2009-10-19T09:36:00.000-07:00

When Barbara Ehrenreich was diagnosed with cancer, she sought options for treatment. She sought advice on dealing with the pains of battling cancer. Instead, waves of cheerful positivity gurus fell upon her like a two ton wall of smiley-face buttons, pins out.

Barbara wasn't interested in positivity. She didn't need a buttressed happy place, or a new friend to hold her hand amidst a sea of pink shirted soldiers of misfortune desperately trotting about to promote awareness of their obscure, much unpublicized medical condition -- cancer. She didn't need group discussions to feel empowered. She wasn’t interested in trading the hard fight ahead for a pocketful of pointless sunshine and a few pink ribbons.

She was dying. She was prepared to do what she could to make that situation change. She wanted the pricks of administered treatment, not the pricks of pins fastening buttons to her sweatshirt. She wanted some real advice on how to beat the stuff tearing her body down, not a sermon about bending the corners of her mouth up. She wanted pointers on dealing with pain; not on fooling herself into thinking she was happy in the face of death.

Above all, what she really wanted was to live. It didn't matter if the process of living called the broader principles of blind positivity into question.

Having survived, Barbara wrote Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America. It's a book about the idiocy of pure positivity. While I'm not sure how positive thinking totally undermines an entire country, I relate to Barbara's sentiment. Haven't finished the book yet, but it's a decent read.

I recommend it. No, not because it’s particularly great or anything. It just feels good to cite another person who thinks you're all trying too damn hard to smile.

Take a look at an article on her work I found on the SF Chronicle's website.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/19/DD211A4O4C.DTL

See ya next week.

Where's the After Party?

2009-10-02T09:05:00.000-07:00

Seems I've been wrong about a few things. I've been a Party pooper.

I've misjudged the ideological elasticity of my more conservative friends and family members. Turns out they're not crazy. Turns out that most of them, while registered as Republicans, are actually becoming something else. Same goes for many of my more moderate Democrat friends, the ones who aren't self-styled "Progressives".

A common Libertarian thread is emerging alongside a rising antipathy toward those who feel that government and society are best served by micro-managing individual lives. Whether one favors green energy, gay marriage, legal/illegal pot, economic growth, small business friendly policies (whatever those are), and so on, however noble the purpose behind each issue may be, people are sick as hell of someone else telling them how to live, how to be eco friendly, how to be a patriot, what paper to use to wipe their own ass, etc. etc.. It's not the nanny state, the state that tries and fails to care for you. It feels more like a formulaic mess written by a lame, passionless "How to" Author of State.

US politics is phoned-in via, "The Idiot's Guide", but (surprisingly) most constituents aren't total idiots. In fact, time and time again, it was not our intellect that was challenged.

It was our trust that was challenged, and now it’s nearly gone. We trusted government to tell us what was going on in given situations. That didn't work. We trusted government to at least take care of things we couldn't possibly address as individuals. That didn't work. We trusted the government to protect us from threats, as they are obligated to, and we got two pointless wars that are draining our budget and increasing our vulnerability, not to mention killing scores of innocent people. We trusted government to stop fixing pretend problems in lieu of our real concerns, or to at least succeed in fixing the fiction. Didn't happen, and at present, we can't imagine it happening. Ever.

Now, while government and collective action in general normally fails to succeed in stellar fashion, it appears we've reached our saturation point (or a "tipping point" if you prefer). We know governance is hard. We also know that we bare some blame, but not really. One person can't fix a nation's problems (Ahhem... Chiding myself here for my own Obama-mania), so you can't really blame each individual voter. Perhaps you can blame a group, but then you're not talking about persons; you're talking about an electorate, and an electorate is managed by the Parties, not vice versa. In all, people are sick of the Parties, the process, and they're ready to puke. You can tell, because our faces are red and quivering. Most of what's coming out of our mouths resembles acid and bile.

What I've described is an intense, pervasive sense of negativity. It's anger! So it sounds like people are not really very flexible with their ideology as I claimed above. But let's consider this little nugget about ideology:

Ideology is not simply what we cling to. Ideology is mainly the default set of considerations which emerge when encountering, determining, or shaping one's own actions in the face of something new or inherently problematic. In practice, ideology helps guide tough decisions; it is the product of our due internal deliberations over how we think/feel reality ought to be, and therefore, the way we will attempt to make reality when new or challenging situations present such an opportunity. Political ideals then, in the highest abstract sense, are often the fall-back option for an absence of social or economic precedent.

You may also call this Religion, but not necessarily. Deities and supernatural phenomena are not always involved in ideology. Some are secular.

Ideology will, therefore, also become encoded into material reality as an apparent empirical reality. Take for example the different ways in which nations of different ideological slants have established unique collective methods for dealing with the constantly reemerging challenges presented by individual's bowel movements (Go to Youtube and type "Zizek Toilet Ideology". Don't worry. No nasty pictures.). So then, when one reaches the point where their material reality no longer reflects their default options, they either: A) panic and rush back into their den (denial); B) they adopt another existing ideology; or C) they fashion a new ideology from what's left of the previous junk.

I agree that there is a lot of A and B going on. No doubt. This always happens in uncertain times amidst poor economic conditions. But I'm also encouraged by the rising tide of option C. Now, I say that the emergent ideological thrust is Libertarian, because it’s the best word to describe what I see. I encounter this common thread:

The people I talk to sound sincere when saying they want government out of everything, including foreign nation building projects. They want a prosperous economy where individuals can work hard and live well, but they distinguish themselves from big spending Keynesian and/or trickle-down economists. They want basic security for their family and neighborhoods, but they see no need to tap your phone or "Sacrifice Freedom to protect Liberty". They want the shell of the Union in place as a guide for interstate commerce, but they want localized power in more immediately impacting decisions. They dislike corporations, and while they are skeptical of socialism, they feel that the people who represent the backbone of the economy, the workers and small business owners, should be rewarded for their diligence and production. The list may go on, but these are my favorite highlights.

In all, while people are struggling to articulate this thread (and are failing to rather miserably) under a unified coalition, this does not mean it isn't a serious contender. As I see it, the problem is not that people don't know what they want. The problem is that, since they are so adapted to communicating their political goals in the context of the dying paradigm, they are unable to communicate the emergent one. Emerging paradigms are of course not communicated until our actions and experiences allow them to be articulated. Further, while all of the emergent aims may not be totally plausible, no ideological framework is. Look, if we prodded each person long enough, we would find a host of ridiculous inconsistencies and total impossibilities in everyone's ideological foundation. So you can't expect rational sense from established paradigms, let alone emerging ideas. The emerging Party will look like tomfoolery to all that predate it, and therefore, the new one almost always smacks of populism.

Keeping this in mind, as a student and a fan of ideologies far and wide, I gotta say I like a lot of this populist-Libertarian stuff. It sure as hell beats the current GOP, sounds better than the self-righteous "Progressives", and presents more back-bone than the Dems. As some of the current numbers indicate, many prefer these ideas over those of the current ruling party.

But the fact that these ideas are both populist and similar to a previously established ideology (Libertarianism) does not mean they are a mere rehash. I am hopeful that, within some time between the next ten to twenty years, a solid alternative Party will become mainstream. It's not likely to be the Greens or the Libertarians though, because they are too closely associated with what folks are trying to escape. But, if the Reps and Dems fail to rebrand effectively and soon, they will both be dead in the blink of an historical eye. The Reps will likely die first, but the Dems aren't inspiring confidence as they bungle yet another mandate.

In any event, while the ideals I described above were once the domain of Republicans, they are no longer. Really, neither of these Parties give a damn about helping the nation. For them, each unprecedented event and each difficult challenge is not a chance to better your life, but a chance for them to take it to their enemies and consolidate power. The Dems want to take it to the so called "enemies of human decency", whereas Republicans, while claiming to fight for the country, take it to the enemies of their power ambitions, whoever they are, wherever they may be.

In case you couldn't tell, I'm personally more in line with so called Liberals, and I suppose I'm a little "Progressive" (But I think that's a stupid word. Who isn't for "Progress"?). I certainly believe in government, and while there are certainly countless examples of government incompetence and outright failure, I think history indicates that we often need it to get involved in our lives -- to some degree. I think we will continue to need it until the Nation State evaporates and we figure out how to live in luxurious communes and enjoy perpetual peace.

Further, I feel that more conservative folk often forget that, even though they are a present day conservative, their status quo ideals are often times a product yesterday's liberal struggles. These struggles were damn hard for a lot of people, their results have improved the quality of life, and I think that, by automatically writing off the idea of reform with the fading ink of today's well worn pens, many conservatives do a disservice to the spirit that wrote the norms to which they currently cling.

My bias clearly stated, I'll still say that the current GOP is the big, nihilistic elephant in the room. I'm glad to see that people are into restoring what was at one time the bedrock of Republican ideals, but I'm sorry to have to tell y'all that the Republican Party is nearly dead. Are there still people in office who are called "Republicans"? Yes. Are they holding true to the core ideals that Party supposedly stands for? Not a chance.

It's time for a third Party to emerge, and I think one is. Right now, we call them Independents, or in some cases, Moderates. I don't care if we keep three Parties, make five new ones, or kill one off to make room for their replacements. I just think it's time for these populist-Libertarians to upstage their Republican and Democratic masters in this bullshit game. Assert your presence. Not by Tea Parties, not by a rally. That was the 1700s and 1900s respectively. It's the 21st century folks, and we have 21st century problems in the face of 21st century goals we can achieve by 21st century means.

But I'm not one of you new guys. I'm a Lib. So at present, don't expect the answer from me. I can see that the Dem v Rep Party is almost over, but no one can tell me where the After Party is yet. I am, however, quite interested in receiving your invitation once you are willing and able to align under a coherent purpose.

Purple Haze

2009-09-29T08:42:00.000-07:00

For all the Blue State v. Red State, Progressive Culture v. Conservative Culture sparring nowadays, you'd think that any attempted melding of the two extremes would result in a black hole, an instant atomization of our political fabric, or, more realistically, sheer madness. But many people across the country are indeed "reaching across the aisle" in furtherance of such madness. And it just so happens to be my favorite kind... Reefer Madness!

That's right, Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Libertarians can now agree that its time to end the war on pot. Many even accept that the best option is sensible Legalization!

Now, while it's plenty cool that the only cure for chronic polarization in this country turns out to be exactly what Bob Marley and Peter Tosh told us thirty years ago (Sensimilla, Sticky-Icky, Mary Jane, and so on), and while there is plenty of room for optimism here in the Bay Area, the title of my blog will not allow my own bridled optimism to shine through. Sorry. Instead, let's do a quick point by point breakdown of certain myths about cannabis in the context of its Legalization.

I'll do my best to represent both sides of the proverbial aisle here. Perhaps then some may understand (if they don't already) why the issue of cannabis Legalization has garnered such ridiculously positive attention, but also why we may have to wait a bit before the best cannabis policies can be realized.

First, let's clear up a term or two.

By Legalization I mean total, wholesale allowance of the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis. Some feel that this should include allowing use to minors (17 and under), while others do not. I take the latter position for reasons which I shall make clear in a moment.

Legalization is often confused with Decriminalization. Decriminalization does not make the cultivation or sale of cannabis legal, nor does it make personal possession totally nonpunishable. Decriminalization simply means you would not go to jail for holding a smaller amount of pot (say an ounce or under). If found guilty of possession, you may still be fined, forced into community service or addiction treatment by a judge, or something of that nature. If found guilty of sale or cultivation, you may still go to jail.

So I'm talking about Legalization here, not Decriminalization. Most other people are as well, but most people seem to prefer a sort of watered down Legalization which borders on mere Decriminalization. Again, I'm talking about Legalization from here on out.

So here we go...

Let's first paraphrase the polar positions.

The main reasons given for fearing cannabis are: it's a hard drug bad for the body and mind, it's linked to crime, and is associated with the scum of the earth (who, according to the rates of incarceration for pot offenses, appear to be Blacks and Latinos predominantly, people of color in general).

The main reasons given for loving cannabis are: it's a totally natural substance, it's less harmful than alcohol, it's good fun, is totally harmless, is a source of revenue, and it may be a source of employment.

And by the way, it's my own damn body, so I'll ingest what I damn well please when it harms no one else. Especially in light of this Libertarian affirmation, I think it requires a heavy dose of proof to justify incarcerating anyone who uses or possesses a substance aimed at enhancing their personal pleasure in this life. The proof ain't there, so people are starting to second guess the War on Drugs, especially with reference to MJ. Moving on to the myths:

Harmful Devil Weed v Natural Light of God

"Is it a hard drug that causes cancer, depression, makes people crazy, and causes hallucinations that force you to shoot your children and neighbors and worship the Devil?" Not really. First, THC is not a hard, highly addictive chemical. Will some individuals experience pronounced effects, and can pot contribute to respiratory illness if smoked? Sure. Can it catalyze the development of some medical conditions if you are predisposed? Yes. But will it kill you, make you crazy, or make you attack anyone? Unless you're into anthropomorphizing a bag of Cheetos, the answer is NO. And as I'm sure you've heard by now, no one has ever died from a cannabis overdose. Some people even feel closer to God through MJ use.

"Since it's natural, isn't it totally safe and, like, totally a part of the nature of human evolution and, like, the soul and stuff like that dude?" Not so much. Remember, rattle snake venom and bad eggs are natural too. Those things hurt, and I'm not sure what they do for the soul. Look, smoking or vaporizing can feel really good, but it does impair your short term memory, and it delays most sensory and motor functions. Some people get panic attacks or vomit after smoking too much, and if ingested regularly at a young age (as with any substance like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine) it can negatively effect cognitive development. Fact. So yes, keep it away from the kiddies.

And yes, there is such a thing as Marijuana Users Anonymous! Cannabis can be addictive, albeit to a rather infinitesimal percentage of the long term using population (Roughly 6% of 33% of users. Do the math).

In all though, people recognize that this drug is pretty harmless. It's easily less harmful than alcohol. While many object to it's use and refrain from it for health related or moral reasons, most recognize that the worst thing you get from a rip of a joint is the pain of realizing that you're suddenly out of ice cream and sun chips.

MJ Causes Crime v Criminalization Causes Crime

This is pretty much a no-brainer. Cannabis use is in no way linked to violent behavior. It is in no way linked to lower levels of income or lower levels of professional success (the opposite in one study I read), so it is fair to say that a pothead won't be breaking into your car in order to afford a ten-sack. He may be jimmying your car door with his house key because he forgot which midnight blue Tercel is his (it's dark out for fuck's sake!), but he means you no harm.

The only link between cannabis and crime is this: that it's illegal status couples with it's widespread appeal to create a massive underground market. Such markets are run by criminals with guns. The market for any illegal substance tends to get picked up by the bad guys with the guns. They fight each other and their less savory minions over money and turf. And more money. So, if you want to get rid of the crime associated with pot (i.e. cartels and gang bangers pushing and fighting for massive volume), allow people to grow their own. Or perhaps let the private sector or even the government take over production!

Drop the price and push the cartels out of the bulk of the market. License it so it's more difficult for kids to get a hold of it, and separate the supply of MJ from the supply of more harmful drugs like crack, coke, or meth. Free up law enforcement's time and money to fight real crime. Easy.

Budgetary Big Shot v Shot in the Arm

Many proponents of legalization pitch the idea that legalizing bud will fix the budget. Well, maybe it will help a little. It will save tons of money currently spent enforcing the idiotic criminalization of cannabis (enforcement costs, prison costs, legal and appellate costs, etc.), and the tax revenue would be a good salve for, say, some of the budgetary shortfalls in education. But while pot legalization would be a shot in the fiscal arm, it won't be a cure all. Not a bad idea though.

Pretty straight forward overall. Again, considering my more Libertarian premise (It's my body and I will ingest what I like so long as it harms no one else) and how it seems to echo mass anti-government sentiment on both sides of the aisle at this time, you can see why so many people are willing to give pot a chance on the open market.

Now, will most politicians pick this up? Not really. It's going to have to happen from a true grass-roots level. There are too many people who are still dead-set against "drugs" in general. There are too many people who think that beer is the nectar of the Gods while cannabis and black tar heroin are analogous to Satan's two favorite stooges. Not a good political move to associate yourself with the Devil's Weed. So the candidates can't expect Party or Union support (read $) for their campaigns. Further, some assert that Prison Unions put a lot of money into marijuana criminalization campaigns, because they want more work for more prison guards. Tracking the political donation money seems to corroborate this claim, but I'm not going to bank on this potentially paranoid tangent. In all, unless the cannabis industry throws around some serious cash (which it very well may do before 2010), full legalization is a ways off in Cali, let alone the US of A.

So, while it certainly makes sense to Legalize pot -- restrict children from early access; minimize access to truly hard drugs by disentangling the markets; keep non-violent, otherwise good people from going to prison for a minimum of five years; prevent the ruin of promising lives via felony conviction for small amounts at the age of 19; prevent the breakup of families through imprisonment of parents who are trying to relax after work; allow us the reasonable freedom of our own bodies; save on enforcement costs so we can tackle real crime; and tax it for some much needed revenue -- it will take a little perseverance to make all that happen.

After Legalization, the next step would of course be to hash out exactly how we legalize the stuff. At exactly what age (16, 18, 21?), exactly what amounts, and in what places should cultivation, sale, and use be permissible? In any event, I'm glad to see that the Blue and the Red can finally combine on something, even if the path forward isn't crystal clear.

Dems, Racism, and Fumbling Credibility

2009-09-16T14:51:00.000-07:00

I’ve got some issues with the Dems’ current political strategy for dealing with their opponents. I like the fact that they are willing to attack racism. Needs to happen. But only stupidity can explain why they are tying Rep. Joe Wilson's isolated outburst into their short term strategy on Healthcare Reform -- a platform which is already boiling in political hot water. Due to the malignance of cancerous racism in America, a scalpel is required to achieve its remission. The Dems, however, have brought a sledge hammer to the now unfortunate operation. Call me cynical, but while I am all for rebuking racists, I just don’t think most people will respond well to the Democrats' clumsily leveled allegations. I fear their strategy may hurt their party's political aspirations, and worse, I fear it will set us on a backwards path on the issue of race.

But before I discuss the ever expanding role of Obama’s “nationality” in our present political climate, I’d like to share a story. I used to have this boss who would randomly accuse employees of stealing extra time on breaks. She was right most of the time. But it was also clear that her accusations were a cover, a proxy for her general inability to manage us with respect to bigger, more pertinent problems. Often times, it was clear that the accusations were simply leveraged for some form of personal retribution, for some non-issue over which my fellow employees and I could not be officially censured. Perhaps she was just venting. Either way, instead of working to deal with the difficulties she suffered under her own inability to cope with store management, instead of giving her own efforts a hard look, she would find a fake yet otherwise plausible, otherwise legitimate reason to take her crap out on us. True, shit rolls down hill...

But the fumes rise. She lasted in that store for a few months before middle management axed her.

By brandishing accusations of racism in a similar manner, Congressional Democrats are headed for a similar fate in 2010. Congressional Democrats, Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, and the sheep in their flock may be tossing Republicans and moderates a handle for that ax head they’ve been grinding since Obama first began to run for office. To accuse all of their political opponents of being racist because of Joe Wilson’s single outburst -- even if Joe Wilson does salute the Confederate flag -- is about the dumbest thing the Democrats can do… at least right now.

Here’s why:

We all know that many if not most people are racists. Duh. Didn’t we find this out over the last, I don’t know, several thousand years of human history, let alone the last four hundred years in America, let alone the last election cycle?

We know this like my old manager knew that many if not most retail workers attempt to take a few extra minutes on lunch breaks (Yes, this is an awkward analogy). But in both cases, the accuser has to be careful about managing the specific offenses and even more careful about making accusations. Politicians have to be really careful about issuing Congressional censure.

Then again, racism is less like a time clock violation and more like a time bomb. It takes an incredible amount of skill, patience and precision to defuse. There’s a lot of risk involved. If you get it wrong, boom. If you run out of time, boom. All the while a bunch of people are running around, screaming, panicking. Some, nonplussed, question why the bomb isn’t being disarmed faster. Other more sinister minds set up shop and take advantage of the disarray. Others prepare to profit from the inevitable explosion.

In short, there are some traps you may encounter even when artfully accusing someone of being a racist. I know. I used to be one, and I accuse others all the time.

For one, if you accuse someone of something, anything, they begin to dislike associating with you. When they aren’t doing what you accuse them of (Or, in the case of most racists, aren’t aware of what they are doing) your accusation pisses them off. If they are guilty, well, then they just don’t like being caught. Maybe they just glide through some massive state of denial. But, right or wrong, the accusation creates a set of even less manageable problems. Right or wrong, you, the accuser, end up attacking someone for an otherwise justified, logical reason on a purely personal level. So instead of bringing people together, brandishing accusations of racism separates people further. It's simply the nature of accusing someone of something.

Second, a vicious cycle often ensues. The accused resents the accuser, and vice versa. You accuse them, they accuse you. Each comes to embody the flaw the one sees in the other whether the flaw ever existed or not. Roles are confused and thus potentially reversed, and the moral high-ground is lost, deservedly or not.

Third, if the initial accuser was incorrect, then we have what may be considered a genuine personal injustice. This can sting pretty badly, especially with regard to racism. Suppose, like me and many other people, you have some questions about Healthcare Reform you would like Obama and the Dems to answer. Let’s say you think it’s crazy to require people to buy insurance to the point where the uninsured will be punished with a $3,500 fine, and then turn around and refuse to offer a Public Option -- the only way those uninsured would be able afford insurance in the first place. I don’t think my opposition to this proposal has a damn thing to do with race. I think it has to do with the schizophrenic nature of the policy as proposed.

Understanding the true gravity of racism, particularly that which weighs down on many African Americans to this day, I understand why people are so defensive about certain challenges to Obama's Presidency. But please, do not confuse my rejection of Democratic policy with a rejection of Obama’s features, heritage, or upbringing. I don’t want to read his birth certificate. I want to read his Healthcare Reform. I have, and I don’t like all of it at present.

But whatever. I can take it. I don’t blame all the Dems, nor do I blame Obama (He can’t really get away with saying something about this). Plus, people have suffered far greater political and personal affronts than this implied assault on my character. Even so, it’s not right. I’m happily not a racist anymore, so I can move on while others might not.

But fourth, and most importantly, note that the truly problematic conundrum does not arise in the instance that the initial accuser was incorrect (that the person was not stealing time, or that the person was not in fact a racist). The worst result comes about when the initial accusation was correct, but the strategic and tactical nature of the initial accusation badly damages the accuser’s credibility.

This is what has happened. Because the accuser applied a truly real and heinous accusation across a far wider group of people than could possibly be guilty, they lose some credibility. Because the accuser, perhaps incensed by the truth of their convictions, jumped at the first, subtle, relatively innocuous example of that which they rightfully abhor, they open themselves up for criticism. They come off as a little trigger happy, if not a bit hypercritical. They certainly come off as a little hypocritical -- that is to say, of painting with a rather broad brush themselves. And lastly, because they have accused the very people whom they need to exact the punishment, to enforce and enact the change in racist attitudes they so desire, the accuser now stands alone. In this instance the accuser has limited recourse to bring the accusation up in the future, and even if they are able to, the positive results will be far more limited than they otherwise should be.

And we know that something inherently racist will happen again, perhaps soon. Whether or not it actually effects their positions on policy, we know that most of Obama’s opponents harbor some racist resentment towards any black person, let alone a black President. We know that Rep. Wilson would never interrupt a white President in the way he interrupted the President a week ago. We know that race was, is, and will be an issue with Obama’s Presidency and every step he takes towards enacting any reform.

But we cannot dream of winning this struggle by reducing our argument to the level of our opponents’ petty tactics. On the contrary, when your opposition is too stupid to realize the limitations of their personal perceptions, when their introspective abilities prove to be less than stellar, a broader strategy is required. I find that the best weapons against anxious, loud mouthed morons are the opposing properties of patience and intelligence. The most intelligent understanding of racism I have achieved so far is this: That racists can only truly stop being such when they make an effort from within.

So then, the best way to solve racism, at least politically speaking, is to facilitate this process. How? First, know the idiots better than they know themselves (They are racists who, not being members of an overtly racist group like the KKK, think they are not racist). Second, predict what they will do (Something overtly racist). Third, put them in a situation to do it (Elect a black President). Fourth, wait for them to do it (This is where the patience comes in, although I don’t think we would have had to wait too long). Fifth, when they do what you expect, call ‘em out and let ‘em have it!

There’s nothing quite like public humiliation for an unarguably shameless blunder. And there’s nothing like public humiliation to force introspection or force even more overt, more objectionable behavior that anyone in their right mind would soundly reject. What would constitute such a blunder? Well let’s see… a racial slur, a slip of the tongue, a candid video, or even some form of violence. No, of course violence is certainly not desirable, even if it serves to somehow solve racism in one fell swoop (That would take a lot of nasty violence, by the way).

In any event, the scope of an obvious, heinous affront would allow for a broader reform of racist minds and keep those people who cannot understand how racist they are from feeling personally attacked. I assume so because, in my experience, people are less likely to be offended by being called out so long as they can point the finger to a more egregious offense. They are willing to sacrifice that more egregious offender so that they may salvage their self respect while they change. They also have a clear example to avoid. Rep. Wilson’s outburst, though clearly racist to many of us, was not overtly racist to most. It was at worst, by the measure of our truly racist opponents, an improper way of rebuking the President. But no slurs were used, no crosses were burnt, and therefore, to most white people, there was no racism.

Finally, Joe Wilson’s remarks, though racist, just weren’t enough fuel to ignite genuine empathy for his victim, President Obama. And so, we are left with a bunch of voters who think that Dems are doing exactly what their stereotype suggests: Manufacturing a victim in order to blunt moderate opposition to increased Federal spending.

Unfortunately, Democrats and progressives had to rush into this. You could tell they were salivating, waiting for the opportunity with the patience of a five year old on Christmas Eve. Perhaps due to anxiousness, perhaps due to desperation on Healthcare reform, perhaps over genuine outrage, perhaps (as I suspect) to rush in and provide evidence against their own subtle brand of racism, or perhaps all of the above, parts four and five of the above mentioned process are far less likely to happen. Sadly, we can't do everything according to grand strategy, especially without the benefits of hindsight.

But if we are truly smarter for not being racists, let’s prove it. Let’s stop lumping everyone who opposes an Obama or Democratic policy in with the failed Confederacy. Again, sad as it is, I think we will have more than enough opportunities to call someone out for an overt racial affront against the President and his family, an overt affront against anyone who isn't white. Unfortunately, due to their short term political thinking, Democrats now have an uphill battle in what would have otherwise been an easy, noble undertaking.

Obama's Gambit

2009-09-09T11:35:00.000-07:00

Certain segments of the current ruling coalition are up in arms over President O's apparent dithering under the onslaught of ridiculous right-wing vitriol. Some segments are simply fed up with Obama. Another decent percentage of erstwhile progressive folks seem to have thrown in the towel. A mere eight months into O's Presidency, Democrats, Progressives, Liberals -- or whatever the hell people want to call themselves -- feel betrayed by their guy, the man they believed in last November. Most if not all of their vainly solemn views are expressed in Maureen Dowd's recent NY Times article, "Less Spocky, More Rocky."

Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09dowd.html (Sorry for the long link. I'm a tech-tard. Copy and paste. It won't kill ya').

In general, Dowd criticizes Obama's lack of passion. She wants less "brainy talk" and more "leadership". I don't feel like taking her on point by point. What I will say in general is that Dowd echoes the chorus of ridiculously short-sighted nitwits who don't realize they may be watching a true master as he compiles a canonical work of art.

One reason the disillusioned dimwits may doubt Obama's chess game (aside from the fact that many people are too stupid for adopting a strategic point of view) is that these very same outraged individuals are the chess pieces. The words and wills of pawns and bishops are often dire and shaking.

The king, of course, remains on the back line. The king appears withdrawn from the game. The king, the others pieces may suspect, strays behind, perhaps fearful in his knowledge of the truth: that the game ultimately ends with his success or failure.

But the player, if he/she is good, knows that sooner or later, when the time is right, when the pieces are in place and when the springs are set, the real action begins. That moment, that is the point in time wherein the gravity of the king's weight bares it's relevance. You see, most good chess games are not played in this moment -- they are played in preparation for it. In this moment, the game is not played but decided. The pawns, were they able to speak in this moment, may sound like those doubters currently standing face to face with the other side's proverbial Queen, the most powerful of the pieces which strikes in apparent nonsensical fashion from any direction, from any distance. But while these pieces shake about the board, the king watches, prepares for the players to make their decision.

Now, the average American is a pretty crummy player. As is the American tradition, voters are accustomed to riling up for an election and then checking out for the next three and a half years. They let the man in charge take care of that "Government" stuff. That's why they put him there, right? Obama, however, sees it differently. His job, as a leader, is not to straddle the bully pulpit and point the way. It's not even necessarily to provide a general map. Like most leaders, his job is not to do the job for us; his job is to help facilitate the process as we take care of our own end of the bargain.

So first, please avoid a simplistic viewing of President O here. In the absence of a good chess player (that is, in the presence of American Democrats), he's not only the king… He's the king and the player.

With this in mind, let's revisit the question: Why isn't Obama speaking up? Why not more Rocky Balboa, less Mister Spock? Well, for one, he isn't getting bogged down into a pointless debate over non-issues like "death panels", nor is he taking the bait laid out for him by cable TV's talking heads. Two, he's giving a little credence to these objectors by appearing to soften. Thus he appears to give in while essentially changing nothing about his strategic position. Instead, like a master of such gambits, he’s letting Palin, Limbaugh and co. speak for themselves. These things alone may combine to place enough rope in the hands of Republicans so that Obama's fiercest opponents may, as the saying goes, hang themselves.

No, Obama's not telling you what he thinks, and he's not going to tell you how he feels. He will provide no vicarious governance, no fictional involvement for voters who wish to "achieve" real change by the emotional effects of whatever eloquent advice he may impart.

Instead, he's letting you suffer. He's letting you build your own reasons to defy convention. He's letting you consolidate your own response to vacuous vitriol. He's letting you figure out what you would do, what you would say, why you would prefer Healthcare Reform, why you want green energy, gay marriage, and so on.

Next step: Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

That's what we will see in the speech tonight. No, he won't pantomime a preacher. He won't let out an autocratic yelp from the saddle of power. He'll be Barrack Obama. He'll be cool while he lays it out for you. What you do then, which issue you decide to support, whatever letter you decide to write to your representative or what amount of money you decide to donate is then your own damn problem.

Fact of the matter is that Obama isn't the person cowering in the face of asinine opposition. Obama isn't the one panicking. Obama isn't the person looking for the next excuse to cast off the last two and a half years worth of work as a failure, to quit and proclaim the end of change. Maureen Dowd and those with whom she agrees, these people are the cowards, the turncoats, the real opponents to change. These are the people ducking for cover. These are the people who have handed over their dialogue by their own inaction, by their own willingness to offer up Obama as the lamb in sacrifice to the realities of making change actually happen!

The power is in our hands and the debate is on our terms. We have a majority in the House as well as the Senate. We have a relevant issue which stirs passion. We have a powerful stance on the issue which is buttressed by political, social, and economic necessity. And we have Barrack Obama.

Our opponents have lies and conspiracy theories, they are vocal about them, and they're resting their case on Sara Palin's credibility with the American public.

The opponents of Healthcare Reform have fallen for Obama's Gambit. For once it's been the conservatives who fell for the bait -- now's time for the switch. It's in the bag, but only if the pawns and bishops stay in position.

Everything is Hitler, but MLK Will Save Us!

2009-09-01T09:36:00.000-07:00

Look out! Everything is Hitler!

Congress and Obama want to team up and look at Health Care Reform... Hitler! Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly spout nonsensical crap on tv, and some people agree with them... Hitler! Michael Moore... Hitler!Remember how George Bush went and bombed two countries when well over the basic majority of us wanted it to happen, because we were generally scared and grossly uninformed about U.S. foreign policy...? Hitler! The vast Right Wing conspiracy won't let gay people get married... Hitler! The vast Left Wing conspiracy wants to force children to be educated about gay people... Hitler! The Left wants to expand government... Hitler! The Right wants to turn the government into a shadowy cabal... Hitler! The Ten Commandments are in the court houses... Hitler! They won't let me say the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance... Hitler!

Al Franken is a fucking Congressman... Hitler!

Or is it Hitler? Is it just me, or is framing every relatively benign domestic political disagreement in the context of a life or death struggle against a homicidal autocrat from the early twentieth century a bit extreme? Perhaps I am suffering from an advanced case of acute mental facility; but comparing the current institutional processing of mainstream political issues to combating the unfathomable actions of a man responsible for transforming the Wiemar Republic into a maniacally efficient, anti-semitic-meat-grinder seems, well, just a little off base. Perhaps I'm not getting it, but there seems to be a slight difference between cutting a bit from medicare to subsidize the potential for a national health care system and throwing people into an oven because their last name is Goldstein. Such decisions (Medicare cuts that is) are certainly tough and worthy of passionate debate, but is it true that all difficult decisions are analogous to preventing the Holocaust?

Is Uncle Sam really trying to pull the plug on Grandma? On all Grandmas? All at once? As a Final Solution?

Perhaps so, but there is hope. Apparently, MLK will save us!

I can't cite too many examples from mass media (I don't own a tv), but amongst the liberal intelligentsia, the LGBT community, and San Franciscans in general, the Civil Rights movement comparisons seem to pop up like Mellisa Rivers at a red carpet event -- often, awkwardly, and as a token gesture which underscores the moment's genuine lack of intrinsic relevance.

I'm sorry, perhaps I don't get it, but there seems to be a slight difference between leading people from the shackles of institutional slavery and attempting to gain the legal right to enter the shackles of marriage. I voted against Prop 8 and all, but it appears to me that attempting a quickie legal normalization when you are in fact not normal, in any sense of the word, differs slightly from the enterprises of an oratory genius who, with enough will and intelligence, was able to guide masses of people from the fears of lynching and false incarceration. Is it just me, or is there a slight problem with trying to invoke the spirit of such people when your "struggle" has nothing to do with them in scope, intensity, or proximity?

While there are many nut jobs on either side of the political spectrum hocking poorly conceived ideas (ideas which, if carried out to their extremes, would cause a lot of problems), are these problems ever going to materialize unless we ask them to? Is voting in favor of gay marriage the same as asking for your neighbor's son to get molested by an ostensibly straight priest? Is condoning the presence or non-presence of some religious artifact in a court house the same as asking the Federal Government to create internment camps for it's current political scapegoat, whether they be Christian, Atheist -- or whatever the hell else people do/don't believe in these days?

Violence against gays certainly is a real problem. But, while there are many gay people who are physically abused, harassed, even killed year in and year out, are there not also people who endure the same treatment from violent, ignorant thugs for a host of ridiculous reasons -- and are these events combined anywhere close to the scale and scope of the problems Dr. King and his comrades addressed?

Is this not the fundamental problem with mainstream politics: That we pretend to fight the struggle of our lives against every single issue when the vast majority of actual day to day governance involves things so boring that I can barely begin to think of describing them without falling asleep?

Is this not the fundamental problem with the gay rights movement: That people are willing to invoke MLK and the 1960's as the spirit of their struggle while they leave the fruits of Harvey Milk and the fate of the present to the providence of Mickey Mouse?

The gist of all this, among many potential tangents: Frame your "struggle" appropriately people.

Not only does the above mentioned hyperbole damage your cause by confusing the hell out of people and whipping up a froth, it prevents you from accurately addressing the actual issues at hand. Don't glorify your fight by pretending to battle Hitler. Don't glorify your struggle by asking "What would MLK do?" or in any way comparing your "struggle" to his. You're opposition isn't Hitler. You're leader isn't MLK -- or even Harvey Milk. You're struggle evokes nothing remotely analogous to what Hitler posed or what MLK solved in light of the human soul. The more you speak as if it does, the more you convince me that you're "struggle" is as imagined as your attachment to these notably powerful, notably dead people.

I will publish the second part of last week's post on Negativity later on this week... stay tuned.

Thanks for reading.

GET NEGATIVE! Part 1: Hippie Happiness

2009-08-20T17:43:00.000-07:00

Friends and strangers alike often ask me something along the lines of, "Dude, why are you so miserable all the time?"

My reply: I'm not. I just tend to stay quiet when I'm pleased, when I'm content. No, I'm not stoned. I just don't feel the need to change or express much when things are going well. Even if things weren't going well, what's it to ya? Negative feelings aren't a disorder; they're a part of life. Get over it jackass.

The questioner then retorts with something along the lines of, "You're killing my buzz man. Why stay so straight faced and stolid?"

Aside from the fact that a dog bit off a good portion of my lip when I was five and this is just the way I look? I dunno. I guess I'm no longer desperate to have others verify my own reaction to life. I just enjoy things the way they are when I'm happy. Why force a display for your benefit?

"Well if you are happy, then why did you write about all this serious, miserable crap and publish it on a blog?"

Well I guess I'm not always happy. Ok, confession time: In all honesty, I'm a perpetually negative curmudgeon who thinks you're all too damn happy. Seems to me like you're all trying too damn hard to impress yourself with the ability to be the happiest you can be... all the time. You're a bunch of fucking hippies.

Nowadays, seems to me that happiness and harmony are presented as if they were solid states, as if happiness and harmony are as simple as those objects we buy or develop in order to more easily maintain their associative emotions. I, on the other hand, argue that maintaining a constant state of happiness is not possible as an end in itself.

Seems to me that happiness is an emotion. Emotions are a means of guiding our intuitions and thus our actions. Emotions may also lead us to willfully or mindfully think or act in the first place. But all in all, emotions flow in constant movement, with the movement of your physical and chemical reality, so seeking perpetual happiness will only ensure a constant proximity to useless misery.

"You imply a useful misery. So what is a useful misery? Never heard of that kind of thing."

Misery itself, like any isolated emotion, isn't really useful. But misery can be useful or even outright positive if you decide to feel it, if it is the result of a conscious effort to be miserable.

Plainly stated, anger, anxiety and other negative emotions can serve a purpose. As a matter of fact, they do serve a purpose. They almost certainly must, as you posses them. Whether due to Nature, God, Gaia, Evolution (or however you think you got your full or limited spectrum of emotions), you've got 'em, so they must have a practical application. Anger is no accident folks. Anger, sadness, anxiety; each is an emotion among the many you have, and emotions tend to change in spite of whatever you try to do with them. Emotions are not only normal. They are not only necessary. Here's the profound thought: emotions just are. Deal with them, because otherwise, they deal with you.

Understanding that emotions just are, let them mold you in the moment you feel them. You don't want to stay miserable of course, so do what you need to do to fix the misery. Seems to me that the common mistake is to seek happiness when experiencing misery. Don't try to be happy. Don't even bother trying to meditate or find your happy zen place. Happiness isn't there. Just deal with the misery. Face it, own it, solve it within itself, and in this way, whatever you do with it will be de facto useful.

Negativity as a state of mind can produce a useful bunch of emotions which, ironically, lead to genuine happiness. As we will see in next week's post, this is an empirical fact, but let's maintain the subjective angle for now. For me, the so called negative emotions are a driving force in my life. And although I am an intensely biased curmudgeon, I feel that everyone could benefit from negativity. When I write, I usually am angry. Anger, anxiety, or being full out fed-up with life motivates me, spurns me into action. If that is what motivates you, gives you a little push, why pretend to be otherwise? Try it. What do you have to lose? As life is, it's not like you're going to be happy forever.

If you insist on treating happiness like it's a solid state, go ahead. Drive yourself insane looking for your zen. Go to the Yogi, donate to his dog and pony show, and buy his crap. Allow yourself to assume that you can feel that long-gone moment forever.

Get addicted. Take another hit of modern American euphoria. Eat take out, and live vicariously through fictional people on TV. Spend ungodly amounts on spandex and carry on pretending that you are enriching your soul while you stretch your ankles over your ass. Buy a cup of Starbucks coffee every morning, because now you're too old to be seen physically carrying your security blanket into work. Wake up the next day to start all over again: go to work, complain about it, and come Thursday, hit happy hour like a junkie on a crack piece.

Have a fun weekend to escape the miserable grind. Go spend all kinds of money dining out a places where the meat and the drinks taste like salad. Go to the after party at the latest ultra trendy place where the salad and the drinks taste like meat. Stay perpetually conscious of the fact that the place just opened last week, and memorize the names of the chefs and the owners. Repeat these facts like a mantra. Bookmark the club's website on your iPhone so you can tell yourself (and, more importantly, others) how you spent the weekend that has now slipped through your fingers like all the time you were avoiding being miserable at the job you got in order to afford the same seared ahi they serve at every fucking restaurant in America. Find Monday morning the same as the last. Take a deep breath, grab your Starbucks (or Pete's), and repeat.

Find out that when you come down, when this happiness is gone, you don't really know how to find it without being miserable. If you aren't adept at being miserable, it's pretty hard to be happy again. Especially if Starbucks is closed.

On the other hand, if you find out that you can get yourself going while you're angry, if you find the wonders of negativity, then you won't waste your energy groping for the kind of happiness only money can buy.

Negativity is the best addiction. Like all addictions, it hurts. But when you overcome it: a) The default is happiness. b) You learn how to work through negativity to achieve genuine satisfaction. So work on being a miserable piece of shit, then work on being happy. This is the only way you can work towards enjoying those few fleeting moments of happiness while avoiding perpetual hippiness.

Sure. Anger, melancholia and other negative emotions can make people do stupid, even terrible things to themselves or others. Like a drug, anger can be a bad catalyst for conceiving or acting on harmful ideas. But there's a difference between being negative and being full of hate, between suicidal thoughts and some potent self-loathing. Don't make important decisions when trippin on this stuff. And for fuck's sake, don't extend your negativity indiscriminately to others. That's my job, and I'm getting better at it than anyone I've ever met.

That's why I can get away with writing this crap.

So, to recap, if you need a little jolt to act on a well considered plan, or to act on something that you know makes sense from previous experience, why not get negative? If you can feel that anger building up, if that anxiety works it's way into your mind while your coworker fucks up yet another spreadsheet, don't waste your time getting happy. Get pissed hippies!

Next week is Part 2: Negativity by Numbers.