Mental Onanism

I've been pretty non-plussed by most of the comic adaptations to film I've seen lately. Vaguely satisfying imagery, but with little of the joy I remember. There are exceptions of course, but they are by definition, rare. So, during the frenzy of anticipation in the lead up for the release of "The Avengers", I wasn't bothering to stake out a piece of sidewalk to camp out on. But when I found out Joss Whedon directed?  I reconsidered. After all, he's done some impressive work. 

"Firefly" by Joss Whedon was TV that surprised me enough into forgetting that I was watching TV. Either in spite of, or because of it's "Old west meets outer space" angle, this show succeeded where others did not. After savouring the show's oh-so-short run, I turned to the now long cancelled, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". With some instruction from one of the devout as to optimum episode viewing order, I found again that I was happily surprised.

Sure. It was pulp. It was TV back in the late 90's. And it was pretty freaking good. Both Buffy and Firefly had something going for them. Something far beyond even the things that I thought were amazing about them. It was shocking: Women watched and enjoyed them too - lots of them.

Space cowboys and Vampire slaying cheerleaders.

Blew. My. Mind.

Further forays into Joss' repertoire led to discovering that he had wanted to do a Wonder Woman movie. But, sadly, the deal fell through. Now, after now seeing a reasonable body of his work, I was hardly surprised. I haven't any claim to know why it didn't happen, but I tell myself a story something like this: 

For my money, the female characters in "Firefly" are just about some of the best realized People that I've ever seen in a male created fiction. I haven't seen or read everything, probably someone else has a better grasp of the field and knows it better than I.  I'm just talking about my experience. Which was that these women are real, fully motivated and self actualizing people. And that puts them in a pretty small pool of examples. 

It starts to make sense that Joss Whedon has a particular leaning towards these kinds of strong female characters. If that's true, I'm pretty sure he wasn't going to create the Wonder Woman that the people, that the men, who were going to front the money for the project were expecting. As in, not at all. I'm willing to bet that she was even going to be…shhh. She was going to be black!

 *Gasp* 

And the deal here is that while I believe that she was going to be a kick ass warrior-woman, what she was not going to be was anyones sex kitten. Again, it's just my belief, but quite honestly, I figure that she wasn't going to feel threatened by men or by patriarchy. Which in a lot of ways just means "hierarchy". And this is where an odd idea showed up in my brain. 

What happened was that I heard myself say, all the while talking the same Joss Whedony jive as above but this time around, when I got to the bit about Wonder Woman? Due to the audience to whom I was speaking, I summed it up more like: "I don't think he was gonna make her a guy with tits." That's when it hit me.

Just how many of these female characters were really just men in women's bodies? And not just in comics and fluff cinema, but in all sorts of media.  For a woman to be considered strong, she basically has to be a dude. Almost invariably. Their morals area easily categorized as typically male. 

I'll risk an assumption about who consumes most of this kind of media: males.  Maybe more young men than old men, yeah? Anyway, I think that the men consuming this product are, at least in part, drawn to a larger-than-life, female version of their already fantasy-selves. Someone who is essentially an implacable warrior and also a perfectly compliant sex partner. 

I don't think that because these guys might be wanting to have sex with a female version of themselves means that what they are feeling is gay. I mean it may be the case sometimes. But that conclusion doesn't follow by necessity. Instead, I want to suggest that it's extreme narcissism. They simply want to have sex with themselves.

The air you breathe.

Violence. 


Our history is choked with horrific examples. Vile, soul-blanching acts of the most depraved kind.  A seemingly unending stream of ways for people to hurt each other. From global conflict to backyard rivalries, as a species we really know how to lay the smack down. The way the theory goes is that life is nasty, short and ruled by brutes.  At the root, people are selfish, uncaring and violent. The only person you can count on is yourself.  Frankly, I don't buy it. 


When you examine our penchant for violence, the picture looks pretty bleak. The further you look into the kinds of atrocities that people are willing to inflict on others, the more you have to question the notion that you can become desensitized to violence. If it was always the same level of violence, maybe you could become used to it.  But we don't live in a world that has an upper threshold for violence.  Every time you think you've heard or seen the worst, another nightmare bludgeons it's way into the light. But as I say, I don't buy into this picture of humanity.

There is something that is overlooked, or at least trivialized to the point of being easily ignored.  It is a most vital fact. That, at heart, we are cooperative, social pacifists.  To me, this is critical. It's kind of like art. How would we see the painting without the canvas?  We live in a cooperative, mutually dependant world; like fish in the sea. A vast, unglamorous life of cooperation surrounds us; almost everywhere, everyday of our lives. It is the reason why acts of war and violence stand out so obviously and noticeably. And very unlike violence, tolerance and cooperation is being delivered at a nearly constant level and so fades into the background.

If you think about it for even a moment it becomes obvious that a vast amount of your day to day life is dependant, is only possible, with the cooperation of other people.

The notion that the physically strongest rule through threat of violence simply doesn't hold water. If the basic premise is that if I have the means to kill (or seriously hurt) you, I will then threaten to take said action and so, force you to conform to my will. This is all well and good. But at best it is a short term strategy to success. How far can intimidation get me? Can I rule you everyday of my life with the threat of doing you harm? Suppose I were to try, what would happen?


There is an old adage about Hawks and Doves.  In a world populated by Hawks, who are agressive, and Doves, who are pacific, if a Hawk meets a Dove, the Dove loses. If two Doves meet, everything stays the same. If two Hawks meet, they fight until one wins. This process continues until there is only one Hawk ruling over the Doves. A good enough metaphor, but hardly complete when looking at complex human motivations. Nonetheless, lets continue to use the analogy just a bit longer.  Perhaps we can say more realistically that people are likely to be part Hawk and part Dove, depending on the situation. Which means that at any point a Dove might turn into a Hawk. If that's true, then where does it leave ruling by force?

Well, if I am violent by nature and I assume that there are others like me, I would have to find these threats and eliminate them. But can I do it fast enough? Not by myself. I simply can't act alone. I need people to help me. I need people that I trust implicitly to surround me at all times and protect me since anyone can turn into a threat at anytime. Again, how long do I have before I start to worry about things like falling asleep or turning my back on the wrong person? Eating poisoned food? Because I have to eat and I have to sleep and if I'm not protected, no matter how strong and brutal I am, eventually I will be killed.


So to be able to succeed in my endeavour to rule through violence I have to find other people that will also benefit from using violence and are willing to help me. Do you see it now? I have to cooperate in order to live. Cooperation is as important to my survival as the air I breathe. Even for a Hawk.

When I was a kid.

What I find most sad and laughable about the bitter, bigoted invectives launched at the Québec Students is how completely the commenters are trapped under the weight of their own suffering. Statements like: "I had to work hard. It's time for a reality check!"  Really? This is the world you want to live in? Because, without fail, each comment laments how easy the students have it, or how they are all puffed up with entitlement.  So when our soldiers come back from war they should wish it upon their children? "I had to go to war and kill or be killed. Why should these young punks have it any different?" To my ears the person whining about how someone else has it better or easier sounds like the person with the inflated sense of entitlement.

Socially speaking, we're in this to win it aren't we? Are we really supposed to stop improving society?  Because that suggests that Democracy, as envisioned by your government, is the end of the line; we've reached the pinnacle of human achievement and there is no more room for social improvement. Accept it, this is the best we can do. Give me a break.  We can do far better than this. Particularly if we stop jumping down the throats of people who suggest differently or literally beating down those that actually try to make it better than we had it. What is wrong with, not only freezing tuition, but doing away with it?  But "Who's gonna pay?" or  "Nothing is free!" will be shouted from the chorus. Instead of answering let me instead ask: Why does it matter?

The Silent Majority

"What they did is dangerous!"

"What they did is wrong"

                                                                        

What they did was outside the purview of the established power brokers and so nobody had the chance to stop them before they grew. They acted as if they alone had the power to make what they wanted real. They chose to empower themselves. That's what's frightening to certain people. But why?

Governments worldwide pursue dubious policies with an even greater impact and long term detrimental effect on our communities than these severely mislabelled "terrorists" ever could.  But because the government does it "legitimately", it's all okay. But what does legitimate mean in this case?

It certainly can't be because they have guns and people willing to use them on other people. No, there's no chance of that.  It's because we have a system set up to consciously and soberly give them the moral authority to act as masters of our morals.  Each one of us made a conscious and deliberate decision to give up our autonomy so that our betters can rule us. Sounds like bullshit, doesn't it?

How many among us have done anything of the kind? Where you actually sat down and thought about how our community works and why. Virtually zero. We are born into this system and follow the rules that are laid out for us until we die. Anyone who rises up against the established patterns is branded a fool, or these days, a terrorist. Think about it when you vote. Are you voting for a party?  Or one, maybe two, particular issues that matter to you? Be honest.

My favourite bit is when people finally stand up in large numbers to express themselves, the true nature our power relationship with the government is revealed. Suddenly there is a silent majority whose rights are being trampled. A silent majority, so frail and weak that it needs the elite in power to use their bought and paid for,  jack-booted shock troops to move in and force these entitled, lazy, jobless, stupid anti-capitalists to comply.

At any public demonstration, why should the police show up at all? What business is it of theirs to be there? Just in case? In case of what? They need to presume guilt. That's what.  Better to err on the side of caution, right? Wrong. It's no better to be safe than sorry.

Here's how I see it: A whole bunch of people get together and move to physically intervene and stop, or start, a particular public policy. In every case (Sure, probably there are exceptions, but they are damn rare), only one side shows up to make the change. The powerless wake up to the fact that they are in fact NOT powerless, and they rise up and demand change, become change. Those in power, who refuse to make the change have no defenders. No one shows up to voice their agreement.

In general, most people believe that Newton's third law of motion applies elsewhere as well. "For every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction" Where is that here? Where are the hordes pushing the other way?  It's no secret that a protest or demonstration is going to happen. If people actually cared, they would be motivated to organize a counter demonstration in solidarity with the powers that be. But they don't. They don't do anything. They just sit there. And that's okay. They can just sit there. There is no regime that will force them to be concerned, motivated and informed.

If they had paid any attention in school it would be clear how virtually 100% of the positive changes in our society have come from these kinds of uprisings.  All the benefits that we enjoy as a people come from roots of civil unrest. The very ability to express their indignant (and clearly ignorant) complaints about an issue that is well and truly none of their business flows from the very acts they are condemning.

Let's take a simplified look at the French Revolution. With as close to universal agreement as can be found in these kinds of things, the French Revolution is held up as a significant and positive turning point for the rights and freedoms of all (western) people. Bands of discontented people took to the streets demanding change. By the numbers, they were a laughably small group as compared to the rest of the population. And where did their opposition come from? Was it from other groups of people who had disagreement with them? Nope. It sure didn't. D'you think the ruling monarchy would have referred to the silent majority as reason to quash the uprisings? They actually pointed to God and blood lines as their right to rule. And if you think about it,  it's kind of the same as the "Silent Majority, isn't it? God and blood never speak for themselves. I'll admit that the social conditions between now and then are hardly comparable, but the justifications for taking action are largely in-line.

The people, acting together for their own benefit, will always be judged by the ordained authorities as extremely dangerous.

What else would little boys do?

Vive la différence!  

(A small, yet hugely vacillating addendum:  Below, the gender specific terms I use should, in general, be understood to be underwritten by my belief that in the 'bigger sense', they are ultimately references to role, rather than gender. Thus to the avid reader, my numerous equivocations with terms like: man, woman, guy, girl…etc, they are worth speculating over. Just not here.)

There are a lot of different ways that the cultures of the world are strikingly paradoxical. Like how people are people wherever you go and yet even with your most intimate companions you'll sometimes struggle with the notion that you're even in the same world . One of the most persistent and unnerving similarities that I recognize from in so many cultures, and seemingly across time in all of them, is the subordinate role of women.  I'm not exaggerating when I say that it bugs the shit out of me.  In particular the ways that I personally enforce that role. That and the fact that women do it to themselves. It's that last bit that saves my sanity in the end by the way. That they do it to themselves.

I had had this weird revelation while watching the movie Baraka.  There is a part during the movie where scenes of live chicks being processed in a factory are juxtaposed with scenes of crowds of people getting onto the subway during rush hour, in what I suppose is Japan.  While watching it, apologies to the finely crafted makers of the soundtrack, but I kept hearing the refrain of "Just" by Radiohead.

You do it to yourself, you do

And that's what really hurts

Is that you do it to yourself

Just you, you and no one else

It struck me how obvious it was once I had thought it: We do it to ourselves. Not only that, but we do much, much worse. I mean, if you've ever looked at history you'll find that amongst the many things we've accomplished as a species, the kinds of vile, soul-blackening atrocities that we've done to each other can't really be rivalled by much (well, perhaps, only this). And if we can perpetrate that kind on horror on actual people? Those chicks never stood a chance.

Oddly, I think that the whole thing is tied up in issues of perception.  By and large I think that people wish to be perceived as what they want to be, or think they should be,  rather than what they are.  Like the idea that men are logical and women are emotional. There are a whole host of problems with that statement, not the least of which, to my mind, is that even if there is some value in the distinction, I'm pretty sure that it's ass-backwards.

First of all, being emotional is not the opposite of being logical. The opposite would be illogical: a state where your aims are not supported by your actions.  I find that even if women pay more attention to their emotions, the way that they deal with them is far from illogical. Again, I would suggest that in fact, they deal with their emotions in a far more logical fashion than do men. This, I suspect, is due to a wider range of emotions that women allow themselves to feel. Sort of a "practice makes perfect" scenario.

I'm not suggesting that men are unemotional. Rather that we tend to allow ourselves to experience our emotions on a much narrower band. Clearly I'm exaggerating, but I would say that they can probably be summed up in two distinct categories:

                                 

1. Hulk smash! 

and

2. Heeeeey, baby! What'choo doin'?

                                                            

Interestingly, I've found there to be a soft correlation between reactions of men and women when I explain this theory. Women tend to consider what I've said and then they either accept or reject it. Men seem to get angry or insulted. Admittedly they will usually follow up with a rationalization as to why I am wrong, but it was not their first reaction. And to stretch the metaphor even further, I think this is true for how men get through life: act first, rationalize after. This is the crux of the problem.

I really think that men value logic and reason so much because it is probably the only way we have of dealing with emotions outside of the two mentioned above.  Logic is a way of cutting away those emotional annoyances and yet still be left with some way of dealing with whatever the situation.  Logic is, at it's root a very simplistic way of dealing with complex issues. Which, again, sounds very male to me. Logic omits anything that doesn't fit into it's structure.

I've also heard many times that women are multi-taskers and spend a lot of time thinking about relationships between people and how to navigate through them. To my ears, all of this lends more credence to the idea that women are more logical than men. If not logical, then at least more reasonable. Thinking about all the possible iterations of peoples relationships, how they interact and then weighing them against each other- these are all indicators of a mind that is doing a lot of rationalizing and decision making; hallmarks of logic and reason.  I also find that most women do not make snap decisions. I mean it happens, but not so much. Putting this in contrast to the one-track, task oriented mind that wants to simplify decisions…well, the case doesn't look to good for the guys. At the root of it men react with emotion whereas women react with deliberation.

There is another metaphor. One of my favorites. It holds that there are two kinds of people in the world: Pirates or Ninjas.  A Ninja is the kind of person who sits back, analyzes a situation until they understand it as best they can and then acts with precise deliberation and achieve a flawless result. A Pirate however, launches into any situation. With guns blazing and sword swinging, they just plow through any problems that might arise until they reach their goal. Or more simply, Women will read the instruction manual and men will just start pushing buttons. Yeah? Good. Because that closed a pretty big loop.

The Logic of Necessary Corporations

It keeps cropping up in all sorts of places: Corporations are good for us.  Not only are they good, but they are necessary. And apparently in the U.S. they are even people. 

A brief sound bite I heard recently from Joe Rogan got me thinking about the ridiculousness of this new reality. To paraphrase, he suggested that the growing number of laws that are being created to benefit Corporations and that take power away from "ordinary" citizens indicates that there must be a flaw in our democratic system. Why? Because nobody would vote for laws like that. Indeed, who would? Who, in general, would choose to give power to amoral entities and have it stripped from themselves? No one.

In a very simplistic way, I'm going to delve back into the world of logic. And I mean actual, legitimate logic. Not the kind most politicians and pundits use to make hay with their opinions, but real logic.  Because it's a funny thing, logic. When people want to talk about something that they feel is important, something that is more than just conversation, they usually make an appeal to reason or logic. Well, that's what they think they're doing. But they're not. Almost never. 

Here is an example I came across recently: 

"People need to earn a living to be able to enjoy a quality of life and most people earn their living by working for corporations. So, helping corporations helps most people." 

I'm going to restructure the argument into a format that more closely resembles a traditional logical structure, analyze the premises and see how they relate to the conclusion. 

1. The population at large requires a quality of life.

2. Quality of life of the population at large is dependant on earning a living.

3. Corporations make earning a living possible for most people.

4. The goals of corporations are coincident with the goals of most people. 

Therefore: Helping corporations helps the population at large (achieve a quality of life).

The first premise is unstated. But something like it would be necessary to support the second premise. If the population does not require a quality of life, the argument fails. So, for this premise to be true we would need to know what every member of the population does in fact want to achieve. This is sometimes called the fallacy of omniscience. While quality of life is likely to figure into many peoples hierarchy of needs, is there any evidence of it's primacy? 

The second premise weak because I have to assume what is meant by both "earning a living" and "quality of life". I will take "earning a living" to mean "make money" and "quality of life" to mean "happiness". There is no necessary link between making money and happiness. Thus the veracity of the second premise is in doubt.

The third premise has a condition attached to it: "most people".  This premise is appealing to the authority of "most people". This fallacy is sometimes referred to as Ad Populum, or Appeal to Popularity. Remember how Mom used to point it out to us every time our friends wanted to jump off of a bridge? 

The fourth premise is also unstated. If what corporations want and what the population at large wants are not, at least superficially, the same, then the conclusion that "what is good for a corporation is good for people" doesn't follow. This would be the strongest and best point if there was any proof. I didn't find any premises that supported the notion that Corporate good and public good are, in fact, the same.

My conclusion is that without some significant amendments to this argument, the verisimilitude of  the conclusion, that helping corporations helps people, is in jeopardy.

My use of logic here is tenuous. At best, I'm using logic from the position of a dilettante, the arm-chair philosopher. Even still, I bet most people tuned out and lost interest at some point.  And frankly, I don't care.  As much as logic and reason are useful, they can only take you so far.  

One of my favourite, heavily paraphrased, stories from the Buddha is, for me, a perfect parable regarding logic:

A man is trapped on one side of a river. On his side, there is danger and on the far side of the river is safety. There is no bridge, nor is there a ferry to cross over. The man gathers together logs and by his wit fashions a raft. By lying on the raft and using his hands and feet as paddles he manages to cross the river from the dangerous side to the side of safety.

The Buddha asks his listeners a question: What would you think if the man, having crossed over the river thought to himself "That raft has served me well I will carry it on my back over the land from now on!" ?

The monks replied that it would not be a very sensible idea to hold on to the raft. The Buddha continued: What if he lay the raft down, gratefully, thinking that the raft had served him well but is no longer of use?

The monks replied that this would be the proper attitude. The Buddha concluded by saying: So it is with my teachings, which are like the raft and are for crossing over with not for seizing hold of.

If it's not obvious, in this story the raft represents logic. While vital and useful for what it does, once it has taken you where you need to go, of what use is it? You don't need it anymore. In fact, you only need it in very limited circumstances. This is true of logic and this is true of Corporations. They both did what they were supposed to do, but gratefully we should lay them down.

Why Vote?

What's saddens me the most about our political "system", and I understand that at it's root it's just a crappy way of getting things done without bashing each other's heads in, but this dogged red vs blue vs orange, sports team mentality all the time is just stupid. We're all here in this place together. Y'know it's fine when it's time to set your day to day life aside and "vote". It's a special time where we break off into groups in a deliberate way and try to represent what matters the most to us individually. But after? When it's all done? We're a community again, aren't we?

Why would you push a "win at all costs" agenda? Once the election is over we all come together again, as a people. Don't we? Is our political system supposed to make us feel like what we're supposed to do is sit around taking it in the ear until one day it's our turn to be in charge and then we get to screw the other team, just as hard, right back? I don't think so.

We shouldn't be pushing Party above all. It's wrong and goes against the nature of how we want to take care of each other. Do we want to live in a continual merry-go-round of us against them? Saying it another way, our system is supposed to be about avoiding conflict, not embracing it.

Voting is supposed to be the root of our freedom. Our most basic and cherished right. It's what makes us free. It ensures we all get a voice and get to participate and make our common world a place where everyone can be free and live without fear. That is unless you exercise your freedom and choose not to vote. If you don't vote you are threatened with repercussions and reprisal and that you should have your freedoms stripped from you.  Commonly I hear it phrased: "If you don't vote, then you can't complain"

Wow. 

To me this translates into: "You'll be denied your freedom until you do what you're told".  Explain to me how it's not. It makes me even more sure than ever that I am calling voting exactly what it is: a sham and a dammed lie.  I'm not even talking about the fantasy of ultimate freedom where you can do absolutely anything you want. I'm only talking about the limited "My freedom ends where your freedom begins" kind.

What is voting other than pointing at someone and saying "You! I authorize you to act as my agent in all things. You are my leader."

I really don't see the advantage of "follow the leader" in community building. It doesn't make any sense. Community doesn't grow fast enough to require a leader. Our population might grow fast enough, but not our culture. Sorry.  In cases of immediate action, leadership is critical. But as a way to caretake the long term health and happiness of a few billion of us? No way.

Why all the belly-aching for a leader anyway? The whole concept of a leader, other than war or sports, doesn't apply.  Outside of those unique and limited scenarios, leaders have no bearing at all on anyones life. Who's you're leader? You're boss? Is that really who leads you through your life? Directs your goals and morals? Or maybe it's Politicians? Judges? Doctors? These people aren't leaders. It's a job and at best it's a role. They lead nothing and nobody. Virtually all of us, everywhere on earth throughout all of time have had little or nothing at all to do with these people. We have no meaningful relationship with them. The only person who is your leader is you. 

I really don't think that apathy and disempowerment is what is keeping people from voting. Just like I don't believe that fascism and hate are encouraging people to get in my face about how wrong not to vote.  I believe that fear is the real motivator in the latter case. I truly believe that people are afraid that if I defy the system, even intellectually, they might have to "do something about it". That my unwillingness to participate will force them to have to act; to actually have to correct me in some way. Perhaps by denying me friendship, work, respect or all my teeth and an unbruised liver. You know, whatever. It just something to hurt me in some way so I start to toe the line. Because there has to be consequences right? "You made a choice and these are the consequences pal!".  I guess that'll teach me. 

But then, what if you (or someone) didn't act to correct me?  Didn't do something about it? Then my act of defiance would go unpunished. Because there is nothing in the world that would take issue with me not voting. Nothing except an emotionally motivated human being. Or perhaps many of them. For without the enraged human, the sticks and stones will just lie there and my bones would remain whole and perfect. 

And why do I not believe that it is apathy keeping people from voting? Because they are people. People simply have interests other than this funny game people refer to as the political system. The effect that voting has on their regular lives is virtually insignificant. Probably the biggest impact it has is the breakup of their daily routine on voting day and then that's it. A slightly different day in the sea of days that make up their lives. 

We know that politicians are people just like us. And we know in our hearts that we don't really respect laws. Laws are supposed to be immutable and inviolate. And really, laws that don't apply to everyone are rules. And rules are just morality plays. And we violate the law all the time. We really do. Usually in small ways that we judge are of no consequence. Perhaps by not claiming something on your taxes, jay-walking, giving preferential treatment to your friends and family, nipping the occasional whatever from work now and then, intimidating someone into doing what you want, forging paperwork to get the day off, lying, misrepresenting facts…things we all do.  Well, so do our leaders. And we know it. And because we know it, we can't take them seriously. Until something exceptional happens. 

Something out of the ordinary happens and we all go running back to the law book that we clearly don't believe in, but we run to it nonetheless and hold it high like a holy talisman. Then sit above in judgment. It really stinks of hypocrisy to me. Why not have faith in your own judgement? Your own mind? Most people aren't smarter than you. At best they just have different experiences.

"You have to vote so the bad people don't get into office!" 

First, the system is broken if 'bad' people can get into office.  They shouldn't be getting through the door of the lobby let alone running the damn show if they are 'bad'. We can definitely do better than that when we are talking about running our country. If our best and our brightest include "bad people", well, we have a society that positively values "bad people". As the late, great George Carlin put it so eloquently: 

"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. F*ck Hope.'"

Next, the system is broken if you are forced to vote 'against' the people trying to rule you, as opposed to voting for the people you want to rule you.  I hate using the whole 'rule you' rhetoric. It's lame. I'm sorry. The system is broken when we all know that they don't rule anything. Their impact on our lives is marginal at best. It simply does not matter in the least who occupies "the most important position in our nation". 

At my most pessimistic I'm convinced that the real reason for the unending stream of unmitigated douchebaggery from the ruling class is because no matter how morally contemptible they act, in our day to day, Sally and Joe Lunchbox lives, it barely makes a whit of difference. Unless you're unlucky enough to be minoritized by whatever junta happens to be in power, the worst you'll suffer is being indignant. That'll sound great when they talk about all this in the future won't it? If they even care. "Well, we do know that many people of the time became indignant…"

Oh, but "politics is so much more complicated than that!" And, "There are so many details that makes such a simple description useless". Okay. Fair enough. But if so how do you, how does anybody know enough to ever be able to know enough?

So, in the end, the deal with voting is that I have to give up my "power to effect change in my community" and give it to somebody else. Somebody who gets that power, and not just mine but everyone else's as well. And they get to effect changes in my community. And I only get one shot at this. One vote and then I have to shut up and say that whatever happens after I vote is the best of all possible worlds.  Even if the result is anathema to me, no matter how much I hate and loathe it, what I'm supposed to do is just grin and carry on until they let me scratch another line on a piece of paper to try and hope that this time everything will be right with the world.  

To Serve

My problem with People Invested with Guns.

Here's the deal: I think that if I tell a cop that, by and large, the police are nothing but a bunch of paid thugs in the employ of the elite and end up spending almost all of their time enforcing traffic regulations or dealing with property crime because they could barely manage a "C" in high school…

I'm pretty sure that if I express that completely legitimate opinion; an opinion that any person living in a free and democratic society should be able to express...if I do that…I'm pretty sure that if the chips were down and in that one in a million chance that I actually need a cop to protect me; I actually need them to do their job, I'm almost certain that they aren't gonna be quite so Johnny on the spot. They won't be quite so diligent and dedicated. A little less willing to take a bullet for me. That somehow I'm not worthy of their sacrifice. 

Why would that be? Because they are going to judge me. Completely outside of their mandate they are going to relinquish their duty to me as a citizen and let me 'see what it's like' without their help. That's bullshit. Either you are able to let go of those pesky human emotions and act as a tool of the state, or you aren't. If you can't let it go, then you are just like the rest of us and should have absolutely no special privileges. No guns, no cuffs, no authority. Just like us.

Cyber Rollbacks

Here I am thinking that we should all be investing in long term, local agrarianism.  Because with the kind of shit I've seen recently, it seems obvious to me that this whole techno-dependant world view we live with, this ideal that is held up as "the best of all possible worlds". It isn't going to just go away if we choose to turn away from the current realities that shape our world. Why? Because of cell phones, nay, hand held computers.

With these crazy things in our hands we're going to go through one of those "flash in the pan" periods of history. It's going to be one of those moments where the freedom of ideas is going to reign. And I mean big-time. When we step away, really I should say: "As we step away…" because it has already begun to happen. So, as we step away from the limits that their architecture imposes on us as a people, we have begun to see how those limits are just a part of another frame.  The descent into absurdity with this kind of reasoning is clear, but nonetheless the truth it reveals is just as clear: we're all about to talk with each other.  In the end, we'll probably just end up talking about another way to frame things.  But we are going to talk. Freely, and without them.  Unless they join us. 

I can't imagine a bigger threat to the current ideologues. Like grains of sand in a sandstorm. We will simply bypass their constructed barriers to communication and talk directly with each other.  We can even pay each other directly.  How could they stop us?  Will they simply stop selling us the devices? It's too late for that. Even if eventually, and this is just for the sake of argument, because "eventually" would be so many years, far too many for any current, conventional corporate structure to survive. But eventually we would run out of cell phones and then come begging back to them for more? Like poor old Oliver Twist? Not likely. Like I said, I've seen the in's and out's of how these tools come to be made. Small time manufacturers have built tools that build these tools. I'll say that again because it's kind of weird. They have built tools that build the tools. The boards, the chips, the thingies that are on the inside of everything, doing all the shit that does the crazy stuff and all those other amazing things these hand held computers can do. All of these things can be built in your garage. But it won't ever get that far.

Weirdly, it's that whole pesky free market thing that is gonna step in and keep the inventive, marginal people, well, marginalized. Basically, there is going to be somebody who doesn't give a crap about the current business model, which I generalize as: try to suck every bit of cash out of as many people as possible. Anyway, this new guy is simply going to ignore the current wisdom's dumb-ass issue of needing to control everything and just sell an in-demand product. Yeah, weird. Like I said. But before we even get to that guy, there is this transition period I mentioned.

I think this is where we are now. Transitioning. At least, I suspect that there is a transition that is happening to us all on a cultural level. It is a transitional period that will be remarkable above others, perhaps.  Mostly, I believe, because of it's immediate, day to day noteworthiness. Which is unusual.  Because for most of us, I mean for people in general, we don't usually spend time thinking about our easily accessible, long-term mental database of transferred beliefs, meaning communication itself. It's not usually in our immediate, active thoughts. But now? I might go so far as to say many of us are obsessed with it.

Of course, like their predecessors, whoever it is that ends up making all the money during this transitional period, clearly I'm saying this cynically, but it's usually the case, but whoever they end up being and whatever it is they're going to do to make "all the money"? The doing of that thing? That will become "the rules".  My feeling is that despite the rampant, cathartic release of communicational barriers that we are all about to wallow in unabashedly is not going to last. There will be some sort of counter-measure applied to it. From within or without. And who ever it is that tries to stem the flow, well, they're going to use reasonable, yet ultimately arbitrary rules to win.  It's like back living with your parents. There's always a reason you can't have the car, but it's always arbitrary how the keys are only ever in one persons hands. But choking back my cynicism, I can see there is at least an opportunity to effect some long-term change to ensure our freedom of communication. If I'm wrong and we all end up living in some cyber-enhanced communotpia? Well, hooray for us! Otherwise, right now, we have a chance to reframe the way we communicate. To culturally weave another perspective into the fabric of society, to be included with the "known but unwritten rules" that govern our lives. Perhaps we can do it in such a way that when the rollbacks come, they will at least be framed in a way that will help protect us; protect our open and free communication.