Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
The Disfranchised and Dissidents of Democracy
At another point I may go on to develop a more thorough look at democracy as a viable political system, but as for now, I am spurred by recent events to comment briefly on the given topic.
While patting ourselves on the back over the success of our democratic system, a republic, to elect us a radically new president by unprecedented voter turnout, there lingers a harrowing contradiction. Proposition 8 was democratically and fairly passed, eliminating the validity of same-sex marriage under California state law along with the rights and tax-benefits of marriage. Democracy was used as a tool of oppression on the very day we celebrated its success, allowing for the removal of citizens’ rights. Inequality is voted right into the entire system with the jovial cries of -- no, not Mormons, but a majority of Californians!
And the culture war? (to regress back to some of my previous posts) It is not dead in the newly united “Obama generation.” It remains quite alive and in a “blue state” no less.
The reality of our situation presents itself starkly in the contrast of Obama’s politics of hope brought to life by the same system that robs all hope of equality for a particular minority. Can democracy escape its ironic nature? The ideal of democracy is the empowerment of the people over any form of institutional rule, but who are these people? The people is an abstraction that loosely ties individuals together and gives them a bond, and hopefully, a shared goal in their bond. Many national identities have been fashioned within or slightly before modernity out of farcical notions of history and culture in an attempt to legitimize a government’s expanding boundaries of power. As I’ve stated, the current identity and self-identity of the American people is a narrative constantly being woven -- it’s not some unshakable essential identity synonymous with the Pilgrims (they are the antithesis of modern Americans) as they stepped on to land. The people does not exist as an organic and real thing; the people are brutishly divided into numerous groups that identify within categories of race, religion, sexuality, political group, class, geography, etc. -- some allowing for more significant social cohesion than others. There is never a truly united people beyond the abstract pandering of the state; rather, a heterogeneous collection of groups with differing relations to power is the real makeup of the participants in a democracy.
Ultimately, democracy means little more than the preservation of the majority’s beliefs and needs at the expense of the minority. Democracy can be only contingently(!) aligned with truth, equality, justice and rationality by the actions of unrelenting educators and politicians working within the democratic system to keep it from consuming the very ideals it supposedly propagates through its essence.
A quick and a dumbed-down example to fully grasp what kind of danger lurks in a democracy is a hypothetical situation that reveals democracy nihilistic indifference to truth.
“Imagine a nation made up of the mathematically incompetent at 51 percent, and the mathematically competent at 49 percent. You’ll have to suspend the material issues of evolution and survival here in our hypothetical human species. The state asks to place on some national ballot whether 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 11 should be taught in every school. By some godsend all the mathematically incompetent manage to vote for the mathematically impossible without accidentally killing themselves in the process. The majority of our hypothetical human species has developed a social or perhaps a religious custom that states 1 + 1 = 11 with total indifference to rational argument, pragmatic usefulness and the general framework that can allow a basic arithmetic to work. By the democratic ideal, 1 + 1 = 11 is the new solution to the equation and the people rejoice! There is also absolutely nothing wrong, or flawed, or incomplete in this democratic process. It should actually be cited as a great achievement and success of democracy!”
So we must ask, what should we be celebrating -- the democratic system’s success or our luck that it failed to stand in the way of a more competent government? And we, the few, unsettled individuals, are left with the most startling question as we enter the edge of our known political system and come in contact with the horizon of the negative space of the unknown beyond the foundation of democracy. Is there something better, and can we be sure it is not an illusion hiding some new form of fascism?
While patting ourselves on the back over the success of our democratic system, a republic, to elect us a radically new president by unprecedented voter turnout, there lingers a harrowing contradiction. Proposition 8 was democratically and fairly passed, eliminating the validity of same-sex marriage under California state law along with the rights and tax-benefits of marriage. Democracy was used as a tool of oppression on the very day we celebrated its success, allowing for the removal of citizens’ rights. Inequality is voted right into the entire system with the jovial cries of -- no, not Mormons, but a majority of Californians!
And the culture war? (to regress back to some of my previous posts) It is not dead in the newly united “Obama generation.” It remains quite alive and in a “blue state” no less.
The reality of our situation presents itself starkly in the contrast of Obama’s politics of hope brought to life by the same system that robs all hope of equality for a particular minority. Can democracy escape its ironic nature? The ideal of democracy is the empowerment of the people over any form of institutional rule, but who are these people? The people is an abstraction that loosely ties individuals together and gives them a bond, and hopefully, a shared goal in their bond. Many national identities have been fashioned within or slightly before modernity out of farcical notions of history and culture in an attempt to legitimize a government’s expanding boundaries of power. As I’ve stated, the current identity and self-identity of the American people is a narrative constantly being woven -- it’s not some unshakable essential identity synonymous with the Pilgrims (they are the antithesis of modern Americans) as they stepped on to land. The people does not exist as an organic and real thing; the people are brutishly divided into numerous groups that identify within categories of race, religion, sexuality, political group, class, geography, etc. -- some allowing for more significant social cohesion than others. There is never a truly united people beyond the abstract pandering of the state; rather, a heterogeneous collection of groups with differing relations to power is the real makeup of the participants in a democracy.
Ultimately, democracy means little more than the preservation of the majority’s beliefs and needs at the expense of the minority. Democracy can be only contingently(!) aligned with truth, equality, justice and rationality by the actions of unrelenting educators and politicians working within the democratic system to keep it from consuming the very ideals it supposedly propagates through its essence.
A quick and a dumbed-down example to fully grasp what kind of danger lurks in a democracy is a hypothetical situation that reveals democracy nihilistic indifference to truth.
“Imagine a nation made up of the mathematically incompetent at 51 percent, and the mathematically competent at 49 percent. You’ll have to suspend the material issues of evolution and survival here in our hypothetical human species. The state asks to place on some national ballot whether 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 11 should be taught in every school. By some godsend all the mathematically incompetent manage to vote for the mathematically impossible without accidentally killing themselves in the process. The majority of our hypothetical human species has developed a social or perhaps a religious custom that states 1 + 1 = 11 with total indifference to rational argument, pragmatic usefulness and the general framework that can allow a basic arithmetic to work. By the democratic ideal, 1 + 1 = 11 is the new solution to the equation and the people rejoice! There is also absolutely nothing wrong, or flawed, or incomplete in this democratic process. It should actually be cited as a great achievement and success of democracy!”
So we must ask, what should we be celebrating -- the democratic system’s success or our luck that it failed to stand in the way of a more competent government? And we, the few, unsettled individuals, are left with the most startling question as we enter the edge of our known political system and come in contact with the horizon of the negative space of the unknown beyond the foundation of democracy. Is there something better, and can we be sure it is not an illusion hiding some new form of fascism?
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Barack On My Brain
In my previous post about American democracy, I outlined a pathology that has infected our system of government. The role of government, especially the executive positions in government, is transforming through a mythopoesis in a dialogue between the state and the people. What is the nature of this dialectical mythopoesis? Mythopoesis is the process by which new myths or narratives are created. Bare with me for this: For a myth or narrative to be successful, and all narratives must be successful for us to canonize and remember them, it must fit into the framework, or the world, in which it is written; Zeus, as a random example, must maintain the necessary qualities of Zeus for a story to expand and extend its particular world. If Zeus loses such qualities, the myth cannot be brought into the greater story and is most likely forgotten. A dialectic is the interaction (in a very broad sense) between two entities wholly separate; an example of this could be two people talking.
President Bush upon his creation of the Axis of Evil, for a most apparent example, inflamed and changed the nature of political talk in the US; it was no longer an issue of nation-states in secular pursuit of their “enlightened” interests in the Western, liberalized notion of government, but rather, it became a battle of religious forces -- good versus evil. Many of Bush’s speeches, particularly about the United States’ role in the world community, have been heavily and unapologetically colored by religious tones:
“This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity -- a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.” (State of the Union Address 2002)
When President Bush gives a speech, he engages in a very significant form of dialogue, or, at its basest, interaction, with the American people. What he delivers is a narrative that, if it is successful, will be brought into the established mythology of the American people.
Bush’s White House harped upon a dormant religious mythology that hides within the shadowy blue fabric of America; this myth-making par excellence captured what is part of the core of American society and has always jeopardized the ideals of secular democracy. The United States was founded by the progeny of Puritans, and many if not most of its greatest historical endeavors, good and bad, have been conceived in concealed providential narratives. I’ll skip on the history book analysis since this is a blog, and we need to keep it reasonably short. But take note that President Bush adheres to a good principle of mythopoesis by bringing his myth-making into place within the preexistent mythology.
With this new dialogue between the state and the people, Americans underwent a transformation in their narrative or mythology, particularly their relationship to their government. Where a history is molded and reshaped, so is the identity which is founded upon it. This new world, this new identity, in which we inhabit has been written by Bush’s state and the American people through a dialogue. In it, Bush is no longer just president, but rather, he is the shepherd and we are his sheep. Much of our side has been a sickeningly silent response -- we are the sheep! Our assistance in the story has been akin to the status of ghost writer, sitting idly by and writing most of the narrative by providing the white space but taking no credit for it. Our inaction is our contribution to the new American identity, and Bush, through his development of what role the state is suppose to take, has helped to further push for an apathetic waiting. President Bush has molded an identity of complacent waiting for him to resolve us of our problems.
My theory can be proven ferociously sound too by considering the unprecedented actions of the White House in the guise of their new paternal identity. For example, the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, the suspension of Constitutional rights through the Patriot Act, the vetoing of a ban on Waterboarding, a neoconservative foreign policy with unilateral, preemptive war, etc. The executive branch fully extended its power in a way never seen before, and many Americans see nothing wrong with this. Bush's legacy is really the reinvention of the identity and role of the executive branch of government, and his Constitutional debasements are an apparent example. Many Americans are quite apathetic to this new, unbalanced executive branch that grew during Bush’s eight years in office. How was this so if it was not allowed by a retelling of a narrative to change the identities of the people and the state? The American people have never reacted to this new formation, and significant disapproval only came with the economic recession, the deficit spending and tactical ambiguity in Iraq, and finally, the near-complete collapse of the economy; there was very little outrage and protest to the above mentioned trespasses relative the seriousness of the crimes. Bush weaved his people a myth, allowing for a new American people to accept something more like a religious leader than a secular president in their executive branch of government.
Consider how radically different the narrative was during America’s 1960s and 70s and the identities that emerged out of that. The sheer rebellion was the sign of an unwillingness to allow an American identity to convert into a religious, unquestioning following. The current story is different.
It may shock you, but this narrative has not been written anew with Obama; rather, Obama has won his presidency riding upon the new identities established by Bush. We throw out the old priest for a new one. Upon Barack Obama’s election, there is celebration as if we have finished our jobs, and now, it is Obama’s turn to take up the role that Bush had establish. Our role in the dialogue between us and the state is over; we return to our sheep status, and wait -- wait, wait, devotedly in secular, democratic prayer that Obama will resolve our problems. I’ve already seen suggestions from the news that Obama can single-handedly save the auto-industry by a state-mandated, instantaneous conversion to a fuel-efficient and alternative energy car -- hilarious. Most people, ignorant of the slow, laborious process needed to transform the economy, the environment and our governmental institutions, think Barack Obama will be doing something more similar to anointing them and setting them free of all their political trappings and failures rather than sound, long-term planning.
For some reason all of this reminds me of the Market Place scene in Jesus Christ Superstar -- odd I know. I don’t want to get too serious when I’m writing a blog, and I have yet to use the Internet medium to its fullest. It is perhaps time for a pause. So maybe I’ll embed a video of the scene from the movie Jesus Christ Superstar. The three minute mark and the end make me wonder…
President Bush upon his creation of the Axis of Evil, for a most apparent example, inflamed and changed the nature of political talk in the US; it was no longer an issue of nation-states in secular pursuit of their “enlightened” interests in the Western, liberalized notion of government, but rather, it became a battle of religious forces -- good versus evil. Many of Bush’s speeches, particularly about the United States’ role in the world community, have been heavily and unapologetically colored by religious tones:
“This time of adversity offers a unique moment of opportunity -- a moment we must seize to change our culture. Through the gathering momentum of millions of acts of service and decency and kindness, I know we can overcome evil with greater good. And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace.” (State of the Union Address 2002)
When President Bush gives a speech, he engages in a very significant form of dialogue, or, at its basest, interaction, with the American people. What he delivers is a narrative that, if it is successful, will be brought into the established mythology of the American people.
Bush’s White House harped upon a dormant religious mythology that hides within the shadowy blue fabric of America; this myth-making par excellence captured what is part of the core of American society and has always jeopardized the ideals of secular democracy. The United States was founded by the progeny of Puritans, and many if not most of its greatest historical endeavors, good and bad, have been conceived in concealed providential narratives. I’ll skip on the history book analysis since this is a blog, and we need to keep it reasonably short. But take note that President Bush adheres to a good principle of mythopoesis by bringing his myth-making into place within the preexistent mythology.
With this new dialogue between the state and the people, Americans underwent a transformation in their narrative or mythology, particularly their relationship to their government. Where a history is molded and reshaped, so is the identity which is founded upon it. This new world, this new identity, in which we inhabit has been written by Bush’s state and the American people through a dialogue. In it, Bush is no longer just president, but rather, he is the shepherd and we are his sheep. Much of our side has been a sickeningly silent response -- we are the sheep! Our assistance in the story has been akin to the status of ghost writer, sitting idly by and writing most of the narrative by providing the white space but taking no credit for it. Our inaction is our contribution to the new American identity, and Bush, through his development of what role the state is suppose to take, has helped to further push for an apathetic waiting. President Bush has molded an identity of complacent waiting for him to resolve us of our problems.
My theory can be proven ferociously sound too by considering the unprecedented actions of the White House in the guise of their new paternal identity. For example, the suspension of Habeas Corpus and the establishment of Guantanamo Bay, the suspension of Constitutional rights through the Patriot Act, the vetoing of a ban on Waterboarding, a neoconservative foreign policy with unilateral, preemptive war, etc. The executive branch fully extended its power in a way never seen before, and many Americans see nothing wrong with this. Bush's legacy is really the reinvention of the identity and role of the executive branch of government, and his Constitutional debasements are an apparent example. Many Americans are quite apathetic to this new, unbalanced executive branch that grew during Bush’s eight years in office. How was this so if it was not allowed by a retelling of a narrative to change the identities of the people and the state? The American people have never reacted to this new formation, and significant disapproval only came with the economic recession, the deficit spending and tactical ambiguity in Iraq, and finally, the near-complete collapse of the economy; there was very little outrage and protest to the above mentioned trespasses relative the seriousness of the crimes. Bush weaved his people a myth, allowing for a new American people to accept something more like a religious leader than a secular president in their executive branch of government.
Consider how radically different the narrative was during America’s 1960s and 70s and the identities that emerged out of that. The sheer rebellion was the sign of an unwillingness to allow an American identity to convert into a religious, unquestioning following. The current story is different.
It may shock you, but this narrative has not been written anew with Obama; rather, Obama has won his presidency riding upon the new identities established by Bush. We throw out the old priest for a new one. Upon Barack Obama’s election, there is celebration as if we have finished our jobs, and now, it is Obama’s turn to take up the role that Bush had establish. Our role in the dialogue between us and the state is over; we return to our sheep status, and wait -- wait, wait, devotedly in secular, democratic prayer that Obama will resolve our problems. I’ve already seen suggestions from the news that Obama can single-handedly save the auto-industry by a state-mandated, instantaneous conversion to a fuel-efficient and alternative energy car -- hilarious. Most people, ignorant of the slow, laborious process needed to transform the economy, the environment and our governmental institutions, think Barack Obama will be doing something more similar to anointing them and setting them free of all their political trappings and failures rather than sound, long-term planning.
For some reason all of this reminds me of the Market Place scene in Jesus Christ Superstar -- odd I know. I don’t want to get too serious when I’m writing a blog, and I have yet to use the Internet medium to its fullest. It is perhaps time for a pause. So maybe I’ll embed a video of the scene from the movie Jesus Christ Superstar. The three minute mark and the end make me wonder…
Thursday, November 6, 2008
A False Obama
I was walking in the street when a rowdy black woman ahead of me turned around and asked me “So, how about Barack Obama?” in an excited tone. I responded “how about Barack Obama.” Which, doesn‘t make much sense as an answer, but if you say it in a long drawn-out way it seems like a legitimate response when you’re just repeating what the person said to you . I noticed what seemed like melancholy in my voice in responding to her, and I wondered if she thought I was a McCain supporter.
Why was I melancholic in my response or something akin to it? I watched the excitement on the news over the historic occasion that signals a time of momentous importance in many different histories. It’s a victory for black America; it is a victory for our American democracy and society as a whole; and it is a victory for me, as I voted for Barack Obama in an adherence to my liberal beliefs and my honest like of a good man and a talented politician. What bothers me about the situation enough to keep me from feeling the euphoria I see in others, particularly the younger Obama supporters?
Perhaps it is the cult of personality that has grown around Obama. There is a strange, undemocratic, apolitical fervor that swelled up around Obama and his campaign. Obama’s sweeping win, his changing of red states to blue state and his ability to get out the vote at an unprecedented level, are all shocking. Many argue that this has been spurred by a reaction to the horrid state of the economy and eight long years of an unresponsive, republican president. While I do believe that Obama’s win has been significantly influenced by Bush’s wide-spread unpopularity, there is a catalyst that is irrational and apolitical; look at Obama’s win compared to Kerry’s loss. Kerry faced an equally unpopular President Bush during a time when Iraq was far more tumultuous than it is now, and the economy was in the full-swing of a recession. Obama faced a moderate republican that rode on the political rhetoric of change and emphasized his bipartisan initiatives. How could have McCain lost in such a decisive way?
Part of the reason is the number of apolitical voters Obama’s uncontrolled cult of personality brought in. In such strife, voters have taken to Obama as a messianic or heroic figure that will redeem the United States in some radical transformation. I refuse to believe that the votes that kept Bush in office for eight long years are now sincere liberal votes. America did not become a politically liberal nation in four years through a steady questioning of domestic and foreign policies; the exit polls show that the number one concern is the economy, not Iraq, not terrorism, and not the social values that had clinched the win for Bush for two elections. The emphasis and concern voters have placed on the economy is rightly due, but the way the people have conceived of it might be truly disastrous.
The economy is a focal point of absolute terror for Americans, and in the throes of such a nightmare, people have been consistently undemocratic, reactionary and un-American in their turn to a political “strongman.” We saw this behavior with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, where Americans focused on their fear of another terrorist attack, allowing for an unparalleled loss of their freedoms in the name of security. For much of the election in 2004, while being bogged down in Iraq, John Kerry was painted as a weak-willed liberal with a phony war record; his liberal policies, ones dead similar to Obama’s, would jeopardize American security at home and abroad -- Kerry significantly lost the popular vote. Americans are still short-term, one-issue voters, and they vote not out of political righteousness and adherence to a rational political doctrine. Their new terror is economic meltdown, and their new hero is Obama, where Osama Bin Laden and Bush are the devil and savor in some now longforgotten fairytale. Americans are willing to make any sacrifice necessary to a strong leader in the childish hope that this leader will resolve all their issues. And I fail to see the goodness in all of this, because it is not a good exercise of our system, rather, it is religiosity breeding a way for fascism.
Luckily, I am reassured for at least these four years. The American public may be a deeply foolish, apolitical, terror-ridden voter, but for once, in a rough eight years, this has worked to the favor of the better party and the better candidate. Obama began his presidency with a speech upon his election that emphasized a democratic resolution to our problems, he put it on us, the people, to commit to creating an America we would like to see. He tempered and brought into the American consciousness once again the lost notion of long-term planning and strategic thinking, rather than, reactionary panic to the economic crisis. The thing about it is, there is the Barack Obama that I admire and appreciate because he is, in truth, all of the things this country needs, but the rabble that is in sheer ecstasy over Barack Obama is a loathsome, undemocratic and fascist element that is entirely to blame for the past eight years of the total desecration of this country; they, the American people, have shamelessly falsified and portrayed Obama as a hero for their idiotic, religious masses. I fear for Obama, and I fear for the end of four years when the American people see their false image of Obama shatter and don’t understand why all of the promises they inscribed on Obama were not immediately given to them upon his election. And where Obama gives his people the chance to be something great and different -- upon his descent from the mountain after four years, he will find a panic-stricken, orgiastic cult worshipping in stupidity and betrayal towards another golden calf.
Why was I melancholic in my response or something akin to it? I watched the excitement on the news over the historic occasion that signals a time of momentous importance in many different histories. It’s a victory for black America; it is a victory for our American democracy and society as a whole; and it is a victory for me, as I voted for Barack Obama in an adherence to my liberal beliefs and my honest like of a good man and a talented politician. What bothers me about the situation enough to keep me from feeling the euphoria I see in others, particularly the younger Obama supporters?
Perhaps it is the cult of personality that has grown around Obama. There is a strange, undemocratic, apolitical fervor that swelled up around Obama and his campaign. Obama’s sweeping win, his changing of red states to blue state and his ability to get out the vote at an unprecedented level, are all shocking. Many argue that this has been spurred by a reaction to the horrid state of the economy and eight long years of an unresponsive, republican president. While I do believe that Obama’s win has been significantly influenced by Bush’s wide-spread unpopularity, there is a catalyst that is irrational and apolitical; look at Obama’s win compared to Kerry’s loss. Kerry faced an equally unpopular President Bush during a time when Iraq was far more tumultuous than it is now, and the economy was in the full-swing of a recession. Obama faced a moderate republican that rode on the political rhetoric of change and emphasized his bipartisan initiatives. How could have McCain lost in such a decisive way?
Part of the reason is the number of apolitical voters Obama’s uncontrolled cult of personality brought in. In such strife, voters have taken to Obama as a messianic or heroic figure that will redeem the United States in some radical transformation. I refuse to believe that the votes that kept Bush in office for eight long years are now sincere liberal votes. America did not become a politically liberal nation in four years through a steady questioning of domestic and foreign policies; the exit polls show that the number one concern is the economy, not Iraq, not terrorism, and not the social values that had clinched the win for Bush for two elections. The emphasis and concern voters have placed on the economy is rightly due, but the way the people have conceived of it might be truly disastrous.
The economy is a focal point of absolute terror for Americans, and in the throes of such a nightmare, people have been consistently undemocratic, reactionary and un-American in their turn to a political “strongman.” We saw this behavior with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, where Americans focused on their fear of another terrorist attack, allowing for an unparalleled loss of their freedoms in the name of security. For much of the election in 2004, while being bogged down in Iraq, John Kerry was painted as a weak-willed liberal with a phony war record; his liberal policies, ones dead similar to Obama’s, would jeopardize American security at home and abroad -- Kerry significantly lost the popular vote. Americans are still short-term, one-issue voters, and they vote not out of political righteousness and adherence to a rational political doctrine. Their new terror is economic meltdown, and their new hero is Obama, where Osama Bin Laden and Bush are the devil and savor in some now longforgotten fairytale. Americans are willing to make any sacrifice necessary to a strong leader in the childish hope that this leader will resolve all their issues. And I fail to see the goodness in all of this, because it is not a good exercise of our system, rather, it is religiosity breeding a way for fascism.
Luckily, I am reassured for at least these four years. The American public may be a deeply foolish, apolitical, terror-ridden voter, but for once, in a rough eight years, this has worked to the favor of the better party and the better candidate. Obama began his presidency with a speech upon his election that emphasized a democratic resolution to our problems, he put it on us, the people, to commit to creating an America we would like to see. He tempered and brought into the American consciousness once again the lost notion of long-term planning and strategic thinking, rather than, reactionary panic to the economic crisis. The thing about it is, there is the Barack Obama that I admire and appreciate because he is, in truth, all of the things this country needs, but the rabble that is in sheer ecstasy over Barack Obama is a loathsome, undemocratic and fascist element that is entirely to blame for the past eight years of the total desecration of this country; they, the American people, have shamelessly falsified and portrayed Obama as a hero for their idiotic, religious masses. I fear for Obama, and I fear for the end of four years when the American people see their false image of Obama shatter and don’t understand why all of the promises they inscribed on Obama were not immediately given to them upon his election. And where Obama gives his people the chance to be something great and different -- upon his descent from the mountain after four years, he will find a panic-stricken, orgiastic cult worshipping in stupidity and betrayal towards another golden calf.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
No More Bowling For Man-Machine?
While I was hand-painting my recently kilned urns with wild pomegranate juice, I looked deep into the village fire, and I saw in the news that online social networking sites have recently usurped porn in internet traffic and popularity -- and Praise the Lord it was not consumed by the blaze!
When one sits back for a moment to view the greater picture, one cannot help but to be amazed. What is this new human way of being? As a species we’ve gone from eating a consistent diet of Giraffe bone marrow and succulent mud to living a majority of our lives in some enigmatic, abstract plane of nothingness. Our fluids jostled and heated by series of data in the form of zeros and ones; and how carefully orchestrated they are into ever-organizing structures with their ends of stimulation through hardware projecting into the brain via the eyes and the ears.
To think not that long ago, the greatest mental stimulus for the human was whether or not Jews, or any other foreign people, were pooping in the town well, thusly poisoning it -- oh, simpler times, when the Earth was flat and the Jew recognized for his unending mischief. Here and now, times change, look at what we have: a person must consider a litany of individual human emotional statuses, vaguely formed in simple sentences, and placed in a growing labyrinth of an ever-complex network of social relations -- my brain is hemorrhaging in the cacophony of “[Proper Noun] is currently!”
Some might see this swell of popularity over social networking as a positive thing; we no longer have to hang our heads and shamefully admit the greatest ark of information and knowledge in the history of humankind is completely overrun and ruled by pornography. Turns out the last great collections of information, the library of Alexandria in Hellenized Egypt, was razed because it was so embarrassingly full of porn -- and Plato’s dialectics -- fuck that shit is boring. You cannot argue with historical fact! Where ancient man brought justice through sword, we brought justice through our narcissistic “interests list” and insatiable need to stalk people online.
And as I’ve spoken of the greater picture before, let us take a further step back, so that we may consider this on a cosmic scale -- in the most literal of senses. I always wondered if holier-than-thou and intelligent extraterrestrials did ever come down to Earth, how would we hide all our porn? Like a bad son who has lived in his mom’s basement for the majority of his teens, amassing a plethora of porn magazines, going unhindered for years, sooner or later, mom is going to want to vacuum -- and then what!? To save ourselves the embarrassment, we’ll probably just pretend we don’t even have any computers or the internet. We’ll say the computers belong to…uh, the… dolphins (!) with their large, active brains, who are currently seeking therapy for sex-addiction. We’ll use computer illiterate John McCain as a demonstration and keen rebuttal that we surely know nothing of these so called “internets” with its series of tubes and trucks for dumping. If these computers were ours, how could we ever consider such a man as a potential leader?
But back to social networking in the specific -- to me the trumping of porn is not a step for progress at all. Pornography’s near-ownership of the internet stems from the social mores that exist in our society, and the anonymity and voyeurism the internet can provide to escape social constraints. Sex, sexuality and the exposed human body are powerful things, and much of culture and civilization is nothing more than the trying and succeeding to control these areas of intense and potentially destructive energies. The “pornification” of the internet is really the latent shadow of our society’s Puritanism; that’s why you have to drink an entire 30 rack of natty ice just to get close to a girl in Ugg boots for a chance at failed copulation. Porn on the internet stems from sex, sexuality and one’s own body being alienated from a totality, or wholeness, of an individual personality. That which is sexual is ripped from a person and denied its essentialness to the person in total. The internet is the perfect vehicle for the fearful, alienated people to play-out a removed “sexuality” anonymously online, as they cannot merge this sexual being with themselves as a whole. Later on, this artificial and “pornified” sex and sexuality are played-out in real life acts as a supplement of something aching for authenticity. Please see fat chick dancing on table in bar for reference to the dangers of pornification.
If people are using the internet for socializing now more than ever, the accusation just brought against pornography above probably holds true for socialization. People are becoming ever-removed from their neighbors, townships and greater communities. This is a well-documented fact, and if you don’t believe me, take the anecdotal evidence of “when is the last time you smelled your community’s smelly feat through the sharing of rental bowling shoes?” There are fewer and fewer bowling alleys, along with other community recreation centers, because public use is decreasing. Authentic socialization and relationships, free of the artifices that cause and are the product of alienation, are being exchanged for something else. In sum, many of the social bonds that unite us and help to form our identities are deteriorating. The social networking sites are both a product of this shift and an accelerant for it. And when our bonds go quietly into the darkness of internet space, there is little social cohesion to keep people from wearing crocs, or keeping fat girls off of splintering tables, or keeping people from embarrassing themselves by writing online.
When one sits back for a moment to view the greater picture, one cannot help but to be amazed. What is this new human way of being? As a species we’ve gone from eating a consistent diet of Giraffe bone marrow and succulent mud to living a majority of our lives in some enigmatic, abstract plane of nothingness. Our fluids jostled and heated by series of data in the form of zeros and ones; and how carefully orchestrated they are into ever-organizing structures with their ends of stimulation through hardware projecting into the brain via the eyes and the ears.
To think not that long ago, the greatest mental stimulus for the human was whether or not Jews, or any other foreign people, were pooping in the town well, thusly poisoning it -- oh, simpler times, when the Earth was flat and the Jew recognized for his unending mischief. Here and now, times change, look at what we have: a person must consider a litany of individual human emotional statuses, vaguely formed in simple sentences, and placed in a growing labyrinth of an ever-complex network of social relations -- my brain is hemorrhaging in the cacophony of “[Proper Noun] is currently!”
Some might see this swell of popularity over social networking as a positive thing; we no longer have to hang our heads and shamefully admit the greatest ark of information and knowledge in the history of humankind is completely overrun and ruled by pornography. Turns out the last great collections of information, the library of Alexandria in Hellenized Egypt, was razed because it was so embarrassingly full of porn -- and Plato’s dialectics -- fuck that shit is boring. You cannot argue with historical fact! Where ancient man brought justice through sword, we brought justice through our narcissistic “interests list” and insatiable need to stalk people online.
And as I’ve spoken of the greater picture before, let us take a further step back, so that we may consider this on a cosmic scale -- in the most literal of senses. I always wondered if holier-than-thou and intelligent extraterrestrials did ever come down to Earth, how would we hide all our porn? Like a bad son who has lived in his mom’s basement for the majority of his teens, amassing a plethora of porn magazines, going unhindered for years, sooner or later, mom is going to want to vacuum -- and then what!? To save ourselves the embarrassment, we’ll probably just pretend we don’t even have any computers or the internet. We’ll say the computers belong to…uh, the… dolphins (!) with their large, active brains, who are currently seeking therapy for sex-addiction. We’ll use computer illiterate John McCain as a demonstration and keen rebuttal that we surely know nothing of these so called “internets” with its series of tubes and trucks for dumping. If these computers were ours, how could we ever consider such a man as a potential leader?
But back to social networking in the specific -- to me the trumping of porn is not a step for progress at all. Pornography’s near-ownership of the internet stems from the social mores that exist in our society, and the anonymity and voyeurism the internet can provide to escape social constraints. Sex, sexuality and the exposed human body are powerful things, and much of culture and civilization is nothing more than the trying and succeeding to control these areas of intense and potentially destructive energies. The “pornification” of the internet is really the latent shadow of our society’s Puritanism; that’s why you have to drink an entire 30 rack of natty ice just to get close to a girl in Ugg boots for a chance at failed copulation. Porn on the internet stems from sex, sexuality and one’s own body being alienated from a totality, or wholeness, of an individual personality. That which is sexual is ripped from a person and denied its essentialness to the person in total. The internet is the perfect vehicle for the fearful, alienated people to play-out a removed “sexuality” anonymously online, as they cannot merge this sexual being with themselves as a whole. Later on, this artificial and “pornified” sex and sexuality are played-out in real life acts as a supplement of something aching for authenticity. Please see fat chick dancing on table in bar for reference to the dangers of pornification.
If people are using the internet for socializing now more than ever, the accusation just brought against pornography above probably holds true for socialization. People are becoming ever-removed from their neighbors, townships and greater communities. This is a well-documented fact, and if you don’t believe me, take the anecdotal evidence of “when is the last time you smelled your community’s smelly feat through the sharing of rental bowling shoes?” There are fewer and fewer bowling alleys, along with other community recreation centers, because public use is decreasing. Authentic socialization and relationships, free of the artifices that cause and are the product of alienation, are being exchanged for something else. In sum, many of the social bonds that unite us and help to form our identities are deteriorating. The social networking sites are both a product of this shift and an accelerant for it. And when our bonds go quietly into the darkness of internet space, there is little social cohesion to keep people from wearing crocs, or keeping fat girls off of splintering tables, or keeping people from embarrassing themselves by writing online.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Palin Hockey Mom By Proxy Brain Damage
The McCain campaign has stirred up some serious muck in order to divert the focus away from McCain’s inability to reassure the American public he can resolve their economic woes. He has polled horribly on the issue of the economy, and rightfully so, as McCain would implement nearly identical economic policies as President Bush that have played their significant part in unhinging the American economy.
McCain’s charzard and pikachu have both fainted in battle leaving him with his last pokemon -- Ayers. This new focal point for M-dawg’s campaign has actually been around for awhile now, but has taken on fuel from the desperation of the McCain campaign. Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers has really gotten the conservative base riled up. How could Obama have a relationship with Ayers, a domestic terrorist that was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical, leftist organization dedicated to violent means to achieve their goals of ending the Vietnam War? WHO IS THE REAL OBAMA!!!?
To fully address McCain’s attack, I’ll divide my points up into sections.
First on Associations:
Turns out Ayers is a free American citizen who is also a highly successful university professor:
http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers
If Obama is in cahoots with a terrorist, then we really need to rid ourselves of all the terrorists at the University of Illinois in Chicago where Ayers teaches. Talk about associations! And more schools seem to be harboring this terrorist!
*In Ayers bio in above link*
“HONORS AND AWARDS
2005-6 - Randolph Distinguished Visitng Professor, Vassar College
2005 - Distinguished Scholar, Museum of Education, University of South Carolina
2003 - Visiting Scholar, Lesley University
1996 - Doctor of Humane Letters (Honorary), Nazareth College"
Can you imagine how much closer his ties and connections are to the hundreds of students he has taught, the administrations and faculties of schools he has worked for and the schools who have given him honorable awards! We don't just have terrorist cells here -- we have an entire terrorist organization actively working in the US known as higher education. There are motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!
Obama’s ties to this man are pretty loose. They are both liberal, activists and work in the same part of the country. Well, what do you know, turns out they interacted and served with respectable, mainstream organizations that give out grants, seek to end poverty, etc.. in the early 2000s. Obama must have really searched high and low across this country to find this domestic terrorist, so he could establish a relationship that one might describe as “bff.” Obama’s proclivity to seek out terrorists really speaks of his moral character. Just so you know there is no evidence of further links between Obama and Ayers as of 2002.
On the issue of Time:
I’m not going to break down in uncontrollable sobbing over the atrocities (being in a group that fatally killed one police officer and injured another along with various acts of property damage) this man has committed when he acted as a "domestic terrorist" well over thirty years ago. Sometimes late at night I scream out in rage at John Wilkes Booth "WHY!?" The audience who gets riled up about this is full of it. They’re only interested in pretending to be outraged for political reasons. Nobody I know young or old started screaming out about political events that occured in the 60s and the 70s anytime recently -- the 80s, well, that’s a different story “ DO NOT DISASSEMBLE JOHNNY 5! HE’S ALIVE!!!”
The Weather Underground sucked, but it should be made clear what kind of actions they did commit. I’m convinced the crowds screaming terrorist, and your average conservative idiot, do not know why they're screaming terrorist. They want to pin Obama as the outsider, the other, that needs to be associated with the most vile thing they, the collective group, hates -- it was “commies” but now it’s terrorists.
McCain and Palin make sure not to go beyond their rhetoric in their speeches regarding the issue of Ayers. They know if they begin pressing the facts, they’re left with a label like “associates with terrorists” that won’t stick. McCain and Palin leave their rabid crowds to come to the conclusion from what they leave unsaid; they have definitely sewn the seeds, too. McCain can barely control the xenophobia in his town hall meetings. Screams of “terrorist” come from the crowd with other hateful, violent things shouted. He put an old lady in a full nelson when she started callling Obama an Arab on microphone in front of cameras at his rally. What has been left unsaid in McCain’s rhetoric has been filled with the belief that Obama is lying and is whatever is not American to these people -- terrorist, Muslim, Arab, Satan incarnate.
McCain and Palin are playing with the semantics and pragmatics of language. They are using the literal meaning of the word terrorist, so when they say “Obama associated with a domestic terrorist,” it is literally true. The Weather Underground was a terrorist group, and Ayers was a member; however, the meaning that is latent in the statement is from the pragmatic use of the word. Without explaining or delving into how exactly Ayers is a terrorist, setting up a multitude of contexts, the word is left with the resonance of a post-9/11 society. These "terrorists" of Ayers ilk were some of the most highly educated, young, white, wealthy people in America who joined an extremely radical fringe group in a time where political activity was increasingly more aggressive and more radical in response to the Vietnam War among other issues. They are not various incarnations of Osama bin Laden as the rabid dogs at McCain’s rallies would believe. McCain and Palin have used the word terrorist to convince their less than brilliant base that Obama is actually an Arab, Muslim terrorist. These people are not just screaming these bizarre ideas for no reason, they’ve been tricked into believing it through the tacit messages in McCain’s campaign’s wantonness use of pragmatics and fear-inducing rhetoric.
McCain’s charzard and pikachu have both fainted in battle leaving him with his last pokemon -- Ayers. This new focal point for M-dawg’s campaign has actually been around for awhile now, but has taken on fuel from the desperation of the McCain campaign. Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers has really gotten the conservative base riled up. How could Obama have a relationship with Ayers, a domestic terrorist that was a member of the Weather Underground, a radical, leftist organization dedicated to violent means to achieve their goals of ending the Vietnam War? WHO IS THE REAL OBAMA!!!?
To fully address McCain’s attack, I’ll divide my points up into sections.
First on Associations:
Turns out Ayers is a free American citizen who is also a highly successful university professor:
http://education.uic.edu/directory/faculty_info.cfm?netid=bayers
If Obama is in cahoots with a terrorist, then we really need to rid ourselves of all the terrorists at the University of Illinois in Chicago where Ayers teaches. Talk about associations! And more schools seem to be harboring this terrorist!
*In Ayers bio in above link*
“HONORS AND AWARDS
2005-6 - Randolph Distinguished Visitng Professor, Vassar College
2005 - Distinguished Scholar, Museum of Education, University of South Carolina
2003 - Visiting Scholar, Lesley University
1996 - Doctor of Humane Letters (Honorary), Nazareth College"
Can you imagine how much closer his ties and connections are to the hundreds of students he has taught, the administrations and faculties of schools he has worked for and the schools who have given him honorable awards! We don't just have terrorist cells here -- we have an entire terrorist organization actively working in the US known as higher education. There are motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane!
Obama’s ties to this man are pretty loose. They are both liberal, activists and work in the same part of the country. Well, what do you know, turns out they interacted and served with respectable, mainstream organizations that give out grants, seek to end poverty, etc.. in the early 2000s. Obama must have really searched high and low across this country to find this domestic terrorist, so he could establish a relationship that one might describe as “bff.” Obama’s proclivity to seek out terrorists really speaks of his moral character. Just so you know there is no evidence of further links between Obama and Ayers as of 2002.
On the issue of Time:
I’m not going to break down in uncontrollable sobbing over the atrocities (being in a group that fatally killed one police officer and injured another along with various acts of property damage) this man has committed when he acted as a "domestic terrorist" well over thirty years ago. Sometimes late at night I scream out in rage at John Wilkes Booth "WHY!?" The audience who gets riled up about this is full of it. They’re only interested in pretending to be outraged for political reasons. Nobody I know young or old started screaming out about political events that occured in the 60s and the 70s anytime recently -- the 80s, well, that’s a different story “ DO NOT DISASSEMBLE JOHNNY 5! HE’S ALIVE!!!”
The Weather Underground sucked, but it should be made clear what kind of actions they did commit. I’m convinced the crowds screaming terrorist, and your average conservative idiot, do not know why they're screaming terrorist. They want to pin Obama as the outsider, the other, that needs to be associated with the most vile thing they, the collective group, hates -- it was “commies” but now it’s terrorists.
McCain and Palin make sure not to go beyond their rhetoric in their speeches regarding the issue of Ayers. They know if they begin pressing the facts, they’re left with a label like “associates with terrorists” that won’t stick. McCain and Palin leave their rabid crowds to come to the conclusion from what they leave unsaid; they have definitely sewn the seeds, too. McCain can barely control the xenophobia in his town hall meetings. Screams of “terrorist” come from the crowd with other hateful, violent things shouted. He put an old lady in a full nelson when she started callling Obama an Arab on microphone in front of cameras at his rally. What has been left unsaid in McCain’s rhetoric has been filled with the belief that Obama is lying and is whatever is not American to these people -- terrorist, Muslim, Arab, Satan incarnate.
McCain and Palin are playing with the semantics and pragmatics of language. They are using the literal meaning of the word terrorist, so when they say “Obama associated with a domestic terrorist,” it is literally true. The Weather Underground was a terrorist group, and Ayers was a member; however, the meaning that is latent in the statement is from the pragmatic use of the word. Without explaining or delving into how exactly Ayers is a terrorist, setting up a multitude of contexts, the word is left with the resonance of a post-9/11 society. These "terrorists" of Ayers ilk were some of the most highly educated, young, white, wealthy people in America who joined an extremely radical fringe group in a time where political activity was increasingly more aggressive and more radical in response to the Vietnam War among other issues. They are not various incarnations of Osama bin Laden as the rabid dogs at McCain’s rallies would believe. McCain and Palin have used the word terrorist to convince their less than brilliant base that Obama is actually an Arab, Muslim terrorist. These people are not just screaming these bizarre ideas for no reason, they’ve been tricked into believing it through the tacit messages in McCain’s campaign’s wantonness use of pragmatics and fear-inducing rhetoric.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Where Have All The Bill Clintons Gone?
Like most Americans I’ve been engaged with the news more than usual. With the presidential election looming, the Dow sinking and a Wall Street bailing, I’ve taken to the bottle for binging to turn misfortune and misery channeled through the TV into a gay and dandy drinking game. In fact, I’ve turned my entire life into one long drinking game -- the magic words to drink by: anything that upsets me!!! My therapist says that this isn’t a game, but rather, an inability to cope -- and I just throw up my hand and tell her to talk to it, because if you want to be my lover, you got to get with my friends. My heart pines for simpler times under President Clinton when a rebuttal was captured in a hand gesture and girls were still spicy.
Remember when the internet was a vehicle of endless economic prosperity with the “dot-com” boom? Then somebody pointed out that Al Gore did not invent the internet (much to his dismay and our loss), dot-com businesses tanked, and the internet turned into a thing you could be addicted to. Where the fuck is my swanky dot-com job? Instead of working in a cool, new and vaguely Swedish office, testing out the latest schematics for ergonomic underwater computer chairs with seat warmers, I’m paying too much to a giant corporation that holds a monopoly on internet services in my area of Boston; thus I can fill the internet with more self-serving, righteous bullshit that a mass of mediocre e-tards will legitimize for no other reason than they clicked on my blog link more than another moron’s blog link.
Oh well, where we no longer have the hope for a growing job market, we have the terror of not being able to take out loans to pay for college -- one worry of many in this new dark age. When am I going to be able to go to graduate school and where are undergraduates going to drink, play sports and wear pajamas to class -- oh, I mean get their Bachelor’s degrees in business/management!?
I’m reassured though that all will turn out well when I see the potential for strong leadership in our executive branch. Policies set by the next president and his cabinet could bolster the economy and change our current course of economic implosion. In our great American tradition of rat-maze freedom (i.e. representational democracy), we have the varied and tempered selection of two candidates -- that’s right folks, not one like in a monarchy or a dictatorship but a whole two candidates! We have Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin tickets to throw our much needed consideration upon.
The McCain-Palin ticket is kind of like a vote for a really long, horrible holiday with your family. Your senile, incompetent and ornery grandpa somehow in his superior inability to be reasoned with has gained control of the van’s wheel, and using his curiously short arms that he cannot lift beyond a 45 degree angle drives the van backwards into oncoming traffic. Palin -- well, a mom analogy would work here, and she would love that too. She could relate to the American people with how much she has in common with them as a hockey mom even though, going by the general failure of the NHL to gain a greater audience, hockey is an unpopular sport and not a good medium to gain comradery . Palin is really not very “momish” if you ask me, and I’m comfortable using the “word” “momish.” Palin is something of a porn star who specializes in librarian fetishes, but with the loveable fuck-up appeal that attracted the American people to George Bush like moths to a flame. Everybody loves joe-six-pack rhetoric and should definitely elect their leadership on how likely they would drink with or fuck them. In summary just think of some incompetent sack of shit hanging out in a Walmart parking lot feeding his or her genetically-struggled children with noises for names a varied-form of genetically-modified high-fructose corn syrup -- that’s the aura of Palin.
But in general the Walmart parking lot will cover the entire demographic that makes up the Republican party -- both the politicians and the voters -- and it covers pretty much everything I hate about America. That’s right patriots, I hate things about America, and it turns out the only decent thing about this country is that it’s founded on a strong principle of hate and not “Judeo-Christian” values -- make sure you don’t forget the prefix Judeo or you might offend Senator Lieberman and our most important Middle Eastern ally Israel. Some people know hate as rationality because rationality commands cognitive dissonance; having a system that guarantees citizens’ rights and establishes a government that functions to the benefit as many as possible reveals itself to be true in the goodness it provides, and that which is not such a system is a bad system, an untrue system, that warrants pure hatred. The Founding Fathers, or as I like to call them “The Old Dirty Bastards,” laid some serious hate on some monarchy ass. The Declaration of Independence was like one really long trash talking session that ended with a board-shattering slam dunk over King George’s head in the form of signatures. And in summary, I hate much of America and Americans because they are, they value and they maintain a strong opposition to truth, which I have to oppose as a total badass American.
Remember when the internet was a vehicle of endless economic prosperity with the “dot-com” boom? Then somebody pointed out that Al Gore did not invent the internet (much to his dismay and our loss), dot-com businesses tanked, and the internet turned into a thing you could be addicted to. Where the fuck is my swanky dot-com job? Instead of working in a cool, new and vaguely Swedish office, testing out the latest schematics for ergonomic underwater computer chairs with seat warmers, I’m paying too much to a giant corporation that holds a monopoly on internet services in my area of Boston; thus I can fill the internet with more self-serving, righteous bullshit that a mass of mediocre e-tards will legitimize for no other reason than they clicked on my blog link more than another moron’s blog link.
Oh well, where we no longer have the hope for a growing job market, we have the terror of not being able to take out loans to pay for college -- one worry of many in this new dark age. When am I going to be able to go to graduate school and where are undergraduates going to drink, play sports and wear pajamas to class -- oh, I mean get their Bachelor’s degrees in business/management!?
I’m reassured though that all will turn out well when I see the potential for strong leadership in our executive branch. Policies set by the next president and his cabinet could bolster the economy and change our current course of economic implosion. In our great American tradition of rat-maze freedom (i.e. representational democracy), we have the varied and tempered selection of two candidates -- that’s right folks, not one like in a monarchy or a dictatorship but a whole two candidates! We have Obama-Biden and McCain-Palin tickets to throw our much needed consideration upon.
The McCain-Palin ticket is kind of like a vote for a really long, horrible holiday with your family. Your senile, incompetent and ornery grandpa somehow in his superior inability to be reasoned with has gained control of the van’s wheel, and using his curiously short arms that he cannot lift beyond a 45 degree angle drives the van backwards into oncoming traffic. Palin -- well, a mom analogy would work here, and she would love that too. She could relate to the American people with how much she has in common with them as a hockey mom even though, going by the general failure of the NHL to gain a greater audience, hockey is an unpopular sport and not a good medium to gain comradery . Palin is really not very “momish” if you ask me, and I’m comfortable using the “word” “momish.” Palin is something of a porn star who specializes in librarian fetishes, but with the loveable fuck-up appeal that attracted the American people to George Bush like moths to a flame. Everybody loves joe-six-pack rhetoric and should definitely elect their leadership on how likely they would drink with or fuck them. In summary just think of some incompetent sack of shit hanging out in a Walmart parking lot feeding his or her genetically-struggled children with noises for names a varied-form of genetically-modified high-fructose corn syrup -- that’s the aura of Palin.
But in general the Walmart parking lot will cover the entire demographic that makes up the Republican party -- both the politicians and the voters -- and it covers pretty much everything I hate about America. That’s right patriots, I hate things about America, and it turns out the only decent thing about this country is that it’s founded on a strong principle of hate and not “Judeo-Christian” values -- make sure you don’t forget the prefix Judeo or you might offend Senator Lieberman and our most important Middle Eastern ally Israel. Some people know hate as rationality because rationality commands cognitive dissonance; having a system that guarantees citizens’ rights and establishes a government that functions to the benefit as many as possible reveals itself to be true in the goodness it provides, and that which is not such a system is a bad system, an untrue system, that warrants pure hatred. The Founding Fathers, or as I like to call them “The Old Dirty Bastards,” laid some serious hate on some monarchy ass. The Declaration of Independence was like one really long trash talking session that ended with a board-shattering slam dunk over King George’s head in the form of signatures. And in summary, I hate much of America and Americans because they are, they value and they maintain a strong opposition to truth, which I have to oppose as a total badass American.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)