Communal Implosion

Now Serving Other Words

Many have pointed out the irony of individualism as a cultural value; in that irony is the writing on the wall of the universe, best seen on the walls of facebook and the logs of chatrooms.

-

The whole wants to take part.
The many want to be alone.
Good desireables are hard to get
because nobody wants them, and
because they're easy to get.

Where we can steal
without taking away,
we become what's stolen:
holders of infinite supply, and
holders of expendability.

Do you suppose
that Mr. T has a night elf warrior?
Do you suppose
what's supposed by everyone else,
that you're supposed to own?

Fulfillment of promises
that are lies is
in the stream of pieces
of desperately individual
identical identity crises.

-

What if everything we think is "good," simply by the unfortunate coincidences of an arbitrary universe, happens to go against the natural course of things? What if our strongest instincts (such as "avoid death") went against inevitable reality?

Our only hope against futility and despair is to flip Maslow's Hierarchy completely on its head. Now I just have to convince you all...

Edit: Kudos to Dave for inspiring the third stanza. Also, I made some changes to the first two lines of the first stanza, and the second line of the last stanza.

No Justice

Now Serving Evil and Harm

Welcome to the culture of fear, where children are raised to expect immortality and the responsibility for death falls entirely on humans, rather than fate.

Here, our Academy's administrators fear for their jobs, and so they see to it that our Academy's students have too much fear to see a counselor or seek psychological help. We continue to operate under the myth of a separate mind and body, and the myth that disease of the mind indicates human illegitimacy.

Here's the story.

There's a special circle of hell reserved for those who are complicit in this dismissal of mentally ill students. Can there be forgiveness for those who should know better, having access to the highest level of humanitarian and psychological education? They would have to realize their mistakes and offer restitution: meeting fully the expenses of those they've harmed, including tuition, books, food, counseling expenses, and all of that again purely on principle.

Barring that, I'd settle for their acquiring severe mental illnesses, being fired, and killing themselves.

I Once Thought That Good Music Only Comes From India

Can someone help me out? I don't know whether to capitalize the first letters of "that" and "from" in titles.



"Indie" isn't a genre of music, any more than it's "alternative" or "punk." It is, in fact, better described as being analogous to the words "Simon Says."

Rather than a genre, "indie" is what comes before the genre of a piece of music. There's pop and indie-pop; rock and indie-rock; hip-hop and indie hip-hop. As commands in the game Simon Says should only be followed when preceded (no oxymoronic pun intended) by "Simon Says," so should music in the game Have Good Taste only be listened to when preceded by "indie."

We're playing Simon Says. Simon says buy albums from indie artists, and Simon Says steal albums from those artists whose music can only be perversely listened to as a guilty pleasure (or, whose music you put in your shared iTunes library so that others will deem you a legitimate human being). Incidentally, you are not a legitimate human being unless your tastes agree with mine.

As long as we're on analogies, I'll admit that my sententious musical commentary is analogous to a small-town newspaper's middle-aged video game reviewer. Half-remembered conversations, a brief career as a violinist in public school, and two-and-a-half music-magazine articles are the only non-auditory basis for my musical opinions. I'm still right though.

I mean, if that schmuck from the paper were to claim that Call of Duty 4 is a steaming pile of poopaganda, his severe deficiency in knowing what he's talking about would have no bearing on his being right. (That's because CoD4 is a steaming pile of poopaganda, even if it's fun and has original gameplay elements.) I can at least be right by fortunate accident (which I am).

Maybe next time I'll write about video games.

Why the hell would you ever listen to pop?

• Now Serving Real Music
• and bullet points, because I can
• check out the sign-post! It puts the "fucking sweet" in "awesome."
  

In Which

We Begin Everything This Way

Incidentally, I suppose A. A. Milne wouldn't say "Fuck You, Disney." But I would.

OH MY GOD. "Hail to the Thief!" I just now got that! Kind of like Radiohead in general, actually. I kind of like Radiohead in general, actually. I don't like Generals though, generally, but then I'm generalizing. I'm sure some of them are decent guys.

What Would Jesus Do? He'd buy a GPS, and you should too!

So, we've got Radiohead, Winnie-the-Pooh (or Winnie-ther-Pooh - you know what "ther" means, don't you?), grammar questions, inspired thievery sadly resulting in further consumer prostitution, and a rant about Church coming soon from our favorite blogger here at SGT, Joshua. Speaking of Joshua, I just got a lot of music from him.

You know what we've forgotten about? Tea! Gorram tea! I'm going to go get some green tea, because it's far superior to black tea. Take that, England.

"Nobody hates England." - Mr. Russon

I know I don't. A. A. Milne, after all, is English.

What would you say?

I am the bowl of petunias that said "Oh no, not again."

The voice of Men Who Know Better is ringing in my ears. I can't get it out. "TO REDUCE RISK OF FIRE. USE ONLY FPL BULB.RATED 18WATTS."

(They use all-capital letters to simplify things. It's a linga franca thing.)

Turns out it was the wrong light anyway.

Goddammit, Switzerland

Now Serving Racism

Go back to being my dreamy European socialist utopia, you silly bastards. :(

The black sheep refers to hoodlums? Oh! Well, that's fine then.

The Brief Epic Ballad of Koroibos the Cook

by Me

Koroibos quick, of Elis born,
was in Hellas with gold adorned
thirty-eight score years and sixteen
'ere the common era was on the scene.

Over six-hundred feet he crossed
faster than the others, who lost
in Olympia that first time.
Koroibos was a runner fine!

Zeno notes with civility
"Complete divisibility"
impairs runner's ability,
but his paradoxes are silly.

The Athletae began with cheese
but later on luscious meet seized
to feed the swift human machine
they might even feast on goat's spleen!

But before any of these things,
the story of the cleats and wings
starts with Achaean Koroibos,
and now I need some rooibos.


Sources for this Historical Poem -
- http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/SportScience.htm ("Hellenica," by Michael Lahanas)
- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ArgComDiv (Zeno's Paradoxes in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- http://www.athleticscholarships.net/history-of-track-and-field.htm (College Athletic Scholarships, a recruiting service)

Link Resources for PHL 356 Exam III

"Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts" (1)

"Inside Deep Throat" (12)

"Harrison Bergeron" (17)

Where Evil

Now Serving a day that continues to live in infamy

Like alike - but different,
differently*

Impractical glass,
waxing with colors
that flow spontaneously
to the perfect demands
of particular, irretrievable
lines, today snapped
and became unwhole.

Only a friend can give
some life, without all.
Cruelty comes of limit:
measured in time,
we're unwhole: snapped
on both ends.

Nowhere better
is the victim the perpetrator
than the death of my friend,
not by shattering neglect
but by singling name.


*philosophical maxim from Aristotle

Post-Apocalyptic Weather

My window is presenting itself terribly.
The sky is in fascist uniform,
and the gates to the sun are locked.
White muck subdues the black tiled roof,
and the ruckus of the Thermo Kings
is the only sound, save for the rattling
of dissipating slush leaving gutters.

My window is presenting itself terribly.
It's abandoned the yellow star
I respectfully preferred
in favor of a nature that
I can't handle.


I think calling someone a "feminazi" is like complaining about the weather. Just because you think it should be sunny and warm all the time doesn't mean it is.

I've got a window to the cafeteria.
If I open the glass shutters,
I can sniff through and smell the
oven-cooked Gordon Food Service pizzas,
the grilled Angus steak patties,
the MSU Bakery cookies.

It's terrible because
if I open the glass shutters,
I can stop and listen to the
polemical discourse of birds.
As a follower of avian politics, I find the
olfactory advertising distracting.

I Want a Good, Clean, Fight

Now Serving Tazo Green Tea

I went to Debra Nails' boot camp.

Writing philosophy is
checking an airplane before takeoff.

No Scare Quotes

No Ad Hominems

No Straw Men

No Sentention or Sarcasm

No Rhetorical Cliche

Writing philosophy is
drilling muscle memory for fun.

We give to the imagination with excellence.

Service Learning Speech

Finally, a sunny day! I was about to move to Australia.

Service Learning

Based on goals and principles:
- to construct a sense of civic responsibility in students
~ emphasize duty rather than ambiguous "charity"
- to give students hands-on, subject-related experience in the world as part of an education
~ Peter Block's theory of education relates to experience of teaching middle school debate
- to build good relations with the community and successfully respond to a significant community need

-paraphrased from Communication as Critical Inquiry in Service-Learning, by Spoma Jovanovic (2003).

In order to construct civic responsibility,
- encourage independence
~ make students take the initiative - it's beneficial if the student can provide own
transportation, resources, ideas, etc.
- encourage original theory
~ having students do theory will ensure their most thorough understanding of the class topics, as well as the political philosophy of civic service
~ students can apply real-world experiences as a form of research (keeping in mind the dangers of anecdotal evidence in some instances)

Mundane work:
- alone, not legitimate
- in conjunction with other activity (and continuing to meet other criteria), this is legitimate
~ mundane work is after all part of the "real world"
~ can accomplish all of our goals
- Example: letter data entry

Acknowledge overlap of personal and political:
- Allow students to advocate a political perspective with their research
~ ensure that community need is still met, regardless
- Encourage political discourse (or political philosophy) as part of class discussion
and reflection

I Will Now Deliberate With You

Edit: Comment criticism is legit; this argument's main premise is shoddy

Someone in the RCAH said to me, "People don't use simple sentences any more, and it makes me sad."

Now Serving Deep-Fried Parents

The argument for deliberative democracy is a very strong one, and in most circumstances I don't hold that it faces very legitimate opposition. A directly democratic process that simply lists options and calls for votes is more subject to irrationality than a deliberative one. With deliberation, argument allows for the force of reason - which is firmly entrenched in the most common of minds as the best and solely legitimate support for democratic options, as opposed to the popularity of the speaker or novelty of the option - to enter the collective consciousness of the deliberating group.

As Terence Beck writes in "The Music of Deliberation," deliberation gives citizens a chance to listen to each other, expand the volume of their considerations, and weigh both the ethical as well as practical implications of an option. As each citizen expresses a unique concern, all the concerns involved with an issue become relevant. We move away from hastily-adopted positions based on rhetoric, and towards concise positions based on the unique circumstances of a given problem.

Beck's anecdotal example of the deliberative process clearly shows its strengths. He saw that opposing sides "seemed to stop asking 'how can I win?' and started asking 'What should we do?' The letters, phone calls, and lobbying ceased." Not only was a solution arrived at, but resources (material as well as temporal) that would have been spent on endless fighting were saved for better use.

While it's clear that deliberation is far superior to the war-like, competitive direct-democracy approach, I oppose its use in parent-teacher relationships. I'll simply say that teachers are very obviously more qualified to make decisions regarding education than parents. Parents come from all walks of life; while some are well-educated, others are not only ignorant, but simply wrong on educational issues.

Our educational institutions, as a whole, have come to certain conclusions about their field. Everyone involved is certainly not on the same page, and they have disagreements, but their disagreements come within a reasonable range. It's an academic subject, in which their is dialogue - or, to use a more appropriate term, deliberation - among scholars in the field. One cannot advocate for a position and expect to be heard without first having read lengthy, detailed articles about hundreds (if not thousands) of other positions. There is no conclusion or widely-accepted opinion in the educational institution that hasn't come from a long, deliberative process in which every participating member has spent a lifetime studying the subject.

To bring this down to teachers, consider that public school teachers have to become re-certified every few years, going back to school to study the academic subject of education. At higher levels, studying a subject is (to some extent) participating in the scholarly deliberation about it. What I'm getting at is not only that teachers have expertise and training that the common parent simply doesn't have, but that the deliberation has already been done. A democratic process, of a sort, has already taken place, well before ideas or systems have been brought to bear on schools. It took place with the appropriate participants (unlike deliberations involving parents), people who have a lot of knowledge to feed into the deliberative reasoning machine.

Let's take a look, again, at Beck's anecdotal example. When the interests of general education clashed with the interests of music education, there wasn't a compromise so much as there was a sacrifice in another area, recess. I'm sure that sixth-grade students, who are known for having no opinions about their education and never disagreeing with their parents or teachers, were extremely pleased with that result. I'm sure that they brought their squeaky strings and quacking horns to music class with bright eyes, bushy tails and aspirations of becoming concert musicians (and, of all people, wouldn't be distracted by thoughts of outside-playing that they're missing out on).

As long as I'm on this, I feel obliged to state my own position on the subject of music and general education. While I can't speak for the specific situation of Terence Beck's school, I (ironically enough) agree with the parents' stance in more general circumstances - that music should be taught during school. The education provided to children at that age ought not to focus on the hard knowledge of math and science; it should be more concerned with teaching children how to learn, and helping them grow. If that's our goal, then our achievement of it hinges less on what is taught, and more on how it is taught.

There does appear to be a disconnect in my argument - if teachers are more qualified than parents, then why am I siding with the parents? I'll note again that I'm not actually taking a side in the case of Beck's school, but rather in a broader national debate; I don't know enough details to speak authoritatively about that school's situation. Nor, in fact, do I have much authority at all in the national debate - which brings me to my original point. I'm not a certified teacher; I have a neglible amount of experience assisting teachers in private, religiously-oriented classes, and certainly no degree. When the question of music and general education in public schools comes up, my opinion comes without the extensive backround of an experienced and certified educator.

While Beck's argument for the deliberative process clearly shows its superiority to the directly democratic process, it doesn't show why it is that parents' opinions should be involved.

Net Neutrality Brief

Net Neutrality

According to Columbia law professor Tim Wu, the definition of network neutrality "is that a maximally useful public information network [the internet] aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally." Advocates of net neutrality (NN) want legislation that prevents privately-owned internet service providers (ISPs) from limiting or blocking access to particular websites. They argue that NN prevents ISPs from having monopolistic power over internet services, as well as the ability to effectively censor websites.

Critics of net neutrality argue that it amounts to regulation and censorship that will be detrimental to competition. In the past, they've advocated for legislation opposed to NN, and have allies in the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.

Federally, no legislation has been passed in congress either way, but the FTC has said that it will not enforce net neutrality, and there are some reports of ISPs "breaching" net neutrality. In Michigan, net neutrality became an issue when advocates opposed HB 6456 (2006), more well-known as a telecommunications and cable bill.

For Net Neutrality
- Broadly seen as the "Democrats' position"
- Supported by Google, the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, Consumers Union, American Library Association, Christian Coalition of America, ACLU, and Teamsters, among others
- The pro-NN grassroots coalition is at http://www.savetheinternet.com, and a group of pro-NN corporations is at http://www.openinternetcoalition.com

Against Net Neutrality
- Broadly seen as the "Republicans' position"
- Supported by the Center for Individual Freedom, American Conservative Union, National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, Comcast, and Verizon, among others
- Industry-backed anti-NN websites can be found at http://netcompetition.org and http://handsoff.org

Sources
http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/ (Search for HB 6456 of 2006)
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/neutrality.shtm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376597/

Bubbles (RCAH 292)

Now Serving Sad Face

The immediate concern I have with John Eger's theory of creativity and economy is its unwarranted optimism. The idea that humanity is naturally progressing to a new era of prosperity and creativity, and that the United States' massive job losses due to outsourcing can be saved by Silicon Valley, seems to be evoking the blind and historically embarrassing predictions of the enlightenment. It was once popular to assert that the industrial revolution would eventually lead to a utopian world, where automation and mass production would provide enough for everyone. We've certainly seen, particularly after World War Two, that there is no magic pill for the timeless ills of society (especially poverty), with which we can passively sit back and watch things fix themselves. The best and most significant contribution to any solution is active, human effort to pursue not only prosperity, but also justice.

Admittedly, this isn't a fair evaluation of Eger's entire piece. He does argue that cities who want to compete in the new internet-economy will have to invest in educating its citizens about the internet, as well as stimulate creativity and civic pride. I couldn't agree with him more, and the abundance of data he provides makes for strong evidence. But he fails to address the very real roadblocks that exist, other than the obvious commonly-entrenched opinion that the arts have no value. Nowhere in his article does he consider the raging debate over who will provide internet service in the United States, and how that service will be provided. Many cities that have attempted to provide free municipal wireless internet have met stiff and pervasive resistance from telecomm giants, who obviously have an interest in keeping the internet private. One such case is the city of Philadelphia, and the result was that "the governor of Pennsylvania last week signed into law a controversial bill that includes, among myriad items, a provision giving incumbent carriers the ability to prevent cities from creating and charging for municipal Wi-Fi networks." The bill was strongly advocated-for by Verizon, who agreed to allow the city of Philadelphia's municipal Wi-Fi to move forward in exchange. The result was that the rest of the state was doomed to remain under the heel of privately-controlled internet.

And the term "privately-controlled internet" takes on another meaning altogether when we consider the fading of net neutrality (which I'm not going to waste space explaining; if you don't know about it yet, that really is your problem and you should go here immediately). With the FTC more or less controlled by telecomm giants ("I . . . question the starting assumption that government regulation, rather than the market itself under existing laws, will provide the best solution to a problem," says FTC Chair Deborah Platt Majoras, utilizing the terminology of Comcast, AT&T and Verizon), net neutrality is not being enforced. ISPs are already moving on that information, with Comcast blocking bittorrent traffic (much of which is wholly legal, such as an employer distributing information to employees, or software developers distributing patches to their customers).

None of this is mentioned by John Eger; his article was so dearth of anything regarding net neutrality that it almost seems I've gone off-course in evaluating it. But I haven't, because if telecomm giants can control what consumers access on the internet, there can be none of Eger's creativity. All the excitement over user-created content, the sort of "internet populism" that fuels optimistic arguments such as Eger's, fails to recognize that without net neutrality, the internet will slowly grow more like television, with content regulated by the gate-keepers at large media corporations. And to the extent that the internet is influenced by the United States, this will have repercussions around the globe.

RCAH 292 - Reflections on Service Learning

Now Serving Trader Joe's Assam Tea

Possibly the strongest element of my community engagement work this semester is "democracy." Between helping a state representative process the demands of his constituents and teaching middle school debate, I'm confident that my work will facilitate the democratic process.

Reading Spoma Jovanovic's Communication as Critical Inquiry in Service-Learning with a thought to whether my service learning met her criteria, I'm relieved to find that it does, and I likewise see a stronger direction and purpose for community engagement than I did before. Jovanovic connects community with politics, discourse and disagreement, all necessary elements of human life that need to be dealt with. She further posits that service learning teaches students about the duties of a citizen in a democratic society, an approach that I hadn't considered, seeing community service as a sort of ethically optional good deed. These different approaches mirror the distinction made in the article between charity and service learning - where charity is an act of kindness towards the disenfranchised, service learning attempts to solve those problems that necessitate charity (and not out of "kindness" so much as civic duty).

What Jovanovic says in the section "Critical Inquiry Probing Social Justice," I'm cautiously enthusiastic about. In the context of our debate class, "building awareness of the social problems in our community" could be done by exposing students to the political and philosophical arguments surrounding these problems. My concern with this is more practical than abstract - our teacher liason at the Montessori school strikes me as someone whose political views would be incompatible with those that want to change the structure of society (although of course I could be totally wrong). All the same, some of the schools we work with might unfriendly to the notion of building awareness for a number of reasons, and perhaps even (in extreme cases) feel that we sort of "suckered" them into what they thought would be an innocuous debate class, and is instead a tool for "brainwashing" their kids. I don't think this means we should remove the social justice element of service learning (I think awareness needs to be spread regardless of these practical risks), I merely think it means that we should be both cautious and transparent, and obviously present both sides of the issues we present.

In the context of my volunteering at the capitol, spreading an awareness of social inequities and injustices should be a natural result of volunteering for a liberal politician like Andy Meisner.

I was encouraged by what Jovanovic had to say about inviting surprises. She seemed to focus more on the surprise of students realizing that they were capable of causing social change, and certainly the anecdotes of students going on to continue their work after their service-learning semester make me hopeful, but most significant for me was the idea that surprises would "enable responsibility to emerge for the students." I expect that exposure to the unexpected events of the real world will be a valuable experience, and help me develop my ability to deal with crises. Certainly that's an ability that's extremely important to bureaucrats, and the volunteer job for Andy Meisner might be thought of as "Junior Bureaucrat," although I expect that the debate classes will give me a great deal more of that "valuable experience," due in part to the unpredictable nature of children.

A final important element of Jovanovic's article, which I had again not considered, was the consideration of communication in service-learning. In the academy, there is more or less only one way of speaking, and this helps to facilitate understanding between scholars; in the real world, there are as many different ways of speaking as there are divisions of people. In the capitol, I hope to learn how to communicate effectively within politics (and already have to some extent, as Andy taught me the distinction between "luxuries" and "amenities" in the context of current tax legislation), and in debate I will have renewed exposure to parents, children and teachers of a school community (and more or less my first exposure as something of an adult). Certainly my first day teaching debate showed me the importance of using language that's accessible to and holds the attention of middle schoolers.

Unbought and Unbossed

Shirley Chisholm!

"I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black."

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: 'It's a girl.'"

"One distressing thing is the way men react to women who assert their equality: their ultimate weapon is to call them unfeminine. They think she is anti-male; they even whisper that she's probably a lesbian."

The quotes are from here.

The awesome is from here.

Ring Ring

It Wasn't Making Enough Money

I think that if people ran themselves like fully capitalist countries, they would have no interest in taking care of themselves.

High Source of Iron

"Islamofascism" is kind of its own punchline, don't you think?

Security Level Code Spoiler

It continues to begin.

Comcast shows no restraint. There really are such things as good companies, I think, and perhaps I'd even say there are a lot of ethically decent large companies out there. Most of them seem to have set some limits for themselves.

Comcast does not. Time and time again, they make it obvious: contract clauses attempting to remove the customer's right to sue after thirty days, nonsense with the Big Ten network (because Big Ten didn't fall in line with their monopoly), inconsistent and monopolistically half-assed service, and of course the height of their crimes, which is the continued destruction of net neutrality.

Ethical citizens in this country should do everything in their power to avoid using Comcast for their internet service, and should likewise do everything in their power to take legal action against Comcast's monopolistic regime.

DUMBLEDORE IS GAY, undoubtedly the next "Snape Kills Dumbledore!" internet-fad.

And will the book-burners not have a field day as well? If this were some kind of eleventh-hour attempt to keep public attention as the books come to a close, it wouldn't be a bad one.

As it happens, it looks like Rowling is going to move beyond fantasy, having announced that she plans to continue writing. I admit I find it admirable that she's continuing to do what she wants, knowing full well that the public wants more Harry Potter, and that she could continue making lots of money down the sickening road of selling her soul to fanatical fandom. Perhaps good karma will give her non-fantasy books a strong showing as well? Perhaps she's a Great Writer? We do know one thing for certain: Dumbledore likes men! Ahahahahahaha!

Gameday at the Hyper Bowl

Now Serving Amway Tea: Because We're Everywhere

Lawsuit!

"The Ada Township-based multi-level marketing giant this week filed a sweeping suit in Ottawa County Circuit Court against 30 people classified as John Does for disparaging the company in blogs, online forums and YouTube videos."

Were they disparaging them as sexist? Where are the "Jane Does?"

"...The company is planning to ask the court to approve subpoenas of companies ranging from godaddy.com to YouTube to figure out who posted the materials, said spokesman Rob Zeiger."

AMWAY EXECUTIVES REGULARLY MASTICATE AND DIGEST INFANTS WITHOUT CAUSE.

Eyes Adjust

Now Serving Celestial Seasonings Coconut Chai Tea

What does the opinion "no one has a good system of government [my emphasis]" reveal about our education system?

(a) Senior pranks cause world disasters
(b) We have an overpopulation of llamas
(c) There are too many multiple-choice questions
(d) It is full of lies about the world

Are you a freshman? RTFM

Aaron Carter was in my class wearing a Darfur shirt, but I wonder if this will last longer than four years. Live Earth was a goofy college fling, a memory of wilder days that will get stored in the global attic and hidden from the kids.

Say "What" Again!

Now Serving Swiss Tea

So, George W. Bush is still the president. If I were around Sammy J, I'd be Swiss cheese by now.

Speaking of the Swiss, they have awesome public bathrooms. (That's one-way glass if you're wondering.) When it comes to European water closets, people always seems to be getting excited about the Russians and Fins, but I tell you, don't count out the Swiss. It's not just chocolate and watches any more! And you can be sure that these toilets are cleaned in a punctual fashion.*

Our president should visit a Swiss bathroom, to collect ideas for our own excremental infrastructure. Then he should stick his head in and flush incessantly. Or just shoot himself in the face, that would work too (metaphorically speaking).

HOLY "crude political hyperbole" BATMAN, IT'S A FELONY!

Fortunately, this blog is not unlike a Swiss public bathroom - it's awesome, surrounded by one-way glass, occasionally full of shit, and ever so socialist (but not really?)!

Someday, if I am teaching philosophy of language, I will use Pulp Fiction to help get my students "into it." I will ask:

Which of these sentences is correct: "Say what again!" or "Say 'what' again!"

Students who answer incorrectly will, naturally, be shot by Samuel L. Jackson. He'll ask them if I (the teacher) look like a bitch, and when they say "no," he will say "then why did you try to fuck him like a bitch?" (The women and gay men in my class will, at this point, begin giggling.) The students will think this is very cool, and I will be beloved across campus by all.

In closing, Bruce Springsteen is pretty awesome, isn't he?

*Edit: Who better than John Hersey to explain the reason behind these novelties? Recalling that in Switzerland (and much of Europe) public bathrooms sometimes have a small charge, he noted that nothing ensures a high turnover-rate in a bathroom like the feeling that everyone out in the street can see you - or, if the government charges per minute, such a toilet booth might also make money from creepier customers who spend a good forty-five minutes in it while there's a cute girl in the cafe across the street.

Sammitch

Ann Coulter makes baby Jesus cry. Also, she makes the population cry with her terrible attention-grabbing theories. More here.

STFU and disappear,
that is all.

Regarding the "WWASD - 'What Would an Angry Scotsman Do?'" Dormitory Door-Mounted Spinner

Now Serving Brodies Tea of Edinburgh

...
the answers were like "brawl" "eat haggis" and "kick a sheep"
what would an angry scotsman do
kick a sheep is my favorite
if I were an angry scotsman, I would get my kicks from kicking sheep
I would go a-sheep-kicking, terrorizing the countryside and kicking unsuspecting sheep
shepherds would whisper my name with awe and fear
the mysterious kilted figure running around screaming like a madman and kicking sheep
some call him the demon of the hills
others call him things not appropriate to say in polite company
but none can deny he is one ferocious sheep-kicking motherfucker
that would be me
except I'm a schmuck from the midwest, so my spinner is like "listen to an iPod" "play video games" "smoke"
gotta go, I desperately want to play the scots in medieval II

RCAH 292/PHL 356 - Instrumentality and Lessons of Feminism

Peter Block's discussion of the instrumental imperative makes the subtle argument ("subtle" if for no other reason than his vague style) that socializing forces in American society have the purpose of molding each person into an instrument. The implications of this argument are far-reaching; nothing could fly in the face of our American self-image more than the idea that we are instruments rather than self-determining individuals.

To sort of take Block's argument for a "test drive," I'd like to look at one of the largest socializing factors in America (and indeed the rest of the world) from his instrumental perspective. While he is concerned with the sorts of jobs we're raising people to fill (his economist/engineer archetypes), there's another element to this instrumentality.

The common understanding of feminism is that it's the cause of womens' equal rights, but what we can learn from feminist philosophy goes a bit further. We quickly learn that women face the socialization of society from the moment they are born - dressed in pink rather than blue, given effeminate toys to play with, receiving messages about what a woman is from her mother and later television, school, and other children. Women today are still given the message that they belong in the private sphere, that they are not intelligent, that they must be a dependent of a husband, and that as a result of this dependency the most important thing for them is to be attractive to men.

Obviously these messages have been diluted and broken up by the feminist movement, but they remain strong and surprisingly prevalent (despite the common misconception to the contrary). This seems to relate somewhat to instrumentality regarding women, but the lessons of feminism are in fact useful for looking at every person. With the two genders viewed in a hierarchy as something of symmetrical opposites, what is "feminine" is often defined as what is "not manly;" it's likewise the case that men are expected to exhibit traits that are "not feminine." If women are emotional and irrational, then to be rational men must suppress their emotions. If women are more inclined towards art or other pursuits of immeasurable, impractical value, then manly pursuits are those which are practical or measurably productive.

That brings us more directly to Block's idea of instrumentality. While the concept does include socialization, we don't see gender socialization helping to form people into instruments until we look at the "reflection of sexism." By suppressing emotions and pursuing what is practical and measurable, men in our society are socialized to be instruments - effective workers who can have technical expertise without thinking too much about impractical, "feminine" concerns (art, philosophy, introspection, etc.) which might distract them from their work (that is to say, lead them to question the status quo, as Block does).

I should, of course, clarify what I mean with "reflection of sexism." By no means is it true that men have faced socialization equivalent to that faced by women; to paraphrase Simone de Beauvoir, the genders are symmetrical only on paper. It's often the case that things considered to be "normal, human" things are relegated to males, whereas females are seen as an inhuman other. This adds further problems to the socialization of men I've outlined above; liberated women in modern times sometimes come to believe that all "manly" traits are "normal" traits for a person to have, and as they adopt those traits themselves, these liberated women are likewise made instruments. They were not raised with the socialization of a man, but all the same, they come to value the suppression of emotion and pursuit of only practical, measurable goals. It might even be said that woman professionals feel the need to prove that they belong in male-dominated worlds of business by exhibiting those super-pragmatic traits.

We're seeing that gender socialization has immense impact, and I would argue that gender socialization is equal to the socializing forces Block identifies in public education as a molder of human instruments. How, in fact, could this impact not be immense? All of humanity is divided into these two genders, and the more difference that we enforce upon them, the more we'll find that our identities are informed by them. Considering the public schools that cut arts or philosophy in favor of math and science, this could even be seen from a feminist perspective: since "manly" traits are seen by many as "normal," our schools' curricula are bound to pursue the creation of people who have those traits. Math and science are indeed valued so highly that the majority of students in some places are in advanced classes; the "normal" classes become the ones that are "slow." (It was like that at my High School.) We rightly encourage girls to learn about math and science, rejecting residual sexist notions that women are incapable in these areas, but in so doing we also continue to push our children towards becoming instruments as per Block's explanation.

I've explained how our misogynistic institutions contribute to the instrumentality of all. How, then, can we help solve the instrumental problem with a feminist solution?

The reality is that what we consider "manly" isn't necessarily "normal," despite what we may think. I suggest that, instead of turning into "men," women in our society should join men in considering that our conceptions of both "manly" and "feminine" are severely flawed. We're not even completely certain that there are only two genders (at birth, babies who seem to have "mixed" genitalia are surgically changed to fit one of the two sexes whose existence we accept). It's not that easy, of course; any decision impacted by one's gender identity will still appear to be a "free choice." But if we can educate ourselves about the nature of gender/sex relations and work to change the socializing forces that separate men and women into predefined categories, we may be able to mitigate or even remove one of the obstacles to "acting on what matters" and living a meaningful life.

Newses and newses of newses

Now Serving Trader Joe's Orange Spice Rooibos Herbal Tea

Bill O'Reilly says he's being smeared; he should get a kerchief

Check this out: "If you listened to the full hour," says O'Reilly, "it was a criticism of racism on the part of white Americans who are ignorant of the fact that there is no difference between white and black anymore" [my emphasis].

Remember when Peter from Family Guy got a job as an opinionated talk show host?

Meanwhile, take a gander at what our Democratic congress is doing! Now I can go to Hell comfortable in the knowledge that it will be very, very frozen over. While I'm at it, did you know that Michigan (interestingly the home of Hell) is one of few states without a state-level mental health parity bill?

Civilization at its finest!

RCAH 292 - Citizenship

Now Serving caaaafffeeeeeiiinnnnnnee as a disclaimer

The middle class is shifting into reverse.

It's driving itself, wholly backwards, down a highway in Michigan. We see it pass the prosperous Flint of years past, on its way to the Flint of today that begins to grow larger in the rear-view mirror. We see that the driver is facing forwards, gazing down the road, apparently not noticing that the yellow dashes are flitting towards the horizon rather than from it. We are concerned for the safety of the passengers, as driving backwards on the highway is generally thought to be somewhat unsafe, but our concerns are wasted - the middle class rolls in a station wagon built like a tank, and even if it weren't, this Michigan highway on which the middle class drives recently installed a system that doesn't allow cars to stray from the paved path. There is absolute safety and negligible effort.

Getting off the metaphors, it's clear that the American middle class faces a significant list of problems. More and more, members of the middle class are finding themselves not only in debt, but without an understanding of how debt works. We are privy not to knowledge about world events, but rather to infinitely inferior news (which, unlike the objective reality of the world, is more or less artificial). We have a commonly held belief that work is meant to be a suffering experience for which we're compensated by a paycheck. Our apathy regarding world events, finally, translates to an apathy for participation in government. This means that we no longer see ourselves as owners of the government, but rather as subjects.

To put it most dramatically, it seems to me that we're slipping very slowly into serfdom. So when I read Peter Block's argument that we should "define ourselves as citizens," I saw a connection.

In theory, all the citizens of our Republic are joint and equal owners of the government. (If you've ever wondered why "public" sometimes seems to be synonymous with "government," that would be why.) It's no secret that this isn't the case in reality, but if we hold ourselves to that ideal, it can have a number of positive results for us. Considering ourselves citizens will familiarize us with the idea that we have a right to influence public policy, as well as the duty to do so. It reminds us that we are equal under the law, and when we see the law applied unequally based on class or race, keeping ourselves grounded in the idea of citizenship allows us to react to that unfairness with outrage, even after we've seen it so many times as to be unsurprised. A citizen demands justice; a serf accepts injustice. Or as Block puts it, a citizen acts on their values; a serf acts on the principle of survival.

Here now is another significant problem regarding the direction of the middle class. We will see if citizenship can help us address it. The world of the middle class is a world of security; our experience of mortal danger is so rare (thanks to our own efforts) that some of us never face it in the entirety of our existence. It follows that we do not expect to face mortal danger personally; it might even be said that we have forgotten our own mortality. Could there be a set of circumstances under which death becomes more terrifying?

Our mortality hasn't forgotten us of course, and while our experience of mortal danger is rare,
our experience of death is not: we are surrounded by stories of frightful disasters or terrorist plots, which each painfully remind us (having forgotten) that we will die. The way in which this fear contributes to our slide into serfdom is obvious; the role of a feudal Lord in his relationship with peasants is that of protection.

Citizenship may be able to help us regarding this by way of its duties. Where the subjects would demand the ruler's protection, the citizens demand this protection of each other. In grounding ourselves in the notion that we are all citizens, we see that the protectors of our country (the President, a significant bureaucracy, and of course the military) are our legal equals; citizens protect citizens. Again, this is obviously only true in theory, but as before, holding ourselves to an ideal enables us to continue striving for it.

I'm Actually Not Admitting Anything

Now Serving The Man, in the face

Descartes argues that, epistemelogically, an individual can only be certain of one thing: the individual exists. Thus comes his famous phrase "Cogito Ergo Sum," along with an excuse for high school philosophy classes to watch The Matrix. The idea is more or less that we go about our daily lives treating as certain those things which are "certain, but not really," because of course otherwise we couldn't function.

This means that what was once utterly and totally impossible is now merely "extremely, extremely unlikely" (with of course the exception of the only impossibility one can be sure is genuinely impossible, that one does not exist). Nothing about this is quite wholly agreed upon by everyone, of course, but this isn't a philosophy paper.

No, this is a list of some statements which fit the category of "extremely, extremely unlikely," dismissers of which are accused of being close-minded.

"No one has ever been on the moon."
"A secret cabal of Jews runs the world."
"Aliens landed at Area 52 and they now control the government."
"The Lions will win the Super Bowl this year."

Ah, the Lions. It amazes me every year, how they manage to convince people that they have a shot at being good. I guess sometimes the first converts don't realize that they're also the first true believers.

Enough of that, though - on with the list!

"Evolution is a false theory."
"Global Warming does not exist."
"Global Warming exists, but has not been facilitated by humans."
"The Earth is flat." (Yes, real people really advocate this belief, just like the others.)

Just a quick break here - do you suppose it's possible that, between two patently ridiculous statements, one of the statements is even more patently ridiculous than the other? If you were trying to get people to believe something patently ridiculous, would you create a fringe group that advocates something even more ridiculous to make yourself look normal by comparison?

But I digress! Back to the list...

"Creationism accurately shows how the world came into being."
"Intelligent Design accurately and scientifically shows how the world came into being."

And one last jab!

"A teapot is in orbit around the planet."

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. Disregard that.

Anyway, the point of this isn't that religion is bad - the point is that we need to stop dismissing these ridiculous statements outright as "impossible." They ARE possible. Instead of immediately branding them "impossible," we should take a closer look, and then say "These beliefs are so unlikely as to be worth no consideration." And it's true. They're not worth consideration.

OH MY GOD, THE SCARECROWS ARE WALKING AND TALKING AND PREACHING INTELLIGENT DESIGN!

Polemics

Now Serving An Ass-Kicking, Courtesy of Simone de Beauvoir

"In September 1948, in one of his articles in the Figaro littéraire, Claude Mauriac - whose great originality is admired by all - could write regarding woman: 'We listen on a tone [sic!] of polite indifference...to the most brilliant among them, well knowing that her wit reflects more or less luminously ideas that come from us.' Evidently the speaker referred to is not reflecting the ideas of Mauriac himself, for no one knows of his having any. It may be that she reflects ideas originating with men, but then, even among men there are those who have been known to appropriate ideas not their own, and one can well ask whether Claude Mauriac might not find more interesting a conversation reflecting Descartes, Marx, or Gide rather than himself. What is really remarkable is that by using the questionable we he identifies himself with St. Paul, Hegel, Lenin, and Nietzsche, and from the lofty eminence of their grandeur looks down disdainfully upon a bevy of women who make bold to converse with him on a footing of equality. In truth, I know of more than one woman who would refuse to suffer with patience Mauriac's 'tone of polite indifference.'"

RCAH 292 - Idealism, Intimacy, and Depth

Continuing to outline the values he feels are undervalued by society, Peter Block identifies three important qualities and their antitheses in The Answer to How is Yes: Idealism, Intimacy, and Depth. What exactly those words mean to Block requires some interpretive work on the part of the reader, as the text continues to set an exemplary standard for speaking ambiguity to power. That's not to say it has no meaning, however.

Initially promoting idealism, Block explains it as the opposite of cynicism*, continuing to argue that we've lost track of what we really value. In prioritizing power (to use my own words), we set everyone up to not only do what is strictly "practical," but to expect the same from others, and this creates a system in which all of our desires are commercialized (not just material desires, but desires for our lives) and our institutions fail due to the presumption of self-interest.

"Practical" can be interpreted a number of ways and, in this context, needs explication. As Block uses the word, "practical" means "what is most effective for increasing my power" (i.e. that which is expedient, has a good payoff, increases my status, is more convenient, etc.). He thereby appears to argue that applying reason is equivalent to being pessimistic, even identifying himself as "unrealistic," as if to say that realism is actually bad.

It seems wiser to me, however, to not throw out practicality or reason off the bat, nor mistake them for pessimism. If we have lost track of our real values in the way Block says (something that I think is true for many people, if not necessarily the majority), then we should reclaim those real values - our idealism; our desire for things as the way they should be - and then set goals based on them, which would be pursued using reason and practicality. What's practical for achieving a goal based on personal values may not be practical in the sense that it increases an individual's power. In other words, we can remain practical while still adhering to the core of Block's quality of idealism.

One sentence in the text struck me as essential to the entire concept: "We are acting on our deficiencies rather than on capacities." This reveals an underlying current of negativity vs. positivity in Block's writing - not in their vernacular sense of "good" and "bad," but more in the sense of affirmation and refutation, with positive referring to what is and negative referring to what is not.

I can't seem to determine whether Block is suggesting that we should abandon negative thought, or merely that we favor it too heavily. Either way, it's uncontroversially true when he says (in not so few words) that our society prioritizes negative thought.

This heavily invokes Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a triangular representation of human needs, with the highest priorities being on the bottom. Indeed, nearly all of the physiological needs in Maslow's Hierarchy are negative: breathing, eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting, and maintaining internal stability are all for the sake of not dying. The only positive physiological need hierarchy is the need for sex.

Block's idealism argument could either reject or agree with Maslow's Hierarchy. In rejecting it, Block would simply argue that some or all of the other need categories (self-actualization, esteem, love/belonging, and safety) are as important as physiological needs, and that we've misguidedly suppressed them. In agreeing with the hierarchy, Block's argument could remain potent considering that we expect modern civilization to provide for all our needs, and that at least in the industrialized world, we may be able to give everyone the ability to satisfy the entire hierarchy.

Concerning intimacy, Block's writing becomes the most specific and coherent. Accordingly, I find myself reacting strongly, whether I agree or disagree, to his intimacy-related arguments, and have enjoyed this chapter the most of those I've read so far.

He begins the discussion of intimacy by explaining that he means something specific by it: reclaiming the value of empirical senses, for their own sake. A return to intimacy means a return to aesthetic values and taste - a consideration for and sensitivity to the nuances of sounds, sights, smells, and textures around us. It also means an emphasis on human contact.

It's here that I find the argument problematic. While I agree that human contact is more valuable than society as a whole gives it credit, I don't believe it's entirely appropriate to blame technology for the lack of it, as Block does. Because technology allows us to communicate more expediently, the argument is that it replaces communication that required human contact previously, and this removes too much human contact from our lives.

In "Language Death," David Crystal argues in favor of the preservation of the world's languages. In response to the argument that we could communicate more expediently by sticking to a single lingua franca, he states: "...if one language does, through some process of linguistic evolution, become the world's lingua franca - a status which most people feel is likely to be held by English - it does not follow that this must be at the expense of other languages." Similarly, the use of new technology to facilitate communication merely allows us to spend less time on the communicative logistics of life. I would argue that technology must be used responsibly, and it's our responsibility to ensure that we spend time in physically proximate social settings. If we were to replace these with technological social settings (as Block feels we are doing), it wouldn't be the "fault" of our technology.

Continuing with David Crystal's "Language Death" to counter Block's anti-technological argument: "A world in which everyone speaks at least two languages - their own ethnic language and an international lingua franca - is perfectly possible, and...highly desirable. Because the two languages have different purposes - one for identity, the other for intelligibility - they do not have to be in conflict." It is indeed evident among the generation most comfortable with new communications technology that real social interaction is alive and well. In the dormitories, people regularly visit each other or go out together. Pick-up sports aren't uncommon, and there is definitely plenty of physical contact of all varieties. These are the people who are the most exposed to the communications technology that is supposed to turn us into zombies, and yet it's this exposure that has desensitized them to the novelty of it. Once it's no longer anything out of the ordinary, it's not abused (this becomes something similar to the proverbial argument for removing a taboo, e.g. "familiarity with alcohol will reduce alcohol abuse").

With that said, Block offers compelling examples of technology being abused. The anecdote of the Las Vegas restaurant with what was essentially a bio-dome does strike me as obscene, and the terminator gene is likewise horrible and terrifying (in addition to having the stink of economic injustice, if the likes of Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland are in control of all new harvests). Relationship-building websites sound very unethical as well, but the nuance with all of these anecdotes is that they're just that, anecdotes. The fact that he uses these to support his argument are proof that his feelings on each anecdote are in the majority (they appeal to common ground), and people who still use technology quite often would agree that these instances constitute abuse.

Block continues to be atypically concise in his criticism of intimacy being used as a marketing strategy. The dangers of reducing such a major element of the human existence to a marketing strategy are obvious, as he points out, even without the immorality of such a deceitful perversion. I would add to his concerns that the reduction of our intimacy to demographics and measurable categories can be seen in mainstream news-media that try to cover a broad amount of material (Time, Newsweek, CNN, Fox, etc.), where it sometimes seems like the entire world is defined within the rules set by media gatekeepers. They practice the oversimplification of news and avoidance of anything that won't be understood or valued by the lowest common denominator of viewers, and I believe this contributes to Block's problem of fading intimacy.

One final interesting note about intimacy is that in talking about it, Block sees the problem as one that did not previously exist. With his other criticisms of the status quo, he seems to be advocating a shift to something never-before-seen; this chapter stands out so far as uniquely advocating the old ways.

Regarding depth, Block argues both that we undervalue introspection and philosophizing, and that we "need to take time to relax." I find the first argument agreeable, with some nuances; the other is a tired cliche that overestimates the problem.

I certainly agree that our culture doesn't place enough value on introspection, amateur philosophy, or intellectualism. I find it absurd that policy advice from Universities, for example, is considered "ivory tower" or "unlrealistic;" this policy advice is coming from the people who have the most knowledge about the topic! We could return to Maslow's Hierarchy and identify these as the least-prioritized human needs that are under "self-actualization," but I would here have to disagree with both Block and the hierarchy: intense introspection and consideration of philosophy isn't something that everyone can benefit from or is inclined to.

I don't merely believe that we've been socialized out of intellectualism (it's considered unattractive for women of all colors to be intellectual, uncool or unachievable for black men, etc.), but also that some people are not intellectual by nature, and philosophy or introspection are not part of their human experience. We should not judge them less-than-human, consider them to be "missing out," or find it problematic that they're not heavy thinkers. With that said, the socialization that discourages intellectualism must certainly stop as Block argues.

The other element of depth discussed in the chapter was that people have come to worship speed, and apply it even in situations when they don't need to. It seems to me that this amounts to a tired argument (no pun intended), that Americans don't relax enough. Where Block is coming from - the white-collar business world - this might certainly be true, but as with some of his other criticisms, he paints with too broad a brush.

There are many parts of America where people are able to lead productive lives while still taking time to slow down and relax, and plenty of people who might relax even a little too much. Just because there are a number of people who take their laptops and cellphones on vacation with them, it doesn't mean everyone or even the majority do. If there were some sort of comprehensive data provided - something that showed we have an extraordinary count of heart attacks or strokes, combined with a high proportion of people with depression, a high average laborer output, etc. - then this would be something to actually address as a problem with society; otherwise, "people need to take time to relax" is really just good advice.

*"optimism" and "cynicism" seem to be words with a wide variety of meanings. In the case of cynycism, the word comes from the name of a movement in Greek philosophy whose proponents tried to "live like dogs," which had little to do with expecting undesirable outcomes or viewing the world as an unpleasant place. (They advocated rejecting the material world and living shamelessly; legend has it Alexander the Great offered their founder Diogenes anything he wanted, and the latter replied "Stop blocking my sunlight, I'm trying to read.") In this text "cynicism" seems to be the belief that everyone will act in their own self-interest, and that there's no other way to live.

Separation of Church From - wait, "from?"

Now Serving an unfinished Rough Draft, and bad philosophy jokes

I'm finding "from" to be one of those words that sounds odd when you really look at it. That's not at all the reason why I used it in the title of this post. But it's time to do some old school philosophy - philosophy that's done because of having time on your hands. (The kind that's a little amateurish, too, unless you yourself are old school enough to be founding the subject...)

~

The separation of church and state is generally understood to be a two-way wall, preventing each side from interfering with the business of the other. But when there's talk of religion interfering with government, it almost always seems that we're talking about those sneaky Evangelical Christians implementing sinister plots of theocratic purpose. I have yet to see any consideration of the idea that the whole of American religious beliefs, acting in unison, might interfere with the government. It follows obviously that I've neither seen any consideration of that idea without its being immediately judged a bad one.

So, going against every bone in my very secular body (eh, it's late), I'd like to entertain, without passing judgement upon, the idea of a national council representing all (or most) American religious beliefs.

I use "religious beliefs" rather than "religions" to clarify my meaning: Atheism and Agnosticism are no more religions than black and white are colors, but they're certainly beliefs regarding religion. (This should additionally make clear that beliefs*, as I use the word, may be based in fact as well as faith.) So this national religious council would not be limited to religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.; Atheism, Agnosticism, Secular Humanism, and all manner of beliefs regarding religion would have a place on the council.

With that in mind, we come to the first objection: if all religious beliefs are represented, doesn't this council actually represent every single American, and thereby become an absurdly redundant expansion of government? Again, the meaning of "religious beliefs" should be clarified: not all people are involved with their own religious belief. There are millions of casual Christians who hardly ever attend church, atheists who have gone their entire lives without significant religious exposure, and Jews who are confused every time their dad calls to wish them a happy new year outside of January. (Sorry dad!**) I maintain that this kind of casual belief doesn't really constitute a belief at all: casual believers (as I use "casual") necessarily haven't considered the possibility that their beliefs are wrong, are not regularly involved with their belief-groups, and have not experienced a significant spiritual experience (or in secular cases, have not experienced a significant epiphany related to their belief). There are ambiguities with that definition, but they do not hinder its service of my argument. Regardless of where we draw my definition's line on the spectrums of regularity and significance, it's uncontroversial that some people exist who meet all of those criteria.

(I should clarify that a true believer can be unchallenged, irregular or inexperienced - as per the criteria above - but cannot be all at once.)

Having distinguished between casual and true believers, and having limited our national religious council to the representation of true believers, the council is no longer a repetition of existing government. It does face a new problem, however, which may be at the heart of the matter: if the council only represents true believers, it necessarily gives true believers more power than casual believers. Is that something that we want?

~

That's not the end of the essay, but it seems that my leisure time is at an end: I need to get some sleep, and that last question opens up a can of worms that might be more accurately described as a can of graboids. And if you're wondering where to follow those asterisks (now there's a funny word), I couldn't figure out where to put them, the essay not having reached its end. So I saved the, uh...you know...what do you call the thingies that asterisks lead to? Yeah, they're in a TextEdit document waiting for me to finish up here.

Dear Telecomm Companies: Suck It

Now Serving Some Good News, Finally

Hey Look, Publicization

Remember Comcast's Class Action Waiver?

Disney Gave Me Unrealistic Expectations About Sports

Now Serving Nostalgia, in Violation of Health Codes

The first three months of the year
are in my man-made Anniverse.
Oh, sore and raw time,
I still have a shrine for you.

It ends where I was born,
where my parents were crowded out
to look on miserably
while I walked the overlap of growth and death.

After a great loss, they say
the football team is "hungry."
It's the nuance they miss that
sometimes they're not starving; they're starved.

All Your Internet Are Belong to Us

Did you know? Every time Alberto Gonzalez masturbates, God kills a civil liberty.

Peacepipes are long, heavy and swingable

A cell phone bill to protect consumers? Preposterous!

And here's the kind of thing that you'll soon see to stop it, thanks to the likes of AT&T: http://www.handsoff.org/blog/ That would be a website for a completely fake grassroots organization, the kind that lobbying powers create all the time to get what they want, which will soon be the defeat of this cell phone bill.

Sometimes...
"My mom will probably hate reading this, but more than the paycheck or the camaraderie of the locker room, I will really miss the violence." -Princeton grad and former NFL lineman Ross Tucker

RCAH 292 - What Matters

I'm initially at a loss to answer the question, "What Matters?" This alone gives some credence to the argument of Peter Block: that we don't prioritize things that matter enough. It also highlights what seems to be Block's strongest handicap, which is the ambiguity of his writing in The Answer to How is Yes.

To answer Block's questions, we first have to grasp exactly what he's talking about. Frequently using words with controversial or multiple meanings, making generalizations, and staying wholly in the abstract, this text requires some charitable reconstruction. With that in mind, we can take the questions Block presents and articulate the arguments within them.

1. There is more than one acceptable method to accomplish a given task, and our doubts are hindrances to our achieving well-being.

2 & 3. We universally prioritize expediency, and fail to evaluate the amount of commitment - not just in time and money, but in emotional capital - we're willing to make to a given task.

4. In order to enact change, we must take responsibility for our own contributions to the problem and potential solution, rather than dwell overlong on the failures of others.

5. We place too much value on tangible, measurable results, and not enough on personal meaning or things that matter.

6. The experiences of other people are relied upon overmuch in the evaluation of a plan or change, and we should concern ourselves more with what we're trying to achieve.

The underlying theme of all these arguments is a one-dimensional spectrum of sorts in which practicality is pitted against "the experience of being a human being and all that entails," Block's definition of what matters. Despite an abundance of blanket statements to the contrary, Block maintains that practical concerns are valid - just overdone, whereas we spend too little time on philosophical or abstract concerns.

We can return to the original question now with some idea of what that question's meaning is. There can be a personal element to it - with "what matters" varying from person to person - but in the context of this book, it refers to human creativity, ethics, and ideals. Applying that question to my own values - as all way-of-life philosophies should be tested - the answer would be "to pursue political justice, appreciate the experience of life, and weigh every action against those long-term goals." All these are concepts I already aim for; in as much as The Answer to How contributes to them, it helps their cause.

A Great Man Said, "Don't Vote With Your Wallet"

Intersectionality ~ the notion that an individual's human experience is a unique intersection of their various group classifications.

Anti-Essentialism ~ comprehension of the difference between the universal experience of a large group (e.g. women), and the experiences of sub-groups (e.g., where "women" intersects with "black," or "upper-class," etc.) within that large group.

sesquippedalophobia ~ fear of large words.

*BANG!*

The Residential College in the Arts and Humanities Exposes You

Now Serving Numi Gunpowder Green Tea - Try it with your favorite rifle for loads of antioxidant fun!

Yes, one could learn about Kapucha Toli (Stickball)! It's an awesome sport, and you should learn about it.

I think I will wear eye-liner on a regular basis. If any man asks whether I'm gay, I will overtly undress him with my eyes.

Back in Action with Google Terrorist (tm)

Edit: Now Serving an Absent Mind

Feeling that they aren't in enough trouble over potential misuses of Google Earth, the folks over at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway have laid an easter egg in the latest GE update. I like to call it Google Terrorist; it's a new flight simulator that allows users to fly all over God's green earth, or at least satellite images of it.

It's actually a lot of fun; I'm flying towards the Pacific as I write this. But what fascinates me the most is that, with 3D buildings turned on, one can practice flying F16 Vipers into such landmarks as the Empire State Building, the Pentagon, and the White House.

One almost has to think that Google is looking for a fight. What do they think will happen when a major news network (especially Fox) stumbles upon this gem of a story? "New Google Program Tons of Fun! Web 2.0 is awesome! More at Eleven!" I don't think so. This has the potential to make Grand Theft Auto look like Barbie Fashion Designer.

...no, I've never played Barbie Fashion Designer.

...

...except maybe to help my sister when she was stuck.

...

...GODDAMN THIS PINK HIGH-HEEL LOADING SCREEN, TAKE ME TO THE FRIGGIN' FASHION SHOW ALREADY!

...

...man, I still haven't reached the Pacific yet! This is supposed to be Mach 2? Hrm...

You Will Take Their Lies to Your Grave

Now Serving: The World According to People That Want Your Money

Sometimes I think that most of humanity is soulless.

Dugg: "Fox News Caught Editing Wikipedia [Changes Included]"

"Virgil Griffith, a good friend and fellow hacker, reminds us today that anonymity on the internet does not really exist. Finding out that someone from the Fox News network changed this..."

It's not just Fox, though that of course attracts the most attention on Digg. Apparently people using computers from the CIA, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Vatican, Diebold (the voting machine company), and the Canadian government have dishonestly tampered with articles.

As great as Virgil Griffiths' work has been in outing these intellectual perverts, he can only slow the inevitable. Powerful people who want to disingenuously influence public opinion will find a way to do it anonymously. They threaten Wikipedia, and all that it means to the millions of people who use it. And just as Wikipedia is not alone in spreading information, aiding communication, and allowing expression, so is the rest of the internet threatened by the ulterior motives of unscrupulous people. It's not just protecting net neutrality that we have to worry about.

read more | digg story

My Buddy List

Now Serving Trader Joe's Sencha Green Tea
It's the LAST DAY. They're attempting to take stock of supplies...recovering...appeasing the work demons. I'll be back later. Can I go back to France yet? Because here in Soviet Canada, "aboot" says you. Sleep hath its own world, and The Whole World's Watching. The Whole...

She feels uncomfortable when her computer...
She puts on her uniform and goes to work.

Many Bothans Died to Bring Us These T-Shirts

Now Serving The Te of Piglet

I am abusing this interesting story to advance my political agenda. They say making profit from the names of the dead should be illegal, and I agree; let's also take action against newspapers that report on local sons who've died in Iraq.

While we're at it, let's take action against any contracted soldiers (or as we in the City of Delusion sometimes refer to them, "mercenaries") who handle any information regarding dead soldiers. There are what, 100,000* "contracted soldiers" in Iraq? I'm just glad we don't have a socialized army.

Let's assault protest efforts, to limit them and intimidate other protesters. Let's appeal to nationalist emotions and raise a big commotion about things that aren't important.

The only "political agenda" being advanced here is the agenda of people that are tired of losing loved ones. How it could possibly be disrespectful to display the names of the dead - the very reason we want to leave - is beyond me.

*Edit: I was wrong. It's 180,000, according to Harper's Magazine. (Scott Horton, Death of a (Contract) Soldier, 8-8-07)

A Tribute to Harper's Index

Revenue in "the last year of Bill Clinton," according to James Pinkerton in a Newsday article: $2.025 trillion

Revenue projected for this year thanks to "supply-side magic," also according to Pinkerton: $2.458 trillion

$2.025 trillion adjusted by the inflation rate from January 1999 to June 2007: $2.567 trillion

Freedom of what now?

Now Serving Tazo Chai Organic Spiced Black Tea

What would you say if you found out that the Michigan senate blocked Senate employees' access to a blog that said unkind things about it, and lied about the reason why? Would you digg it?

And "the site Mike Bishop doesn't want you to see."
Edit: Guess what I found at the site Mike Bishop doesn't want you to see?

There's not much to say; it's so obvious what's going on here. Don't let this go unnoticed. Write Mike Bishop and tell him what you think. Let other people know about this.

The Young Hero

I am surprised
when the singing woman doesn't really care
that women once weren't allowed to sing.

I am confused
to see black men reject February,
while ebon men embrace it.

I feel betrayed
by Colombians drinking Coca-Cola
who patiently remind me:

I made an ass of you and me
at the demonstration,
with my grin and friendly demeanor.

No one wants a $100 computer.

Dugg: "Rove refuses to testify on role in prosecutor firings"

Now Serving Water So Good it's Eight Dollars a Gallon from Aquafina

"White House senior adviser Karl Rove has rebuked a Senate Judiciary Committee subpoena and will not appear Thursday to testify about his role in the firing of nine US Attorneys, Sen. Patrick Leahy said late Wednesday."

Every moment we let these people get away with what they're doing, we're broadcasting a message that our government is dysfunctional and our laws aren't enforced. Fear of getting caught is what keeps most politicians from going this far, but now that Bush has demonstrated how blissfully unaware the American people are, future presidents will be more partisan, more secretive, more authoritative, and stoop to dirtier and dirtier deeds. A Rudy Giuliani would certainly accelerate the problem, but I don't even want to talk about the 08 elections until we've dealt with the current, catastrophic president.

I wonder where I can bet on the odds of a pre-election terrorist attack...

read more | digg story

On the Hunt

Now Serving Trader Joe's Sencha Green Tea

"I'm glad they're dropping the suit against the passengers, but I'm upset and not comfortable because they're still suing the airlines...you know, the airlines are just trying to do their jobs...they were getting up, walking around and talking to each other...They did it on purpose, I'm sure of it...I mean there were people with children on that flight! How could they do that to children? They're just...they're cold-hearted, that's what they are..."

What is this woman talking about, and where? She's on Fox News, because she was a passenger on a flight where six imams were arrested for acting suspicious.

...on to an argument between Jim Cavuto and Dennis Kucinich. Hey look, "HYPOCRI$Y" is up as they discuss what Democrats are saying about the market.

Later, Jim Cavuto admits he can't spell "physicist!" Ahaha.

Just twenty minutes of Fox's "Your World Cavuto" as I watch advertisements. I can't say I fully support everything Moveon.org does, but I'll gladly join in on some Fox-bashing.

If you're still not convinced that Fox is biased to the point of irrelevance, watch their ads nowadays. I'm not a frequent viewer, but I seem to recall a little more subtlety from the network's advertisements - now they've got the National Review and the Weekly Standard selling their mags to anyone that's as scared of Nancy Pelosi as they are.

Oooh, and now a story about a woman living lavishly on welfare checks as she beat and tortured eleven adopted children. What, wasn't she also a homosexual Harry Potter-reading Islamic registered Democrat? Only on Fox...

Dugg: CIA Exhibits Sexism in Firings

Now Serving The CIA's Dirty Laundry

Apparently the CIA is firing women who have foreign boyfriends or relatives, without applying that same standard to men.

read more | digg story

You Can Trust Telecomm Giants

Now Serving Hippie Juice

Yes, Really! Besides, Comcast couldn't POSSIBLY do anything after thirty days to completely screw you over. Free market!

No wait, I got it. If you didn't catch on within thirty days, you're so dumb that you deserve to be screwed over! Because Comcast couldn't, say, wait until thirty days are up.

It's alright though, the market will regulate itself. It'll do so by cautiously watching Comcast, seeing that they're totally getting away with it, and copy the practice to make sure there's no competition to turn to. Someday, experts and analysts will tell us that a world without the thirty-day arbitration period would be complete anarchy, and telecomm companies (or others) would simply be unable to do business without it.

"But wait," some will say, "There was a time when they did just fine with a fair system." "That was decades ago! Things have changed, such as x y z bullshit factor, and now we're going to bury you as lunatics by the power of the mainstream media."

Okay, seriously though, to be fair, Comcast can't actually do anything illegal to you - US Law says that illegal activity renders contracts null and void. And that's not at all debatable by Comcast lawyers in court (for the few people that get screwed the worst, and attract media attention, such lawyers will be the best money can buy - and maybe the judge will too).

That said, there's still...no, I can't think of anything, there's no way this could possibly be a good thing. Even if it is struck down by the hand of justice, it will probably be just fine in gray areas where consumers could sue previously, and if the thought counts for anything, Comcast just spelled out the depths of their vileness. They're already responsible for so much more.

"Protest Music, How Cute"

Why do people ask "Where have all the protest songs gone?" Were they expecting marijuana and accoustic guitars at Live Earth? Rebellious music hasn't gone anywhere, and it's really not that hard to find. One trip through a modest iTunes library yields...

Ben Folds could easily be mistaken for meaningless pop or flash-in-the-pan emo. But in Fired, he ends the song with an epic, harmonious, satisfying "Mother-fuckers." Delicious!

Bloc Party has some tricky lyrics to break over the heads of evil. They're the successors to Franz Ferdinand's tradition of mega-popular English Indie, and they quote Bertrand Russel.

Bruce Springsteen isn't new, but the man responsible for the police brutality and racial profiling that inspired Bruce's American Skin (41 Shots) is currently the Republican front-runner for President. (What?) Bruce disses the current President too, once calling for his replacement by E-Street Band saxophonist Clarence Clemons.

Flogging Molly is a classic staple of Irish punk, staggering to a drunken brawl with the status quo. Lambasting the English and highlighting the suffering of the impoverished are common themes in their music.

Like Bruce, Neil Young has been around a while, but he still makes new music. His rush-produced "Living With War" album openly called for impeaching Bush, dissed consumers and continued what he's been doing through "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World" (often mistaken for a patriotic song) and "Ohio."

Around the same time that "Living With War" hit the shelves, Pearl Jam's self-titled protest album contained such mighty tracks as World Wide Suicide. Singing about a morning newspaper where he learned that a friend had died in Iraq, Eddie Vedder sends a powerful message straight into the mainstream.

Eccentric Indie genius Sufjan Stevens has a track from "Come On Feel the Illinoise" with more lyrics in the title than the song - but The Black Hawk War, or, How to Demolish an Entire Civilization and Still Feel Good About Yourself in the Morning, or, We Apologize for the Inconvenience But You're Going to Have to Leave Now, or, "I Have Fought the Big Knives and Will Continue to Fight Them ntil they are off our lands!*" really says it all, doesn't it?

Ted Leo and the Pharmacists are gaining popularity in the world of unpopular music, and you won't find a more politically charged band. The music actually sounds good, too. Their latest album, "Living With the Living," has such tracks as The Sons of Cain and Bomb, Repeat, Bomb.

Nerdcore rap isn't something to take too seriously, but Futuristic Sex Robotz do have a volatile Fuck the Police spoof called Fuck the MPAA. It's available online for free, and they drop some wicked bombs on anti-piracy groups. Other parts are bad enough to sound like self-mockery, but bad or good, it's a fair representative of a growing online culture.

Finally, you have Tenacious D's "The Government Totally Sucks." It's secretly a protest against bad protest music, and that makes it brilliant.

*iTunes and Finder both were unable to display the entire name of the song, hilariously. Sufjan Stevens valiantly foils the world of convenience where you can have a song and its title catalogued on a computer in seconds.

Planned Parenthood: Nonsense-free

Now Serving Trader Joe's Mint Melange Tea

"Congressman Mike Pence is introducing an amendment that restricts critical family planning funding. We've seen family planning funding restrictions before -- but this one is different. Rep. Pence's amendment specifically calls out Planned Parenthood and seeks to ban Planned Parenthood health centers nationwide from receiving family planning funding."
-from Planned Parenthood

The name says it all - Planned Parenthood is an organization that works to prevent unwanted pregnancies with sex education and services for uninsured women, most of whom are below the federal poverty line. Regardless of abortion, this organization does more in tangibly benefiting society than it does slugging it out in the courts.

Clearly the objection to PP isn't so much over what it does, but the scandalous nature of its name as acronym. The reference to urination touches many a nerve; a doctor who writes for a local paper noted that in his quest to find a neutral, non-offensive word for urination, male patients told him that "real men don't 'tinkle.'"

Tinkle is offensive.

So obviously an acronym that sounds like pee pee is causing some problems - Planned Parenthood should adjust their name to something like "Family Fundamentals Association" (FFA), or "Educating People About Sex is a Good Idea" (EPASGI), or "Freedom Condoms" (FC).

In lieu of that, you can call your representative in Congress and urge him or her to oppose this ridiculous legislation. And call up Spider Jerusalem to get on the case.