...The Elections and Voting

So awhile back I promised myself that this wouldn't become an overly political blog about the ills of being a liberal,, a republican, a democrat, or any "under represented" political party and I'd like to stick with that. So this is going to be a short discussion, less about the candidates and their parties or platforms, and more about the responsibilities involved in, the expectations of, and the actual action of, Voting.

Voting is considered the most important ability that the American people possess, mostly because it is not shared by all of our bother's and sisters around the world, but also because the concept of a representative and liable government came about in our country, on a large scale, first. When our forefathers, men who now have taken on an almost mystical power among certain parties and people, and whose words and beliefs have been twisted around through miss-education and improper quotations, set about to create a nation for, of, and by the people. One with officials, policies, and laws, that affected, protected, and were agreed upon by, the majority of people. Most importantly it was system where the liability of the actions of the country and its government was shared by its people as they were in charge in a way.

Sadly nowadays that seems not to be the case. I'm not going to go off on a rant about the ridiculousness of current politics and how the race for president has become, not one of values, true beliefs, and platforms that voters agree with, but a high school-esque class style popularity contest for who has the better shirt and is liked by more for their personality not their beliefs. What I'd like to talk about instead is the rights, and responsibilities of the voters. We, all of us, without special treatment for gender creed or color, live in the same country and have the same job when we vote. Not only should we be picking a candidate whom we agree with, not because he or she has great teeth or says the right things, but because we have researched and now understand and agree with the policies they wish to enact, but also we need to pick someone who will set in place legislation and diplomatic agreements that will best effect the future generations. We should not have the mindset that it only affects us, or that we don't care so we're going to press a button at random and hope the best guy wins. We have a job to do, everyone of us, and if you don't like that rules you shouldn't register and play the game.

The second thing that voters need to understand is that everything their government does around the world, both overtly and covertly, reflects on us. The reason we are attacked, the reason civilians are harmed, the reason we are all disliked when we go on vacation and asked why our country has done certain things, is because through them WE have done those things. If a SEAL team in Outer Mongolia kills a rebel leader and destabilizes a country, WE are responsible. If the CIA funds revolutionaries trying to topple a legitimate government that we don't agree with, WE are responsible. When the world lays its woes at our doorstep and troops are deployed to help or hinder, WE are responsible for the deaths of our men and women under arms, and of the death they cause in other nations. This country, its government, its flag, its choices are ours. ALL OF US HAVE A VOICE. It's time we realized the damage our choices make, time we took responsibility for our actions, and time for us to stand, up be heard, and do what is right for ourselves, our children, and everyone on this planet. Vote with dignity, vote with integrity, and whether you choose Blue, Red, or any color in between do so because you believe it is the right choice.

...Insubordination.

"THEY MURMURED IN THEIR TENTS AND DID NOT OBEY THE VOICE OF THE LORD." PSALMS, 106:25 It is a poor place to be when the general assumption is to feel, in the very presumed antic scrutiny under which the world today is, that we (whoever we may be) are being watched and targeted. Though, I will admit, there is an almost indiscernible fine line between the type of micro-paranoiac egocentricity which the underworld American public of militias and freaks touts and the distinctly macro-paranoiac egocentricity which Tom Everyman gives off. But this distinction has become so blurred in the fray of the "War on Terror" that we find ourselves, like the Stasi and KGB before us, condemning our very selves for action we haven't even yet taken. For example: accusing another of anti-Americanism. Here begins the brunt of my rant. To accuse the reasonable and accountable of making constructive claims against a government whose sole purpose since it's founding has been to represent the American people, is in-itself contradictory to the original claims of that government's founding. Now, one might say that the individual, in a Democracy, is just expressing his/her right to opinion. But "a lie universally accepted is nonetheless a lie", or so to paraphrase. This is so for two reasons: one, Democracy, in the American sense, is not the universal Democracy of the Greeks (with it's sortition etc.) but is rather the Democracy of Rousseau; the Democracy of majority rule (note: this is Democracy of his "The Social Contract", also noted for, ironically, it's justification of Fascism). Two, it isn't an original opinion that we fight against either. It's the assimilated opinion of a mass of power-crazed politicians who shout "terror" from the proverbial masthead in order that we might swerve in the direction they please; toward that "white whale" of ultimate power. Don't believe it? Operation Northwoods was an CIA operation given to the Kennedy administration which outlined the tactical bombing of American cities, the blame of which would fall on, and justify a war with, Cuba (see wikipedia entry: "Operation Northwoods"). Still don't believe it? MkUltra. This isn't anti-American sentiment. It's anti-government sentiment. The American people were just unwitting pawns in another's plan. But only because there was a blind faith in the ultimate infallibility of the government were things such as these allowed to go on; that, and the secrecy under which they were "forced to be operated", lest the public find out. But now, midst the tumult of election year, just when we thought we would be able to change it all, we're given the choice between the lunatic who signed in the NDAA and the lunatic who would use it willingly. The slogan for one of the largest corporations in the world comes to mind, "Just do it." To me, this slogan exemplifies what we have become. Submissive cronies in this game of thrones, reduced to "just doing it", just acting without thought. But as Voltairine de Cleyre gave us to believe, "The giant is blind, but he is thinking; and his locks are growing, fast." I hope, this time, she's right.

So...it's been awhile

So it's been awhile since anything has been posted up here so I thought I'd go for a revival and try and get some interest drummed up for the blog again by saying, "Hello, we're not dead yet, and we're going to start writing again." I promise three posts one from each of us and one combined by the end of the week on some of the hot topic issues, and I hope to see some new readers so invite your friends and feel free to subscribe to us.
-Mike

...Deception.

"Now I believe I can hear the philosophers protesting that it can only be misery to live in folly, illusion, deception and ignorance, but it isn't -it's human." -Erasmus of Rotterdam

(Note: I do take liberties within this discourse, out of need stylistically, to leave out other variables. I will however answer any and all reasonably argued questions that appear in comments as this work is just a piece of a much larger whole)

Man thinks himself at the forefront of evolutionary promise, the metaphorical end-all to the evolutionary process; or otherwise man believes himself superior to "Animal" or even his fellow man; or otherwise he denies his innate superiority to procure within social strata his own superiority as "humble"; or etc. Likewise, the phrase "survival of the fittest" tends to be thrown around in reference to this human "nationalism", the human species being the "nation". And not only this, but all natural selection brought about by the process haphazardly described as "survival of the fittest" is attributed progressive positivism, leading us from the needlessly complex to the simplistic perfection of future evolution. But what of deception? What of the inherent, naturally human, element of discourse that linguistically and psychologically plays a part in our everyday interaction? It's easy for one to state that humanity is in itself "animal", a part of the naturalistic process whereby humans seem to dominate. But I argue that humanity inherently nullifies the process of progressive positivism akin to "survival of the fittest" by including deception. What do I mean by deception, though? I simply mean the ability of a being of higher intelligence, through action or implicit wording, to manipulate another being of intelligence into procreation without the use of positive attributes to lure acceptable mating (a man, by all accounts with no positive attribute but intelligent wording or action, who lures in a woman of many positive genetic attributes or vice versa). These persons of the latter variety are, for all intents and purposes, "normal", whereas the persons in the former variety, though of intelligence enough to make a case for procreation on the grounds of deception (e.g. stating one is different to ones appearance, or that ones wealth will make up for ones faults, etc.), "stupid". By "stupid" I mean not those persons whose "inherent", "visible", "verifiable", intelligence is lesser to my own, but I mean rather those subsets of persons whose reactive substance has yet to grasp the flood of information which occurs in the so called "Information Age", thereby reflexively dimming the "inherent" intelligence of those persons. These subsets are at their most basic of two varieties: 1) those persons who have yet to assimilate to the fast-paced influx of information and then allow themselves to be ignorant of common theoretical, scientific, political, etc. progress and therefore tout obscure or out of date - nullified, in a sense - views (i.e. people of lower class, usually [in American terminology], or otherwise those of a higher class without time to spare [business persons, etc.)making themselves retroactively out to be labelled "stupid" (though it must always be taken as "misinformed"); these are usually those of a former generation as well, without proper access to information or access to too much information; and 2) those persons, usually of the generation current, who have assimilated to this "flood", but in a way which leaves them to only pick bits and pieces of what is relevant to them (in terms of information) and accept (but in general ignore, out of impatience or inattention) other ideological views, but take them as irrelevant to their immediacy making themselves retroactively to seem tunnel-visioned and pig-headed ("stupid", "misinformed", etc.). This second subset is that of the young entertainment addict, the existence of which reminds me of a story I once wanted to write about a man living in an old flat with a roommate. These two become great friends over the course of their stay, but something within the flat doesn't seem quite right. It turns out to be that the flat is haunted by a friendly spirit who attaches itself to the man, who (i.e. the man) is hesitant at first but quickly discovers the ghost is the greatest possible friend he could have, with a wealth of information, ability to access or bring any part of the world into existence before this man's very eyes. The man becomes obsessed and refuses to leave the house, quickly leading the roommate to move out. The metaphor is obvious, and rather cheesy, which is why it was never ultimately written, but it seems apropos to the situation at hand. Entertainment has become a literal specter invading the lives of any first world citizen. But what of deception here is even visible? The deception here is that of the entertainment, the comfort by which procreation can even be possible; but here procreation is metaphorical, the procreation at hand is the procreation of even positive thoughts, progressive thoughts which come from initiative, or even thought at all. And it is through this subset of entertainment addict that we see the most viable nullification of the natural selection principle. These persons, for whom entertainment has become their only modus operandi, are experienceless. A posteriori learning, in vein of Kant, is nonexistent in the ethereal world, not because no experience comes of it (indeed there is much to be learned from entertainment, especially via internet) but rather because there is so much experience available that TEMPORAL experience (i.e. experience outside the area one is accustomed to living) becomes superfluous. Here deception takes the guise of ignorance and misinformation simply because so much information is available, so much contradictory information that each thought has a counter-thought which destroys the others possibility of universal truth. So how can one defy the methodological deception that becomes an inherent part of modern living? Now more than ever we must instill a notion not of tolerance but of strict personal ideologico-political suspension in order to rid ourselves of deceptive influence. By this I mean the ideologico-political ideas which construct themselves in the forms of individualism. We must become a part of no system, not even the herd system of individuality, in order to nullify the lack-of-temporal-experience extant via deception. Even altruism, an act so violently tied to our minds, is deception at work. And this is precisely active in the modern political environment. In a recent YouTube video by the activist organization known only as "Anonymous", the org. highlighted a political bill: 112th Congress (2011 -- 2012) | S.1867 | Latest Title: National Defense Authorization Act for. This bill will effectively, according to the masked figure (signature of the Anonymous) presenting the video, turn the United States of America into a war zone allowing the government to detain without trial anyone they consider to be in line with terrorism. Here the deception takes the guise of altruism. The government wishes to "altruistically" give the American people the security they wished for out of fear after the 9/11 attacks. The procreation this inhibits is, likewise to the former guise, metaphorical: the procreation of freedom of revolutionary action. As any mildly intelligent person in America knows, there is a major difference between terrorism and wishing democratically for a better government (i.e. revolutionary action along the lines of anti-totalitarianism), but this bill will allow for the government (Federal) to blur the lines between and destroy the rights of freedom of speech and the right to due process. The question presents itself though: will the American people "take the bait" of deceptive influence and state that "our need for security outweighs our need for freedom"? Firstly, I might respond with a quote by Benjamin Franklin, "Any nation willing to sacrifice a modicum of freedom for a modicum of security deserves neither and will lose both.", but this adage does not state one way or another the American opinion, but rather my own. Secondly, I might respond by referencing the work of German and UK neuroscienctists on the possibility of negative events happening in the future:

"[They] designed a fairly complex psychological test to determine how people planned for negative events in the future. First, they asked the about the likelihood of 80 different disturbing events happening, such as contracting a fatal disease or being attacked. After they'd recorded people's responses, researchers told each subject the actual, statistical likelihood of such events happening. In some cases, people had overestimated the likelihood and in some cases they'd underestimated it. Then, after some time had passed, the researchers asked subjects again about the likelihood of these events happening to them. Interestingly, they found that people had a much harder time adjusting their expectations if the real-world statistical likelihood was higher than what they had first guessed. They had little trouble adjusting expectations for a more favorable outcome. It was as if people were selectively remembering the likelihoods of future events — forgetting the bad odds but not the good ones."

So it would seem, based on the research, that the American public is going to react to this with mixed emotion and general positivism, which (if you click the youtube link at the end of this passage and read some of the comments to the video) is seemingly what is happening. An outcry from some, yes, but from most it is all talk and zero action. So a new question presents itself: how long before people actually stand up and take notice? How long before people are again willing to die for a cause?


Works Cited:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrXyLrTRXso&feature=share

http://io9.com/5848857/your-brain-wont-allow-you-to-believe-the-apocalypse-could-actually-happen%3Ftag%3Dneuroscience

...shame, and anger.

http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2011/11/22/pregnant-occupy-protestor-miscarries-after-being-beaten-pepper-sprayed-by-police/ Note: the video included in this link is distrubing, viewer discretion is advised.

This story is the prime example of why the OWS protest needed too occur, and needs to continue until the goals it has set forth too accomplish are reached. This blatant display of brute force by the police, and therefore the government, is proof that change needs to occur in this country. We cannot go on allowing our Great Nation too be run by cowards, fools, and power hungry despots, and the only way too stop that is too stop Congress and the Senate from keeping the power that they have. They have perverted the values which this Glorious Union was founded upon, and they need too be stopped. If you still think this is a government by and for the people then rise up with your voice and speak out against the atrocities committed by the administration, not just the Obama administration but the entire bureaucratic machine as a whole. Scoff at retribution, and do not allow fear too stifle your voice. It is the last, and most powerful weapon we have, and it can never be taken away. I am a man that loves my country, and a citizen of the United States of America and my voice will be heard, come hell or high water I will not be silenced and neither should you!

-Mike

...Men in the Media. (Part 1)

Plight of a Modern Man

There have been countless studies done on how the media affects body image, of women. However very little research has been done in the way it affects men. People seem to just assume women are the only ones who can be dissatisfied with how they look, and if men are dissatisfied, well heck they can just go to the gym and burn off a few pounds working out. What people seem to not realize is that the media, has an affect on the personal body image of men, as well as women, and that it is detrimental to them, just as it is to women. Although the researchers on this topic are few and far between the works of Jonasen, Krcmar, and Sohn, as well as the works of Agliata and Tantleff-Dunn help shed some light on the problem.

Not only does the media make men feel worse about their bodies, it also makes making fun of them for their weight a perfectly accepted practice. In, Why It’s ok to Laugh at Fat Guys?, Catherine Lawson discusses this problem. Lawson discusses Mckeen’s article titled A Man’s Guide to Slimming Couture and how it makes light of fat men with its tone, and blunt writing style. Then the most important question that could be asked dawns upon her, “Would I be laughing if these were fashion tips for women?” (Lawson, 83) Would you, would any of you? If these jokes were insulting the plight of overweight women, their would be an uproar of activists and rights organizations, Mckeen would have to publicly apologize or face horrible crippling publicity. Thankfully though, he was only making fun of fat men.

However the media doesn’t do it’s part to even the playing field between fat men and fat women. The overweight men on T.V. such as Peter Griffin from Family Guy, or Kevin James from The King of Queens, never have a problem keeping the “hot” skinny wife. However the minute, you see a woman on T.V. with even a few extra pounds she’s always single, until she sheds the pounds and becomes pretty. Ok it’s not exactly fair for women either, however that doesn’t make it any more fair for men.

In the media, women may always have to be skinny to be popular, or pretty, or even to have a boyfriend, but whether or not the men don’t have to change, they’re still ridiculed for their weight. Whether it’s the carefully veiled insult, represented by what and/or how much he eats, or the flat out fat jokes from his wife, and friends, the jolly T.V. fat man is the butt of all them. The problems aren’t even limited to only T.V.,

The same Kevin James does even better in the 2005 movie Hitch, when he hires “date doctor” Will Smith to help him win the heart of Amber Valetta. Not once does Hitch say the obvious “You’re short and dumpy and you want a supermodel. Are you nuts?” instead we get his soothing philosophy, “Any man has the chance to sweep any woman off her feet.” (84)

Whether or not he got the girl in the end, and the prevailing philosophy throughout the film that any man can get any woman, James’s character was still made to look like a fool, and clearly had self esteem problems brought on by his weight, and the only thing that made him able to finally get the girl was the help of a silky suave “date doctor.” The simple fact that Mckeen’s article elicited no outrage from the people, just helps to show how content we have all become in the idea that it’s perfectly alright to laugh at fat men.

“I called Scott Mckeen to ask if there had been any complaints about his article when it ran in the Edmonton Journal. “Not a one,” he said.” (84)

In Brandon Keim’s article The Media Assault on Male Image Keim discusses the consequences of men having a negative male body image.

In the Movie Fight Club, the character Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt, boards a bus and is confronted by an advertisement depicting a model’s perfectly muscled, fantasy male body sculpted by pathological obsession and posed as if natural. “Is that what a real man is supposed to look like?” he asks (Keim 45)

Well that’s the million dollar question isn‘t it, are these “beautiful,” sculpted, roman god caricatures really what men are supposed to look like? For so long the media has objectified women, the research on the effects of this objectification on the common woman is nearly endless. Lately though, changes have occurred that close the gap between the genders. Gone are the fat, flabby husbands with their beautiful skinny fit wives. Now everywhere you turn your barraged with an unending torrent of the “image of the perfect man,” the perfectly fit, athletic bronzed god. Albeit they are an attractive idea of what men should like. They have “perfect” bodies, and they’re pretty boys, however that still leaves the all important question hanging in the air, is that really what men should look like? Keim seems to disagree, he looks into the research side, and finds that men do actually have body image issues. He finds that the constant exposure to these images, is detrimental to men. Problems like, sweat, hair, or body odor, are worsened tenfold. In the media these things are taken out of the equation, men are shaved, or their body hair is photo shopped out, the sweat is replaced with “glisten,” and as Keim so eloquently puts it “…, and you can’t smell someone through a magazine.” (46)

The small flaws that a man has, neigh that anyone would honestly have, are brought out into the light because of these kinds of advertisement and other forms of media. The smallest bit of a gut, or unshaped bicep, any trace body odor not immediately hidden by deodorant, and drowned in cologne, are dragged kicking and screaming to the front, and displayed like a badge of dishonor to any and all onlookers.

...Is Common Sense Still Common?

"Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason." -Thomas Paine, Common Sense (Introduction)

In light of the recent "tumult" of the OWS protests and the reproach of the American middle class of the greed, and oppressive denial thereof, of the top 1% (economically speaking), this opening to one of the founding seminal works of American political philosophy greatly parallels this modern politico-philosophical awakening. Although we can be certain Paine was speaking of the then revolutionary idea of American sovereignty, it's easy to take this opening to its metaphorical extreme to be understood as ANY "revolutionary" idea of sovereignty, and at that any sovereignty at all. This includes the individual as sovereign. Sovereign of the oppression of any power which deems itself above the will of the majority, especially in a "democratic" society (which, because of the voicelessness of the general election, does not exist in America; what we have in place, rather, is the Federalist Republic envisioned by Hamilton and Madison). But, the will of this majority effectively superseded by private interest, in public sight and with a scarily confident flaunting thereof, American citizens utilize this very same corrupted "democratic" system of election and lawmaking to deface the system they're attempting to ratify. They concede to work within the realm of peaceful assembly (which as Rowden has shown below is not quite as peaceful [in the sense of being angrily dispersed]) and peaceful protest or election of new, pre-determinedly Democratic or Republican, delegates to change an unmanageably corrupted system. This all makes me wish to ask "where has the common sense, so idyllically American, gone?" But this is ultimately the wrong question to ask. I should rather be tempted to say: "when will the common sense, converted, brought by time, finally get here?" Because we started out exactly how politicians wanted it to be, with private interest and greed at the forefront, we must MAKE the time of true democratic, revolutionary conversion come, not just play around with the system like cats at that old ball of yarn. When I say we, I mean the American citizenry, that very same citizenry supposedly founded on ultimate freedoms. But can we pull it off? Have we gone too far into corruption, so far as to desire our own subjugation? Or are we yet salvageable, through the individualization Deleuze and Guattari envisioned their "body without organs" to possess? Free from the fascistic machinations of everyday living, internal and external, and fighting for the sovereignty we once thought we deserved? The answer, as Paine himself seemed to know painfully clearly, only time will tell.