Notes from the Armchair

Random political philosophy (borrrrrrrrring!)

2005-09-01T15:28:00.000-05:00

This is cross-posted from my myspace blog:

For those who are down with the lingo, and sufficiently nerdy as I am, I'm having some trouble with egalitarianism and the market. It seems as if in a market economy, there will tend to be a blurring of the distinction between option luck and brute luck. Option luck is, of course the kind of luck that results in inequality that is the result of a person's choice that went awry. It's been defined as a "gamble" that didn't turn out positive. Brute luck is the kind of luck resulting in inequality that is not the fault of a person. For instance, being born into a poor family or being handicapped are both instances of brute luck, and in most cases, so is being the victim of theft. Most egalitarian theories make a distinction betweent the two and say that agents should be responisble for the resulting inequalities of their option luck, but their brute luck should be taken care of, in some form, by the state.

This distinction is good prima facie, but when we try to make such a distinction in an already existing economy, the distinction is not so clear. What I'm getting at here is a claim that there would be much less inequality to chalk up to option luck if the mechanisms of the market were not the main source of distribution. The market comes from the idea of comparative advantage, which is, on its own basic terms, a fairly good idea. It makes sense to let those who enjoy and/or are especially skilled at certain tasks specialize and focus on said tasks when they provide important social goods. This way, there is more production and those who are not good at producing certain goods or services can get enough and concentrate on their own specialized areas. The idea behind the specialization of labor is to raise the overall quality of life for a people by expanding the amount of socially relevant goods faster and more easily. But capitalism often poisons the original intent of specialization by the mechanism of profit and surplus reinvestment. By reinvesting capital surplus back in production again, in an attempt to create more demand, the goal of specialization has already been thwarted. This may be okay if everyone had an amount of social goods that was adequate to live a comfortable life, but capitalism does not seem to allow for this. The goal from the outset is to use specialization in order to horde capital and create a larger market with more expensive resources, all with the goal of accumulating more surplus.

My rant there was to establish the idea that in a system like a capitalist market economy, where specialization creates many goods but bases their value on their scarcity will not produce enough goods for the consumers, for if it does, it will lose capital. The motivation behind this kind of economic system from the vantage-point of the firms in it, is to gain as much suprlus capital as possible, not to distribute necessary goods equally or fairly. Thus, "option" luck in this kind of market system is possible because the set of options by which inequalities can be created by agents "gambling" in the market are set up by the market's firms in order to produce profit. If the firms allowed people to purchase products for the price of production or even the price of production plus a margin for the upkeep of fixed capital (machines, facilities, employees, etc.), they would not sustain growth in their desired way. The point is, most option luck is only possible in a system that pits agents against one another with the goals of acquiring profit. But more basically, it requires an agent who is willing to benefit at the expense of another agent. To me, this seems morally unsound. I don't know of a political system that does not believe in a prima facie moral equality between all of its constituent agents. So if this is so, I see no reason why it is permissive that the production design of a society should be based on individual motivations that allow agents in the design to view each other as anything but equals, and in fact tends to work in favor of those who do not view the rest of the agents in it as equals.
Make no mistake, I am not arguing that option luck would not exist in an ideal or very well arranged theory of justice. But I do think that the current ideas about option luck's breadth and importance is skewed and it is largely a result of its being seen through the eyes of philosophers indoctrinated by the classical handling of the market economy.

Holy Damn!!!!

2005-06-02T22:59:00.000-05:00

It has been almost a month since any words have graced our fair board, and I believe that this warrants me reviving the beast.

Now that school is over, I sense that most people have fallen into the laziness that often grips the four months that precede September. For this reason, I will now inject a little current debate into this board:

I was listening to NPR, which is the greatest thing that DeKalb has as far as media is concerned, and there was a debate raging about the European Union, and the rejections of the constitution by both France and the Netherlands. Simultaneously, there was a story about the new trade agreements that are taking place in Africa. While I am all for unification of peoples and nations into cohesive bodies of self-determination, I am not for what seems to be happening while that aspect is being touted; neo-liberalism. That's right, as if it weren't enough to tout self-ownership and dominance over land and animal, as well as autonomy from community, tradition and common values, now, we must unify everyone into a global framework of unrestricted market economies of such a mass proportion that the labor force can be separated from the capitalists by an ocean. Iraq is being turned into an outlet mall with absentee owners coming by to expatriate profits and fuel an ever-foreing reliant U.S. economy that is suffocating itself with its demands of hypergrowth.
It seems that this whole idea is making revolution that much harder to acheive. Marx's whole ideology has to compete with the fact that the proletariat neither lives on the same continent as nor speaks the same language as the bourgeoise. The world will soon be separated into North and South in a way that will make the current situation look like the state of nature. But again, I guess I am getting to angry for my own good. But believe me, this is not coming from a place of anger, it comes from a place of genuine compassion for my fellow humans and a worry that the vehicle they are about to step on to is going to careen off of a cliff while the driver jumps out to safety.
I heard a young woman yesterday, maybe 3 years older than myself, who was speaking against Oxfam and on behalf of the Worldbank. She was saying that debt forgiveness and charity will not help Africa, they need to be formed into the economic image of American New Lassez-Faire, neoliberal business markets. What went wrong? Did I really come from that different of a world than this young lady? I find that hard to believe. But somehow, she cannot see what has happened and what will happen if the current unrealistic and shortsighted model of business for profit continues. The people in Africa have the unique chance to be helped in a way that will allow them to be self-sufficient and retain their sense of history and community, but the Worldbank and Haliburton would much rather them all speak English as a first language and learn HTML or sew the seams on Nike Shoes.
There was a time where there was culture, community, and compassion. Apparently, profit has replaced all of them. This would normally not bother me, a transvaluation of values, but profit has no purpose as it is used now. It is not a thing to help people enjoy life, it is a motivation that keeps businessmen from honestly reporting earnings, from paying a fair wage to employees, from keeping a loyalty to workers and looking out for their interests. The whole model has fallen to shambles but the top floor is suspended and hanging above the foundation, which has been deemed unnecessary. I have been deemed unncecessary, so have you, how does that make you feel?

Enjoy the rest of your unnecessary existence.

Getting Back on Track

2005-05-10T22:24:00.000-05:00

The last few weeks have been, it seems, pretty taxing on everyone. There has been some reflection of this on the board. I now, with only one final paper left to type, wish to change this. The way that I wish to do this is to re-start a debate through a simple question.

We've been around the political block a few times and have heard our share of ideological arguments. Taking them all into account, what political philosophy/ideology (you can use either one) do you support? No, Paul, you don't need to be technical, BUT you do need to SUPPORT ANY ANSWER YOU GIVE WITH AN ARGUMENT. That's all you need to do. Just write what you support and why you support it (reasons that could serve to convince others, not just "well, it makes me feel good, it's my opinion. I'd like to think that we're a bit more mature than that.). That's all I have to say, so let's see what four years of college (or 3 years, in some cases) have taught us about critical analysis and argumentation. And let's see what those years have taught us about political thinking.

Learning From the Experts

2005-05-07T21:37:00.000-05:00

So I thought that my thirsty mind could only be quenched by the academians doing research and attending conferences, but boy, was I wrong. I've been in college for 4 years, I've read many books, and among them, a handful of the classics of the humanities. But until yesterday, I had not encountered the enterprise of "macking". I did some checking into this fine school and other universities nationwide. You know what I found? None of what U.S. News and World Report considers the "top schools" in the country have even undergraduate programs in Macking or even "tricking". As for pimpin? Forget about it. As a student of the liberal arts, I am appalled. I mean, what if, in my summer off, I decide to do my post-graduate work in Macking? What if I have a great idea for a dissertation on the new networking issues in modern macking? Where do I do my research? Who will supervise my dissertation? Apparenlty no one. Well, no one in the colleges. But there is one man who is a certified mack. Yes, that's right, certified by the American Macking Fellowship. And until he posted on our wonderful blog and I checked out his wonderfully insightfull jounal, I lacked the resources to get on the right path. Perhaps some, like the fair Fuser, saw Bossmack's presence and comment on our blog as a bad omen, as something to be avoided and prevented. But nay, dear friends, we have been visited by genius. And we should hold onto it, for it is a rare and beautiful thing that should be revered whilst it is fully revealed. Needless to say, I shall not let this opportunity pass me by. I am withdrawing my application from the graduate school, quitting the arcane and "Banal"(with a capital B) enterprise that is philosophy, and pursuing the tutilage of the master, Bossmack. One day soon, you will see me, macking, in all of my glory, having learned from the master. Oh friends, record this glorious day, as the day where a man discovered his true purpose and passion in life, MACKING!!!!!!!

Reflections on the nature of any fuck that belittles the convictions of any man.

2005-05-05T16:11:00.000-05:00

"Is our time perhaps such a "firstcomer"? Its historical sense is so strong and has such universal and boundless expression that future times will commend it, if only for this, as a firstcomer-if there be any future time, in the sense of future culture. But here comes a grave doubt. Close to the modern man's pride ther stands his irony about himself, his consciousness that he must live in a historical, or twilit, atmosphere, the fear that he can retain none of his youthful hopes and powers. Here and there one goes further into cyniscism and justifies the course of history, nay, the whole evolution of the world, as simply leading up to the modern man, according to the cynical canon: "What you see now had to come, man had to be thus and not otherwise, no one can stand against this necessity." He who cannot remain in a state of irony flies for refuge in cynicism: he calls his way of living thoughtlessly and after the fashion of his time, "the full surrender of his personality to the world-process." THE PERSONALITY AND THE WORLD-PROCESS! THE WORLD-PROCESS AND THE PERSONALITY OF THE EARTHWORM! If only one did not eternally hear the word "world, world, world," that hyperbole of all hyperboles; when we should only speak, in a decent manner, of "man, man, man"! Heirs of the Greeks and Romans, of Christianity? All that seems nothing to the cynics. But "heirs of the world process," the final target of the world-process, the meaning and solution of all riddles of the universe, the ripest fruit on the tree of knowledge- that is what I call a right noble thought; by this token are the firstlings of every time to be known although they may have arrived last. The historical imagination has never flown so far, even in a dream; for now the history of man is merely the continuation of that of animals and plants; the universal historian finds traces of himself even in the utter depths of the sea, in the living slime. He stands astounded in face of the enormous way that man has to run, an his gaze quivers before the mightier wonder, the modern man who can see all this way! He stands proudly on the pyramid of the world-process; and while he lays the final stone of his knowledge, he seems to cry aloud to listening Nature: "WE ARE AT THE TOP, WE ARE THE TOP; WE ARE THE COMPLETION OF NATURE!""

~I respect this author too much to write his name… I am not his product…

Salvation is ours to steal. FUCK ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE! I REFUSE TO LET THE DEAD BURY THE FUCKING LIVING!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE ARE ALL VESSELS IN THE SEA OF JUSTICE!!!!!!!!! TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY!!!!!!!! SOME OF US HAVE A PLAN… IT IS COMING…

~

I'm all sentimental....

2005-05-03T20:00:00.000-05:00

Though our blog is in a bit of a dip as of late, I'd like to think that it has brought together some good discussion and provoked some thought, if only between its contributors. Because it's been a few months since this thing was started, I figured I'd give a little insight into the history of the blog through a primary source document. This is a rare interaction between two of the blog's forefathers that was retrieved by way of much peril and running on top of trains to escape Nazis. Enjoy....

http://www.students.niu.edu/~z043950/papers/XTECATOX.HTM

the floccinaucinihilipilification of the honorificabilitudinitatibus style of antidisestablishmentarianism

2005-04-27T00:29:00.000-05:00

Due to Rick's postimaposmaripostulation of this issue, and Mike's comment that he believed it is very superduperultraenormouslyimportant, I suggest we open the subject to debate.

The absorbabilities of the interdigitating antidisestablishmentarianism can be directednessly projectified onto the inhomogeneability of the honorificabilitudinitatibus style itself, which is not to say it frindentesticastically prevents the existence of absolutantimanarialisticanism.

I don't have time to get into this now, but in summarizationalizement, the floccinaucinihilipilification of the honorificabilitudinitatibus style of antidisestablishmentarianism cannot be discussed without first considering said existance, and then applyificationalizing it to the remainder of the stochasticality variables. That said, I 'll leave the meat of the issue open to debate.

PS I don't have to remind you to keep the fragmentationalizationmentality of the pulsachrizaticaportancialard in mind.

Collective Awakening

2005-04-24T02:08:00.000-05:00

I promised a friend of mine that I'd advertise a new project of his. He is starting a forum where anyone and everyone can post inputs, questions, observations, etc on many different facets of the human equation...philosophy, religion, martial arts, music, and more.

The site is http://www.collective-awakening.com/ . For those who are into this stuff, please check this site out. It is just starting out (I think he opened it early this week) and needs a userbase, and some word of mouth to attract a community. If you think this is something you would be into, please check it out and tell others you think would enjoy this kind of thing.

A Reply to the Pilgrim

2005-04-17T20:06:00.000-05:00

The following is my reply to the Grey Pilgrim's last post. It is intended to be critical, but civilized. His quoted excerpts are in red, and my replies are in the normal white.

It is a feeling that spraying the sidewalk is not only a gesture of defiance but useless destruction that changes nothing. And then, when there are not enough unruly mobs on the cars to allow the tipping over of cars (cars owned by people who did nothing to deserve such vandalism) someone decides that instead of spraypainting the sidewalk, he'll spray paint some kid's bike. And suddenly there's not the slightest whiff of protest or symbolism, it's just petty vandalism done from one human being to another.

Paul, this would be absolutely true, if your argument wasn'tt a slipper slope fallacious one. The problem here is that youre working on the past models of inorganic, scared mob mentality. You took one little incident and then assumed that we all believe that the other events you mention necessarily follow from that one, thats just bad reasoning. There are also plenty of examples of something that did not go down in the way you outline. The EZLN (1994-present), for instance, instituted a violent revolution in Mexico, where an organized group of indigenous peasant farmers destroyed GOVERNMENT properties and took out power supplies to military bases around the country. There were no spray painted bikes or tipped over cars. They now enjoy a semi-autonomous society where goods and services are produced as a community and given based on need. They have several health care clinics and schools that are entirely run by members of the movement. They are becoming an educated and organized people and are progressing as we speak.

If, at a World Bank protest demonstration, things become so heated that police and demonstrators clash, maybe you'll be the first to throw a brick through the plate glass of a bank window. They can repair it, so fuck em. Fair enough. But guess what? Someone will see you do it and take their own brick and throw it through the window of a mom-and-pop cafe. Did they deserve that? What about the busboy who will spend his morning on his knees sweeping up glass? Did he deserve that chore?

Two things here, Paul. First, you committed the old slippery slope fallacy here again. You did this partly because of reports youve seen on the news, which have been proven to be fabricated. There was an instance where several government operatives in Seattle dressed in all black and started throwing bricks and damaging property in an attempt to divert attention from the peaceful protesters that were merely marching in the street. It worked. News reports all over the nation were filled with images of black-masked people damaging property recklessly. However, most video clips didn'tt show the various regular-clothed protesters yelling at these men and attempting to stop them. You also did this because it worked so well in the last paragraph, or so you thought.
Secondly, you also just DO NOT GET MY MESSAGE HERE. I told Greek specifically that doing things to people who are just small cogs in the bigger machine will do nothing but slow things down for a second or two. The laws of the state are meant to keep people from directly taking down the government. But this is what must be done for a revolution to happen. Theres no need to smash in car windshields or even throw bricks through bank windows, banks are just bigger versions of us, they are financially dependent upon government policy and its capitalist system. Those who wrote the patriot act are the ones whose buildings should be invaded, who should be warned that their actions will not be stood for much longer.

Okay, a little sappy, and it's really tough to love George Bush and the thousands of other fucks that seem to be running things right now, but you can certainly love the guys who work in grocery stores and the 50 year old women without college educations that work retail. When you fuck the corporations, they can't get back to you. So who do they go after? Think about those people when you decide how to protest.

I must confess that I barely understand what was said here. Yeah, maybe if I fuck the corporations then they will in turn fuck those who work in their stores. But, if we allow that corporation to continue its ruthlessly profit-driven existence, history has shown that as companies post profits and expand, they actually get rid of employees. Its how the investment system works. Powerful investors only seek out companies who are able to turn record profits, and are even more eager when these profits are not matched by numerous liabilities (wages due to employees, as well as benefits due). Thus, if you post high profits, it makes sense to lay off people, this way, your assets far outweigh your liabilities, and to the investors, you look like a huge sizzling steak. So maybe those little people will be the target of their corporations angst, but if a revolution is successful, that company will be democratically run anyway, because it will be illegal to run it in the oligarchic fashion in which companies are run currently.

I wish you guys didn't think petty vandalism, theft, and disturbance are activities to be cherished

Again, you totally missed my point. But, if it makes you feel better to think (albeit falsely) that I proport petty vandalism, then go on and think that, but just know that youve totally misrepresented my ideas.

At the end of the day I have to look myself in the mirror and say, "Is this the best I can do?" They can wiretap my phones and do whatever else, but at the end of every day, I have to face that mirror.

How very egoist of you Paul, Hobbes would be proud. However, if I were to look in the mirror at night and ask that question, itd be more like Do live in a society that treats all as equals, so that they can chose their own lives? Is the government whose rules I play by and whose military I help fund a hegemonic super-power who uses its beefed up version of free-market capitalist oppression to force every other country that it can to adapt a similar wealth and power structure? If the answers to those two questions are conflicting, I cannot be happy with the world, fuck what I think of me. As long as I still feel passion, love, and connection with people, Im fine. I just cannot stand living in a place where the have-nots have been indoctrinated into a passive, thoughtless lifestyle, while the haves run the world by using force and massive exploitation. It goes without saying that the more you know about this world, the more you will be angry. But I cannot forget the words of my commrade, Zach De la Rocha, who said softly your anger is a gift. I fully intend to use my gift to make the world a place where equality is not strived for, but an everpresent condition.

2005-04-14T12:30:00.000-05:00

I don't have any political science or philosophy texts in front of me, nor do I have several poignant quotes ready to go, but I nonetheless want to respond to Fuser's call to arms of two days ago. First, however, let me commend him on continually taking his posts to the next level. I look forward to many more, though I hope he will also post his many intriguing Metallica cover lyrics.

That said, let's get some things clear right up front.

I am the least hardcore, adventurous, and rebellious person in the group. Hands-down, bar-none. I dread the idea of being pulled over for a speeding ticket. I will never, ever, ever jump out of an airplane unless said airplane has landed, or not yet taken off. I don't like concerts even though I like some of the music because things are too crowded and physically intense for my tastes. This is just who I am. I guess people are willing to accept that, otherwise I feel like I would have been sent packing years ago. If anyone feels this disqualifies me from having opinions, stop reading right now.

Still here? Great. Let's proceed.

I do not consider myself an American. I feel no allegiance to the government of this nation nor to anyone in it, be they good people or bad. However, the fact of the matter is that everything I DO feel loyalty and love for exists within this country. My family and friends are here, baseball is here, and the United States is the non-manga comic capital of the universe. I do not feel disenfranchised or shunted because frankly, I don't give a shit what the institution thinks of me. I care that my parents are proud of me and my friends know they can count on me and that writers think I'm good enough at writing to do more of it. Fortunately, all of those things are true.

And because of that, I don't want to rise up. I don't want to burn things. I don't want to call STEALING "distributive justice in the absence of the state" and cheer the idea that "the sword speaks louder than the pen." Why am I such a pussy, you ask?

Because frankly, morals, the idea of right and wrong, which are applied to EVERY INDIVIDUAL as well as every government, are more important to me. It is not complacency or conformity that drives me when I decline to help spray paint the sidewalk in a gesture of social defiance. It is a feeling that spraying the sidewalk is not only a gesture of defiance but useless destruction that changes nothing. And then, when there are not enough unruly mobs on the cars to allow the tipping over of cars (cars owned by people who did nothing to deserve such vandalism) someone decides that instead of spraypainting the sidewalk, he'll spray paint some kid's bike. And suddenly there's not the slightest whiff of protest or symbolism, it's just petty vandalism done from one human being to another. I'm not saying what happened on the night of the Championship was ever intended by anyone to be the really important protest espoused by this blog. I know it was just for kicks. And I respect the fact that no one gave me shit about not really being into it. But that's an example of why I will never condone action in that vein. The line between damage to a society and damage to individual people is extremely slim.

It is the little things that are going to damn us. It's people who don't use turn signals and think it's fine to go a hundred miles an hour down a crowded freeway. There is EVERYTHING wrong with damaging large amounts of property, Mike, because that property belongs to someone who maybe, just maybe, worked their whole life or spent their whole savings to own it. If, at a World Bank protest demonstration, things become so heated that police and demonstrators clash, maybe you'll be the first to throw a brick through the plate glass of a bank window. They can repair it, so fuck em. Fair enough. But guess what? Someone will see you do it and take their own brick and throw it through the window of a mom-and-pop cafe. Did they deserve that? What about the busboy who will spend his morning on his knees sweeping up glass? Did he deserve that chore? Here is my problem with un-civil disobediance:

You can't control it.

No one can.

I will work very hard over the course of my life to NEVER make another person's life worse by my presence. That's not what we're here to do. Even the police, symbols of faceless oppression, have faces. Many of them are there on one side of the line for the same reasons you are on the other, because they believe, ot quote Hemingway, that the world is a good place and worth fighting for. I'm sure you guys will come right back at me with several clear-cut examples where "property redistribution" SEEMS righteous and necessary. I don't doubt that there are cases like that. But the line is not clear, and it is not for us to judge.

I am all for change. I am all for donating to worthy causes because people are suffering in this world and I am not. But instead of feeling fucking guilty about being better off than others, I'm going to use my good fortune to the advantage of all. Having parents with a decent income means I've been able to go to decent schools and one day, maybe, will make above-decent money that I can start putting where it belongs, not in 401ks and T-Bills but into homeless shelters and blood banks that are running on fumes. I will gladly march peacefully against the numerous causes that exist in this country to be marched upon. But the bottom line remains for me: some things are right and some are wrong, regardless of context and circumstance. And I HATE that it's not right to be a villain to villains, but that's the reality.

I know many people who will read this have issues with religion. I do not attend church, nor do I read my bible nightly, but there is one thing in that whole book that I believe in. "Love one another." Okay, a little sappy, and it's really tough to love George Bush and the thousands of other fucks that seem to be running things right now, but you can certainly love the guys who work in grocery stores and the 50 year old women without college educations that work retail. When you fuck the corporations, they can't get back to you. So who do they go after? Think about those people when you decide how to protest.

I respect all of you for your beliefs and think that most of them are good. But if I had to change one thing, I wish you guys didn't think petty vandalism, theft, and disturbance are activities to be cherished. If that is really how you feel, and you feel like the injustice can only be stopped with the torch and pitchfork, then quit talking about it and GET TO IT. But stop acting like you're on the verge of storming the Oval Office and Wall Street or wherever else, and then not doing it, and just getting sullen. I can't build a rocketship. And I wouldn't if I could, because it's worthless to abandon or even put at risk people and things I love to send a message that ONLY THOSE LOOKING CAN SEE. Instead, I'm going to play by the rules, drive the speed limit, and disperse when the cops tell me. If you respect me less for that, fine, I certainly understand. But let's compare notes in fifty years on who has done good and how they've done it. I bet I'll have done my share without feeling all bitter and angry and CERTAINLY without ever having darkened people's already tough lives.

The bottom line is this: I don't care how bad it gets out there. At the end of the day I have to look myself in the mirror and say, "Is this the best I can do?" They can wiretap my phones and do whatever else, but at the end of every day, I have to face that mirror.

Some of my examples aren't perfect and some can be picked apart. But I think my point is clear and justified. I'm more than willing to nitpick if that's what people want, but I think we're at the heart of an important debate with lots of issues on both sides. Thanks for reading, and I look forward to your reactions.

Dwight Gooden finally put to good use

2005-04-13T18:43:00.000-05:00

For those of us who remeber the days before cocaine was made popular by the likes of Michael Irvin and Steve Howe, there was another sports player who made blow THE drug. He also managed to win a Cy Young award as well. His name is Dwight "Doc" Gooden, and for years, he made fans of both New York teams very happy campers. He won 24 games and the Cy Young award in his second season, as well as posting an IP/SO ratio of around 1/1 and winning at least 15 games in 6 of his fist 7 seasons. Now that's impressive. Unfortunately, after a brief bit of fame after being traded to the Yankees, he travelled from team to team before leaving the game after one last year with baseball's version of the illuminatti (the Yankees, that is).

But for those who thought they'd seen the last of Dwight Gooden on your screens, stand down, he is not done yet. According to a bit of research I recently did, it has been found that this pitching legend will be making his big-screen debut in June. The role? He will be playing "Gotham City Police Officer" in the upcoming film "Batman Begins". Now, before you all start snickering, I would like to give Mr. Gooden a pat on the back. Not just for getting it back together and getting out in the business, but for choosing such an obvioulsy amazing movie in which to make his debut. So Congratulations Doc, you've made your comeback, we'll see you when the Dark Knight comes to town.

No time for a retort yet, but these words were like poetry...

2005-04-13T12:48:00.000-05:00

"In vain (the rich) might they say: But I built this wall; I earned this field by my labor. Who gave you its dimensions, they might be answered, and by virtue of what do you presume to be paid at our expense for work we did not impose on you? Do you not know that a multitude of your brethren die or suffer from need of what you have in excess, and that you needed express and unanimous consent of the human race to appropriate for yourself anything from common subsistence that exceeded your own?"

"All evils are the first effect of property and the inseperable consequence of nascent inequality."

All around me I see revolutionary knowledge with no conviction. Is this the product of ignorance, boredom, or conformity? Or is it an unspoken allegiance waiting for someone to cast the first stone? The clock is ticking at the expense of your grandchildren.

Michael Ian Black

2005-04-11T01:09:00.000-05:00

In answer to the echoing call for general chatty posting, I decided to relate a bit of our (the Bromley Bunch's) Sunday afternoon for you all to indulge in.

For those who don't know, Michael Ian Black (henceforth known as MIB) came to town and delivered an hour of hilarity right to the doorstep of us college students here at UIUC. The free show (sponsored by the illini union board) was largely about life, comedy, the 80's, and cunnilingus, and lived up to everything I expected.

Despite the horrific A/V technical difficulties (I swear they had Giuseppe up there in the booth running the DVD player...with his penis) MIB still delivered a solid performance to the rather-full 700 seat Foellinger Auditorium. There were only a few segments through the show when I wasn't laughing. I was only really disappointed that the question and answer session was cut short due to the ridiculously embarrassing technical difficulties we were having (MIB asked if UIUC was a state school or a private school after staring at a paused dvd on the projector screen for about 15 seconds).

Anyways, if anyone else gets wind that Black is swinging by your area for another lecture (he's not on tour or anything, so I doubt he will, but it doesn't hurt to dream) I highly suggest catching his show. The man has some interesting ideas on why titty fucking a hooker should not be considered a sin, and he can tell some damn find knock knock jokes about monkeys.

A Little Rendition of an Old Tune (pun fully intended)

2005-04-10T19:16:00.000-05:00

What's the only thing better than secret memos ordering the inhumane torture of terroist "detainees" (read: people who have not been formally charged with anything, but have, through the greatness of the Patriot Act, been detained for being designated a terrorist threat, see: Jose Padilla) in America's good old Gunatanamo Bay? Detainees being subject to "renditions", or for the layperson, being sent to countries where there are known to be practices of severe torture. No, this did not happen once or twice, but many, many times since the good old twin towers were brought down almost 4 years ago. And also, CIA director Porter Goss has gone on record saying that this rendition practice has gone on for over 20 years. Of course, as those who believe in the Tooth Fairy and Trickle-down Economics will tell you, this practice is not illegal, nor does it do anything detrimental to the war on terror. Well, excuse me whilst I break your argument over my knee like Bane broke the Batman (that one's for you, Pilgrim).

Newly appointed attorney General Alberto Gonzales (who was appointed for his stunning resemblance to a Horatio Alger wet dream), has said that this rendition practice has been used only to send detainees to countries where there is some assurance they will not be tortured. So, of course, when a Canadian citizen detained at a New York Airport was sent to Syria, where he was born but no longer a citizen, this was clearly done to the letter of the law and in hope of merely getting good evidence. There's no doubt in my mind that Syria's methods of extraction are totally humane and legal according to the Geneva convention (wooo, get a whif of that sarcasm!). Of course, after being detained for 10 months without a trial, this man, Maher Arar, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government claiming he had been tortured in Syria. The U.S. has denied his attorney's requests to provide its documents about this case because they see it as a threat to national security. Funny how odd conincidences like that happen, isn't it? Other countries that detainees have been sent to: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Lebanon. I wonder if you could compile a list of countries with worse human rights records than that. It would surely take a good while.

But now, with those old codgers McCain and Ted Kennedy breathing down the CIA's neck, they are becoming increasingly fevered about passing the re-instated version of the Patriot Act. Our man Alberto G. has been touring the country rallying support for the act saying that law enforcement officers and organizations need more power to deal with suspected terrorists. That's right, let's allow secret surveillance, unlimited detention of people without a trial or right to face their accusers, and then, like Tonly Blair's government, let's draft "control orders". These orders in Britain allow people to be put under constant surveillance, be put under house arrest and be subject to curfews if suspected to be a terrorist. I don't think I have to say "police state" to get my point across.

I have things to do, so let's get to the point. Not only is the U.S. currently occupying a country due to illegal actions, but it's also practicing the export of uncharged detainees to countries with poor human rights records (remember, we used to get in huge international debacles to actually bring terrorists here when their only link to America was the killing of one American man) and using the evidence obtained with torture to try other terror suspects or that same tortured suspect. But alas, all is still quiet in the midwest, where the corn grows high enough to block out the screams of people illegally detained and the winds blow hard enough to leave no paper trail. It's getting harder to ignore this and go on with my daily life, and I hope by imposing that feeling upon others, we can hold our "chosen" leaders responsible for the illegal and immoral actions they are taking.

A Taste of Things to Come (and then I'd laugh because I said come)

2005-04-08T17:53:00.000-05:00

God damn fucking baseball fans...

I had every intention of posting here at the beginning of the month in the hopes that the topic of this particular post would become a monthly occurrence. Due, however, to a hastily planned beach party and an absurd amount of homework, I put it off. But now Grey Pilgrim, the goat bastard, can claim responsibility for this post because he "lit a fire under my ass" or "inspired me to get off my ass." Well in reality the only thing he did to my ass was give it cause to reposition itself in my chair as I farted in his general direction. So here you go Grey Pilgrim, this one's for you.

RICK'S PICKS FOR APRIL
It's my intention that in addition to my regular tirades, this will become a monthly post wherein the "less educated" can come to check out new DVD and theatrical releases for the corresponding month. So sit back, relax and get ready to be a little less ignorant. I've foregone the cliche star rating system so I've included a legend for easier understanding of my grading scale.

A *Scorsese* -- must have/see; mind blowing in every sense of the word
A *Wes Anderson* -- you ought to own it; on the very edge of greatness
A *Tarantino* -- get around to it; entertaining but nothing revolutionary
A *Kevin Smith* -- contribute to the monkey fund first; down right cliche but still entertaining

NEW TO DVD

The Corporation - 4/5
A documentary that takes a scathing in-depth look at multinational corporations and their effects globally. Interviews include Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky among many others.
*Wes Anderson*

Primer - 4/19
Nominated for four Independent Spirit Awards and winner of the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance, the first feature film from Shane Carruth is a sci-fi drama in the same vein as Donnie Darko and Pi. Like both of it's predecessors, the film maintains a high level of intelligence which keeps you on your toes.
*Scorsese*

The Assassination of Richard Nixon - 4/26
Based on actual events, Sean Penn stars as Samuel Bicke, the would-be assassin of Richard Nixon. Penn's performance has been heavily compared to De Niro's a la Taxi Driver. I haven't yet seen it so take that in to account when you consider the lower grade I gave it.
*Tarantino*

Boccaccio '70 - 4/26
Another movie that I haven't seen but felt compelled to list here. The film is a series of segments directed by four Italian directors; Federico Fellini, Vittorio De Sica, Mario Monicelli and Luchino Visconti. I'm aware of the latter two but not as familiar with their work as I am Fellini or De Sica, but having seen 8 1/2 and The Bicycle Thief I can tell you all without hesitation that this should be an interesting watch to say the least.
*Tarantino*

NEW TO THEATERS

Sin City - 4/1
I honestly don't think a review is necessary. Everyone's seen this by now... most, multiple times. Robert Rodriguez delivers the most visually mind-blowing film I've ever seen.
*Scorsese*

Kung Fu Hustle - 4/8
Have you ever seen a live action cartoon before? No, Space Jam and that piece of shit with Brendan Fraser don't count. Stephen Chow delivers something far superior with Hong Kong's highest grossing film of all-time (thanks Gweed). This tongue-in-cheek comedy promises to kick yours, mine and your gay uncle's asses.
*Scorsese*

Rock School - 4/15
Ok, you remember School of Rock, right? Well did you ever think that someone like Dewey Finn existed in the real world? Well as this film proves, he does and he's very passionate about his work. I'd suggest you all check out the trailer for this movie. The way Paul Green yells at 11 year-old kids is absolutely hilarious!
*Wes Anderson*

Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room - 4/22
This documentary takes a look at the rise and fall of Enron, and the despicable actions taken by men like Kenneth Lay. Be prepared for a serious and sometimes disturbing film; don't go in to this expecting a Michael Moore film otherwise you'll be disappointed.
*Tarantino*

XXX: State of the Union - 4/29
SAMUEL L. JACKSON?! WILLEM DAFOE?! ICE CUBE?! I'll save you guys a spot in line.

I think that's a safe a place as any to end.

2005-04-01T15:24:00.000-06:00

So I guess that this website will now be an example that illustrates the death of a weblog, and how it blooms large and bright only to one day wither away and die. But in the meantime, I’m going to go on and post anyway.

I gave a lecture yesterday about egalitarianism, in which I threw out the idea of a society in which there was one basic law around which all state functions operated. This law was what I called the Right to Equality of Condition. Basically, this law says that there shall be upheld the equal relative condition of each citizen. This would be the job of the state. Business would be controlled by the state and all that. But most importantly the rights of ownership would be severely limited because owning would not allow for any kind of usage for profit or damage to the land in any sense unless ok’d by the state. We then had a round table discussion about this and the question of enforcement of this law was brought up. Some called this system authoritarian and too harsh. Though I think it would not quite be that way, it does make an interesting point. Would a strict egalitarian system be too harsh and authoritarian? Would this be bad, or a justified mean to a greater end? Is anyone going to bother commenting? Maybe, maybe not.

Either way, I’ll have my reply up by the week’s end.

We used to be friends, but now.....

2005-03-26T06:26:00.000-06:00

Since the time of the Vietnam "conflict" (read: horribly unnecessary war), Canada, our friendly and laid-back neighbor to the North has provided political asylum to Americans who opposed the wars of their home country and refused to fight in them. However, with the recent trend of precedents being set by high courts and followed via high-profile cases, this neighborly welcoming might be coming to a quick and harsh end. Jeremy Hinzman, a member of the U.S. Army's 82nd airborne paratrooper division, fled to Canada in 2004 to show his opposition to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq. Since then, he's been living with his wife and son in Toronto since then. He had applied for refugee status, hoping that Canada's century old record of accepting Americans across the 49th parallel during U.S. war time would ensure his acceptance. Now, before I go any further, U.S. Army officials have alluded to the fact that, if brought back to the U.S., Hinzman will most likely face a 5 year prison term. Not only this, but Hinzman's email box has been filled to the brim with thousands of hate-mail messages threatening him in almost every way imaginable. Now, with this having been said, we jump to the decision of the Canadian government regarding Hinzman's appeal.
Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board ruled this week that Hinzman will not receive asylum in Canada. They said that Hinzman had not convinced the board that he was in significant danger of having his human rights violated if he was returned to the United States. Perhaps he did not make his case clear enough to them, but I would think that a 5 year jail term and the thousands of threats he received would be enough to show the Canadian government that Hinzman would be best served, both emotionally and physically, by staying in Canada. But, since this distinguished government body ruled that he was not in clear danger, I'll outline an argument as to why he should be allowed to stay in Canada.

The U.S. led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war that was clearly started against the laws outlined by the United Nations charter. The charter stated clearly that "All members shall refrain ... from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." and also states that a state may only use force when it is in self-defense or if it is approved by the UN Security Council. The U.S. government's actions violated these laws. For this, it is widely argued, the Bush administration can be tried for war crimes. The likelihood of this, however, is equivalent to the likelihood of Stalin rising from the dead.
Because the war is illegal according to international law, and because the actions of the United States Army are in the jurisdiction of international law, Jeremy Hinzman had no obligation to fight in Iraq. If anything, he was following the very international law that his home country helped to draft. Thus, in objecting to the war, he was objecting to the actions of what international law would consider a rogue state.
Canada, in accepting Hinzman, would be accepting a refugee from a state that had violated international law. And since this law is in place to protect human rights, and the United States is violating human rights in breaking said law, Hinzman is in danger of having his human rights violated by being sent back to the U.S. because he would be imprisoned for following the law of the United Nations. If being imprisoned by a rogue state for opposing its actions is not a violation of human rights, then I don't know what is.
But alas, as we learn in good old political science classes, the Canadian government made this move so as not to worsen already strained relations with the U.S., which its opposition to the Iraqi invasion helped create. This is some sort of irony. I hope that I have at least outlined the tip of the iceberg that is the absurdity both of this war and of Canada's decision to deny Hinzman's request. Hinzman's lawyer claims that there will be an appeal, but with the publicity that this case has received, Canada will be under even more pressure to "make good" with its southern neighbor, and most likely return this toy soldier to the big-eared sadistic child that will ultimately burn him with fireworks and say "look daddy, look what I done!".

Re-starting the Debate

2005-03-15T19:54:00.000-06:00

Greek’s points are ones that are often given and employed by many who oppose violent opposition. For instance, I admit that it would be great to give a hungry person a sandwich or help a homeless person to find some shelter; those are good acts. But would it not be better to topple the system that enabled a person to be in that state instead, thus allowing them or their contemporaries to make a life for themselves in which they can always have food, water, and shelter? Sure, many have made the argument that these unfortunates could get jobs and become upstanding members of society, but let’s be real for a minute. The capitalist free market system necessitates the existence of a lower class. Thus, these people are not merely lazy or “bad seeds”, they are a necessary part of a system that places human dignity and comfort below profit for a certain class on the list of priorities. The government, meanwhile has become a state whose purpose is to keep this system in place, and thus, has become allied with it. But more importantly, in aligning itself with this system, it has placed the needs of its people under the needs of those who seek profit as an end, not as a means to a better distribution of basic goods. In doing this, the state has become illegitimate in the eyes of many who are realizing its function. Whether you are a Utilitarian or a supporter of Rawlsian distributive justice, this is a point upon which you should ultimately agree. Due to all of this, there is a system in place which keeps many from being treated as Greek wishes them to. This system makes it much harder for people to go out of their way to treat others with respect and as equals. I think that even Greek, to a certain extent would agree with this.

Secondly, Greek’s plan of helping people and treating them with dignity and respect would be concurrent with a revolution, maybe with the exception of the idea of “treating well those whom you do not necessarily like”. However, the reason to treat them in a “rough” (this them being the defenders of the state) would not be because we do not like them, but because they are standing in the way of enabling a system that would serve the needs of everyone better than the current one. And ultimately, there will be a better distribution of goods and means of production so that we will not have to rely upon the charity of the higher class to keep away the existence of a poor class. Greek also made the point about protest being utterly useless, with which I’d tend to agree. Thus, I believe that there is a need that is presented by a revolutionary fervor for a blatant and calculated disregard for the laws of the state whom we view to be no longer the defender of everyone. Some suggest ignoring it, but I think that this is, to an extent, being done (eg: not voting, which many poor and lower middle-class practice), but those who hold real power are those who participate most in the state’s decisions, which is why they benefit most. Also, I don’t know how we’d go about ignoring the state. Whether or not we choose to say “you’re legitimate”, the state will still operate as a defender of the capitalist system as long as the system itself stands. The only way that I see to show the state how very dissatisfied we are is by actively working against it by breaking the very laws that the state has put in place to protect the way of life that has failed us. Without doing this, I see little hope for a tangible and grand change. If we continue to “protest” while doing it in the confines of the laws that were set up to keep drastic change from happening, the protest will not produce drastic change. It’s that simple.

I Never Saw Venice

2005-03-07T22:42:00.000-06:00

The very last thing I intend to do is detract from Dialectician and The Grey Pilgrim's more relevant conversation topics, but the way I figure it, if I didn't post this now it was never going to see the site. Ummm, here goes nothin'.

It has recently come to my attention that the legendary punk rock club CBGB's is on the verge of closing its doors. For some of you, this bit of news is inconsequential. That said, indulge me in a brief and hopefully enlightening history lesson.

The year was 1973. Entrepreneur Hilly Kristal just bought the old Palace Bar with the intentions of turning it into a live music hall. While several New York clubs were closing, he envisaged a venue that would stage his favorite music: country, blue grass, and blues (Hey, an acronym). As it turned out, the music that pervaded his complex was far from his preferred styles, and in fact, more akin to the OMFUG (Other Music For Uplifting Gormandizers) that adorned the club's canopy. Punk rock exploded on the streets of New York in the latter half of the 70's, and CBGB's was at the forefront. Unlike other clubs, CBGB's made it a point to allow for unsigned acts to play. Secondarily, it was requisite that these bands played their own music. This led to Kristal routinely booking unknown acts such as the Ramones, Television, Patti Smith, and Blondie. They didn't remain unknown for long though as CBGB's shows quickly became the gold standard for live music in the city.

Fast forward to 1980. The burgeoning New York scene was now well-developed, and CBGB's could be regarded as nothing less than a punk rock breeding ground. Quite an accomplishment for an old Hell's Angels' hangout. With the birth of hardcore in the DC area and its concomitant growth in New York, it was just a matter of time before CBGB's got in on the action. Enter Sunday Hardcore Matinees. Each week fans throughout the tri-state area would flock in droves to catch acts like Agnostic Front, Murphy's Law and the Cro-Mags tear up the stage. This tradition continued on through the decade and for a time, CBGB's became a home to the straight edge revival. Such a scenario was too good to be true as violence continually erupted at shows, and the matinees, as well as hardcore performances in general, were largely phased out. Still, CBGB's slugged on and now in 2005, it appears as though CBGB's fire may finally be extinguished.

Here are the facts of the case: Kristal faces a doubling of his rent to the tune of $40,000 per month. In addition, there's an $80,000 insurance liability fee. And if that weren't bad enough, he owes $91,000 in back rent to his landlord, the Bowery Resident's Committee. Up against those monetary impositions, there is little hope. Kristal has stated that CBGB's will have until the end of August. I can't help but find this whole situation depressing on a number of levels. While CBGB's commands the attention it deserves as a hallmark punk club, it is also stands to fall victim to the swarming trend of Manhattan's Lower East Side. The Bowery has traditionally stood as a home to drunks and the homeless. The Palace Hotel above the old Palace Bar was itself a flophouse. These types of hovels were rampant throughout the city, but today the whole area is gentrifying. As low-income housing evaporates, million dollar condos are left in their wake. CBGB's is not alone either. Fez, Tonic, and Luna Lounge are caught in comparable predicaments, and other venues like Coney Island High, Brownies, Bottom Line, and Wetlands have all closed within the last few years.

Amidst all this I'm looking for some sort of silver lining. I concede that the glory days have long since passed. Today white suburbia is introduced to the CBGB's mythos through Lindsay Lohan's tee-shirt of choice. We've sure fallen a long way. But it's emblematic of the commodification of punk rock culture in general. As the major labels rushed to Green Day and Offspring in the mid-90's, their thrift-peddling cohorts have worked to shuffle what was once a rich and unique form of expression into your local Hot Topic. In some twisted way, acquiescing to contemporary economic pressures now would allow the club to fade gracefully into the past. By closing CBGB's maybe it's legacy could be preserved before it's relegated to a bizarre tourist attraction. Indeed, as a shell of its former self, it's well on its way. But above all this critical quibbling, New York and the punk rock community is better with CBGB's than without it. With a growing number of clubs closing, the last thing the scene needs is for the veritable mecca to close its doors. As I see it, retaining CBGB's has to outweigh any negative commercial connections that would endure.

What may be most personally distressing about this is that it comes hot on the heels of Chicago's own Fireside Bowl closing. Last Fall, after years of equivocating the venue was officially converted back into a bowling alley. Having never been to CBGB's, I can say that the Fireside came the singularly closest to a punk rock wonderland in the Midwest. Over a handful of years, I had the pleasure to be in attendance at a number of shows. Once the night began, temperatures consistently broke 90 degrees any day of the year. The stage was slightly larger than a coffee table, and the acoustics were often atrocious. It seemed like the whole damn place could collapse at any given moment. On a good night, the floor came alive with a wave of bodies. On a great one, the club was too packed to allow for a gasp of air. In those cases, the only moment of relief would come when one could tumble off the partition towards the bowling lanes, which would immediately highlight the ridiculousness of the whole situation. Nothing quite touched the excitement and desperation of a set at the Fireside. God, I miss it so.

Maybe I'm just rambling, but this whole notion of punk being a youth movement has rapidly set in. Attending shows now, as West and Fuser can attest, we are commonly among the oldest on hand. I suppose I'm still clinging to the rock of my youth while the seas of change are crashing over me. Everybody's got to let go eventually. Why should I care about the closing of some club to which I've never even been? For some reason though, I can't help but find the whole thing unsettling. It seems the clubs are quitting on us before we can give up on them. With the Fireside gone and CBGB's to follow, what's left? I guess Gilman St. would be the closest runner-up for its musical progeny. But by the time I follow Bickle out to California and am afforded the chance to visit Berkeley's hallowed hall, will it even matter?

Thanks for putting up with this meandering and largely self-indulgent post. This is Dr. Kovacs ending transmission.

A Comment and then some

2005-03-07T17:01:00.000-06:00

The Grey Pilgrim is not quite familiar with clicking "yes" under the "Allow New Comments on This Post", so I'll take this oppourtunity to comment and make a few statements. First of all, I'm sorry Mr. Jackson, and I hope that in the coming weeks you can cut through the sadness of loss, which for 4 years is very thick, and rekindle the passion that is necessary to carry on. I was there from the day that you first started dating Julie, when she shipped off to NY and in between. Though I haven't been there for the past few, I can say without hesitation that on behalf of the rest of the team, we're here for you man. At this point, none of us are strangers to having our hearts smashed. I was there when Fuser got knocked down for the count, we saw Bickle get hurt, and now we see the longest relationship we knew end. But don't let that make you lose faith. There are people out there that are willing to give you their all, even when you can't even open up to them. I have been lucky enough to find someone like this. But that's not the relevant thing here. What is relevant is that we are willing to give our all for each other, and though we may all be busy, we'll gladly miss a half week of class for one of the team. This was proven when Kovacs and West were totally ready to take a 7 hour bus ride to U/C on a Wednesday just to watch the premeire of "American Dad".

In short, we have begun to live that part of life where the stooges around us manage to hurt us in a bad way, and it sucks. But though when we've been knocked down, we feel desperate and alone, we've found that at those times, we get the calls and get the handshakes and hugs we need to help ourselves back up. By now, this post is thoroughly soaked with cliches and it was written after I awoke from a class-skipping nap session, but I believe that it will strike some chord with the fully awake and aware.

"try not to give up hope
that one day things will get better
we're all gonna be together -
may not be sunny weather" -the Suicide Machines-

Trying it out, and an explantaion why

2005-03-04T11:42:00.000-06:00

This post is mostly for those involved in the blog, and for those who may at first feel opposed to what I'm about to do. I have registered this blog with Google AdSense, which is a service that essentially pays you for allowing companies who are in some way related to your blog's subject or posts, to paste ads on your blog. As a result, the blog owner will be monetarily compensated. Since I am the one that technically owns the blog, I will be receving payments when applicable. But I am not a greedy man. To those who help with the blog, you too will share in the earnings. This "compensation" will no doubt be very little, unless the blog becomes very popular or at least visited often. So feel free to spread the word about our blog. But I am not just saying that in an attempt to make money. This, if anything, will serve as a bonus for us. My purpose for starting this blog is that I know that we, as a group of longstanding friends, have great ideas and very insightful things to say, and this is the outlet for them. Plus, there are thousands of blogs on the web that deal with things as minute as scrapbooking or people's personal lives, and are able to get many hits per day. I see no reason why our site, as an important outlet for social and political criticism, as well as intellegent opinions regarding popular culture and art, should be ignored.

Anyway, I know that many may seem uncomfortable with this ad idea, especially considering the fevered words that I often hurl in opposition to the market economy and capitalism. To these people I say this: yes, I too am uncomfortable with this situation, and if the ads become too obnoxious, I will cacel the contract with Google. But I do have an email account with google, I use their site daily for research and recreational purposes, and so I see nothing wrong with employing their ad service in order to attain money for ourselves. Secondly, these ads are supposedly going to be ones that are connected to the theme of our website, and considering the plethora of independent and socially responsible companies that exist on the web, I'd be happy to advertise for them. Third, and probably most importantly: while I may hate capitalism, the market and advertising strategies that have run amok in our culture, I am currently unable to escape from dependence on them. I know this is little justification, but at least I am not bowing down to Golden Palace Casino or Wal-Mart. Google has proven a minimally invasive and reliable company, and i have less a problem helping them out than I do Wal-Mart, where I still begrudgingly drag my broke ass to buy soy milk, because it is about a dollar cheaper than anywhere else out here.

In conclusion. I have not lost my revolutionary fervor, nor do I plan on using this blog as a source of income. On the contrary, this blog will still be an outlet for my hatred for all things Captialist, and Imperialist-American. The only thing different will be clickable ads on a side-bar (note: they will not be pop-ups!!). If anything, this should be a motiviation to get more people looking at the blog. Utlitmately, it will serve as a forum for the intellegent exchange of ideas, and a mouthpiece for a severely underrepresented class of intellgent dissidents and critics.

That's really all I have to say, but I leave this open for my teammates and any others to give me their opinion, I value it, and it holds weight with me.

The Devil Majored in Marketing

2005-03-02T17:27:00.000-06:00

I was not going to post today, and instead give others a chance to comment on the other posts, but I had to do it. In a previous post, I mentioned the ebay auction which was selling a mystery envelope with undislcosed contents. It was sold that day for $7,600 to a place called Golden Palace Casino, an online casino. But this is not the first purchase, nor the most degrading they have made. As you can plainly deduce, they purchased it to get hits to their site in hopes of sucking in more members to their little operation. Among the other things they've purchased, a pregnant woman's belly, a man's forehead, Dennis Rodman (the rights to spend a night with him), and the (as they so professionally worded it) "cleavage" of the ex-wife of baseball start Jeff Bagwell. You can check this all out and more at this link.

What irks me about this not only this horrd transformation of body parts into commodites and advertising space, but also the language being used by this company. They refer to their acquisitions as "buying a body part", which is very bold for a business to say in the first place. You would think that people would be discusted by this, but apparently, this is not the case. People from all over are lining up to be "bought", either in parts or as a whole, by this casino. I severely underestimated the mentality of this country as well as the unscrupulousness of the common American business. This saddens me to no end. This is proof positive that the amount of things that are seen as potentially for sale is unlimited in this capitalist culture. Make no mistake about it, these people are selling themselves! THIS IS SLAVERY ALL OVER AGAIN!

Look at this and tell me that the market economy is still a good idea, I dare you!

The Revolution Debate

2005-03-01T18:00:00.000-06:00

Let's assume, and this assumption is probably correct anyway, that all the members of this blog advocate a revolution to end the global capitalist expansion that is being carried out by the United States. Let's also assume that the only way to do this without having it take a century is to effectively topple the power of the current state. Looking back on the means of "revolution" practiced in the past by our forefathers (and foremothers, feminist love!), do we side with men like Fanon and Guevara and others to advocate the violent revolution? Before we answer this with pacifist ideals in our hearts, I'm gonna lay out the goals and caveats that we should keep in mind:

1) There needs to be a change in the structure of the economic and governmental system in place in the U.S.

2) The two-party system has taken a very strong hold on the political process, such that a vote for either will result in an admittedly un-changing adherence to a relative status quo (i.e., the market economy and the liberal democratic state that has existed for the last 200+ years). Also, a third-party majority in either house or in the executive office has an improbability bordering on impossibility.

3) The division between classes has become larger and more harmful to those at the bottom, both in America and worldwide.

4) The rate at which the capitalist-industrial system is using resources will leave oil depleted within 10 years, continues to cause massive ecological damage and climate change, and is depleting the world of oxygen-producing trees in African and South American rainforests.

5) The large and long-term goal is the replacement of the current class structure with one in which those who produce: a) own the means of production b) produce for themselves or the community goods that are used for subsistence purposes only and not as commodities to be used in the structure of a commodities market.

All that being said, with more possible additions, I'd like to pose the question a last time. Given the time constraints and severity of the hegemonic system, do we now advocate a violent revolution?

Let the debate begin....

Climbing the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the seven-story building at 8949 Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, Ca...

2005-02-28T21:10:00.000-06:00

The building in question? You guessed it... the Academy foundation.

Allow me to clear up one very important fact... I have never liked the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. But as long as those diretors, screenwriters and actors I admire do, I am forced to hopelessly root for them to be recognized by this gathering of has-beens and never-weres.

How could anyone derive enjoyment from watching an academy of morons consistently snub some of the greatest talent in cinematic history? Don't just take my word for it... consider this assembly of directors who have never been recognized for their achievments throughout their storied careers:

John Cassavetes (nominated once)
Sidney Lumet (nominated four times)
Robert Altman (nominated five times)
Akira Kurosawa (nominated once)
Alfred Hitchcock (nominated five times)
Stanley Kubrick (nominated four times)
Martin Scorsese (nominated five times)

Okay, so Kurosawa and Lumet both recieved "honorary" oscars... both very late in their careers might I add. And what the fuck is an "honorary" oscar anyway? Isn't that the academy acknowledging that they've fucked it up by not managing to get them a real one at some point during their career? Nope, they were just too busy handing out the best director award to whatever actor-turned-director is up for it that year... which brings me to another point...

In the last 25 years, the best directing award has gone to one such person a third of the time. Since 1980, Richard Attenborough, Warren Beatty, Robert Redford, Kevin Costner, Mel Gibson, Ron Howard and Clint Eastwood (2) have all won the best director oscar. I'm not trying to advocate that all of these wannabes are completely devoid of directing talent... there's a few names in that bunch that proved to be damn good at it. The point that I'm trying to illustrate, however, is that the academy seems to favor these former actors and, should the opportunity present itself, will hand one out to them without a second thought. I suppose it's a good thing because when an actor discovers they've lost their acting ability *cough*Mel Gibson*cough* or they in fact realize they never had any in the first place *cou-- oh fuck it, KEVIN COSTNER, they've got to do something to make a living. I mean, you can't expect someone that makes millions of dollars acting to understand the concept of a savings account.

I don't mean to sound completely un-sympathetic to those artists whom I really admire. I think I understand why they show up to the oscars every year... they're sadists. They feel, and perhaps rightfully so, that when you reach the peak of your career and you have mastered your craft more so than any of your predecessors and/or peers, you deserve some kind of recognition... the Acedemy Awards are that recognition. They are, for whatever reason, highly regarded as the premium award a member of the cinematic community can receive. I suppose that as long as we, the fans acknowledge them as such, it will always be that way.

Although, I'll still hope against hope for the deserving winners to take home their awards, I'll continue my paradoxical march against the Academy Awards next year. Maybe I'll see you guys there... I'll be the one stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of the Kodak Theater.

Life As Found In My Parking Lot

2005-02-28T18:01:00.000-06:00

Fuck anybody who finds beauty in an oil spill. I find the same beauty in the blood that drips from your skull. Find a pretty set of colors somewhere else you pretentious fucks. Art is only great to the extent that it has a great purpose. I’d like to chew on the intestines of all the art majors at this university who think they have much better interpretation of this world then me. Your interpretation comes from the inside of my ass. I intend to spend my life shitting you out.

Side note, Mike you need to check the box that says "allow new comments on this post"... Either that, or stop bitching about noone commenting on your posts. I love you. Steve.

Chris Rock v. Fuser and the culmination of American Economics

2005-02-27T19:50:00.000-06:00

This post has dual subjects to address, which will be separated by a split between paragraphs, here we go.

So by weird happenstance at work, I flip on the TV program on the computer (which is supposed to be for students to watch foreign language channels, but I'm not being studious, I'm "working") and I happen to be able to get channel 7, and thus, the Oscars. Right away, there's Chris Rock who within the first 5 minutes of his opening monologue unknowingly starts a rivalry in the houe where 1/3 of the armchair team lives. Mr. Rock, as the kids say, "called out" a certain movie entitled Rocky V, which armchair team meber Fuser happens to value as one of the finest pieces of cinema in the known world. However, and rightfully so, Citizen Bickle, whose normally fascistic taste in movies is usually forced upon others via strict proclomations of what can be watched in Apartment B1, has strictly forbidden talk of said Rocky installment. Though I am not at their residence, I imagine that there will be an obituary of one of the two on the armchair blog tomorrow which includes the words "multiple lacerations" and "idenfied by dental records". Ultimatley, someone will have to notify Chris Rock to let him know that he is a contributor to one of the bloodiest battles in the history of cinema argmuents, aside from maybe the famous Pitch Black debate, which took place, and is still taking place between myself, Fuser, and Dr. Kovacs.

The second issue at hand is somehting that I came across while glancing at some of the blogs that are up for the "bloggies" award. One blog, "Bacon and Eh's, which you can find at: http://baconandehs.blogspot.com/, had a story about a certain ebay auction that, to me, tippifies both the pure stupidity of the industrialized nation's peoples, and of the unscrupulous marketing instinct that is now imbedded in all but a few american citizens. The auction item is a "mystery envelope" which is now going for an unbelievably high price, and by the time many read this, has already been sold. You can see for yourself here:http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=5559938963#ebayphotohosting
I reccomend that each person who is as disgusted and amazed by this as I am contact the winner of this auction and personally inquire regarding 1) the motivation to blow over $70,000 dollars on what could be the biggest scam in history 2) how this person could sleep at night knowing that they spent more than 70,ooo dollars on an envelope while more than 30,000 children died today due to lack of food and drinkable water. I've had enough, I'm going to leave work, watch American Psycho and cry myslef to sleep.

D-Day is here!

2005-02-27T15:28:00.000-06:00

One of the most disappointing evenings of the year rears it's ugly head tonight... special handguns marking the occasion will be dispersed upon entering apartment B1.

I'm going to take this opportunity to force my opinions on all of you by detailing my predictions/desires for this evening's events. I'm sure I will catch guff for my views, and perhaps rightfully so. I have yet to see a majority of the films up for awards this year... but that's never stopped me from criticizing a movie before, so fuck them and you if you've got a problem with that.

Best Adapted Screenplay...
The contenders:
Richard Linklater, etc. for Before Sunset
David Magee for Finding Neverland
Paul Haggis for Million Dollar Baby
Jose Rivera for The Motorcycle Diaries
Alexander Payne, etc. for Sideways

The winner in the perfect world: Alexander Payne and Sideways
The disappointment of the real world: Paul Haggis and Million Dollar Baby

Best Original Screenplay...
The contenders:
John Logan for The Aviator
Charlie Kauffman, etc. for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Terry George for Hotel Rwanda
Brad Bird for The Incredibles
Mike Leigh for Vera Drake

The winner in the perfect world: hands down Charlie Kauffman and Eternal Sunshine
The disappointment of the real world: Mike Leigh and Vera Drake

Best Supporting Actress...
The contenders:
Cate Blanchett for The Aviator
Laura Linney for Kinsey
Virgina Madsen for Sideways
Sophie Okonedo
Natalie Portman for Closer

The winner in the perfect world: Cate Blanchett
The disappointment of the real world: Laura Linney

Best Supporting Actor...
The contenders:
Alan Alda for The Aviator
Thomas Haden Church for Sideways
Jamie Foxx for Collateral
Morgan Freeman for Million Dollar Baby
Clive Owen for Closer

The winner in the perfect world: Thomas Haden Church
The disappointment of the real world: Jamie Foxx

Best Actress...
The conetenders:
Annette Bening for Being Julia
Catalina Sandino Moreno for Maria Full of Grace
Imelda Staunton for Vera Drake
Hilary Swank for Million Dollar Baby
Kate Winslet for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

The winner in the perfect world: Imelda Staunton
The disappointment of the real world: Hilary Swank

Best Actor...
The contenders:
Don Cheadle for Hotel Rwanda
Johnny Depp for Finding Neverland
Leonardo DiCaprio for The Aviator
Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby
Jamie Foxx for Ray

The winner in the perfect world: Jamie Foxx
The disappointment of the real world: Leonardo DiCaprio

Best Director...
The contenders:
Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby
Taylor Hackford for Ray
Mike Leigh for Vera Drake
Alexander Payne for Sideways
MARTIN SCORSESE for The Aviator

The winner in the perfect world: MARTIN SCORSESE
The disappointment of the real world: Clint Eastwood (for the sake of every mother's first born son, this better not happen)

Best Picture...
The contenders:
Sideways
Million Dollar Baby
Finding Neverland
Ray
The Aviator

The winner in the perfect world: Sideways
The disappointment of the real world: The Aviator

So there you have my depressing predictions for tonight's Academy Awards. It's ridiculous how eager I am to watch them while how little I actually look forward to seeing the winners announced. At least we can look forward to Chris Rock...

That and the merciless killing of hundreds as I take to the streets armed with my katana and my deep disdain for terrible cinema.

Rights, Control, and Exploitation

2005-02-25T12:42:00.000-06:00

Excuse me if I violate the norms of democratic vocabulary, but what are these rights that we hold so dearly? I understand the concept of wanting to not have your beloved possessions taken away from you or wanting privacy from other members of society. But aside from these concepts, I would argue that the clamor for rights and a government that is founded upon them has utterly ruined us as a free people. Simply put, our classical idea of rights has restricted the ultimate freedoms that should exist in society. For now, I’m going to drop away the common notions of freedom, in order to more accurately define it. With the concept of freedom, there should be the notion of independence. But this independence cannot be what it is thought to be in modern Globalized conglomo-world. Wealth gained by industrial ventures is not a symbol of independence. Sure, it allows for an existence that is not ruled by fear of losing your livelihood on the first of each month, but it is not an existence that is outside of the control of the market. Simply put, real independence CANNOT exist within a market economy. Once the concept of commodities is grasped by people and the majority of real labor that is being done is done in an attempt to gain a commodity for the purpose of its market value, real independence is lost.

Real independence, if I could give a paradigm example, would be the rural farmer of the antebellum days. These are the farmers that grew crops to feed themselves and traded only the surplus fruits of their labor. But there was no dependence. They existed outside of the cash nexus of the evolving market economy. But somehow, through war, the proliferation of forced debt contracts with privately owned banks, and the creation of the new freedmen proletariat (which was never given its forty acres and a mule) ruined the independent existence in America. As a result, the evolution of the market became so strong that everything became a commodity. Today, we see the list of commodities becoming longer. There is sex for sale, ideas for sale, music and art for sale. People lend their backs to advertisers so they can tattoo ads on them during boxing matches. This is not just a cultural phenomenon that came from nowhere. There is a reason for it. The proletariat that had been so disenfranchised by the rampant expansion of the industrial bosses in the realm of lassez-faire economics could no longer sustain itself by the mere sale of its labor power. Thus, more things were poised to be sold.

The dream of the proletarian in a capitalist system was to be a burgeois owner, to own the means of production and profit from them, or to at least be a merchant, making their own commodities and selling them. This dream, when in danger of being stifled by the sting of the market, became the push behind the creation of vice and contraband markets. But the capitalist system could not allow the lower class to create new commodities and their values as well as sell them. Thus, laws were made outlaw drug sales and prostitution. Of course, there were other reasons why prostitution was outlawed (mainly to keep marriage as a basic social institution from being weakened), but one of the main problems that was seen was the potential for those oppressed (by race and gender) by laws limiting their wages and job opportunities, to find ways to gain relative wealth on the bourgeois while not contributing to the wealth of the bourgeois via profits. And so the dichotomy was put in place as such: capitalist industrialists can create new commodities as they see fit, create the market value and demand for them and pay much less for the labor power than the value of the product, but the class it needs for laboring cannot work outside of this relation to gain wealth.

The outlawing of drug sales and prostitution was a major turning point in the ideological position of capitalist America. It saw the possible rise of the laboring class through the use of newer commodities. This brings me to my thesis. The rights that were used to fuel the capitalist expansion of America, namely property rights, expansion rights, and the right to accumulate wealth, were created by the founders of the movement in order to justify the use of an exploitative system of economics. Original farmers saw no need to create an institution to keep land in the hands of only one person. They used the land that was best suited to produce what was needed. This was independence, it was existence that was sustained without the use of a mediating body (the market). But the placement of importance upon property and wealth, which is what rights are, do not relate at all to freedom. In fact, as my last few paragraphs show, they seem to restrict freedom. I would even go so far as to argue that the “freedom to” kind of freedom is really a superfluous concept that stems from the notions that are already in the “freedom from” category. Simply put, rights are only necessary to be articulated when there is an agenda to be had from their institution. From there, a complex network of semi-opposing rights are given to those who oppose the agenda in order to either quiet their dissent or indoctrinate them into a want to be a part of the class that benefits from the agenda. So which are you, and which do you really want to be?

I've had all I can stands, and I can't stands no more!

2005-02-21T16:47:00.000-06:00

I'm not writing this to disagree with anything Dialectician has posted... for the most part, I've agreed with his every word. Nor am I writing this to detract from anything he's written, because they have been intelligent and thought provoking essays... which this, and I'm sure my future posts, will not be. So with those two things in mind, I am writing this instead, to present you with my tangent of the moment.

When I first thought of writing about this, the deep-seeded rage buried in the subtext of the title of this essay was directed at one person, and we'll keep them nameless (though I'm sure as he continues to read on, he'll see that I'm singling him out). I've come to realize, however, that nearly everyone I know is guilty of this, myself included. For now, though, I'm going to keep my rant directed at the more specific situation because... man, do I have a problem with it. For too long, I feel that I've let this injustice go along unpunished, and for the most part, unquestioned. But, as of this moment, it will become everyone's issue to deal with, and hopefully come to a consenus on (the kind that result in the culprit's burning at the stake).

So I pose this question to everyone reading this: Which is a better film... Monster Squad or Ghostbusters? The answer should be easy, right? It should be even easier if you're a member of the intelligent movie-going public. That is, you didn't voluntarily attend a screening of XXX, you didn't ditch class to go catch My Boss's Daughter and you certainly didn't catch Mean Girls in theaters... regardless of whether or not you did pay for it. Well, to one persson I know, answering the afore-mentioned question is frighteningly difficuly, especially because I would consider him a member of the more elite group of film-goers (a few infractions aside). Why, then, is it so hard to choose a clearly superior film out of the two listed above? I don't think it's any secret that Ghostbusters is more widely hailed as the better film, a FACT I couldn't agree with more. It's an all around better movie than Monster Squad, and is a hell of a lot less cheesey. Sure, you don't notice that when you're a kid... and therein lies the rub.

Bringing your nostalgic feelings in to a movie screening will always augmentate your opinion of the film. As a kid, I'm sure Monster Squad was a great movie and the same could be said for Ghostbusters. But I don't watch Ghostbusters with my plastic Proton Pack on anymore... I instead, appreciate the movie for new and different reasons as well as the old childish ones. A movie should grow with time. Although, it is frozen the way it is on celluloid forever, it should be constantly changing under repeated viewings. While watching the best movies, you should be constantly catching something new. It's the same reason why I have never looked in to purchasing episodes of The Power Rangers on DVD. I watched them as a kid every afternoon and loved every minute of it. As a quasi-adult, though, I am able to look back and admit that despite some nostalgic reasons for watching the TV show, it doesn't hold a candle to a more superior program that I watched at the same time, say for example M.A.S.H. I sure as hell didn't understand a lot of the show back then, and I'd be willing to bet millions that I would've watched an episode of Power Rangers over M.A.S.H. any day of the week... but the fact remains that nostalgia aside, I can make the conscious decision to declare one the more superior show at this stage of the game (He-Man would've kicked all their asses back in the day, though).

But as I said before, everyone's guilty of it. It's the reason someone I know can't admit that Raging Bull is a better movie than all of the Rocky collection. It's the reason why I own half of the 80's movies I do. I mean, I still don't own Fellini's 8 1/2, but I bought Brewster's Millions?! We're all guilty of it, I just hope that some day we can move past the nostalgia and critique a movie solely based on it's content alone. It's far from my desire to have made this in to a serious issue, but when a person chooses Monster Squad over Ghostbusters... it's more than just poor taste, it's a morally wrong way to live.

**readies the stakes for burning**

Deconstructing Capitalism Part 1: To Defeat the Enemy, You Must First Understand It

2005-02-21T03:35:00.000-06:00

Capitalism is ruining our world; not just in our societal relations, but in our relations to our very planet. When the colonists came to America from England in the 17^th century, the native peoples were nomadic farmers and hunters, cultivating what they grew in order to eat it and using animals for food, clothing and other necessities. But the English came here with a different idea in mind. They had already been raised in the confines of a commidicized society. They were children of the merchant trade, of gold and sliver and rare spices. Where Chippewa Indians saw corn, the English colonists saw money. This is more important than most people think. This idea of nature as anything but a means of subsistence is not something that existed always as a part of human nature. There were no fences in the early American farms. There was no thriving market and trade that just set up shop in what we now call the Eastern Seaboard. This took a long and bloody process to find its ultimate existence within our culture.

The farmers of New England were soon defying the conventions of tribal growers and keeping the same land, which they farmed over and over, essentially killing the land and stripping it of the nutrients it could have provided to other crops. The farmers grew what was popular and let livestock graze everywhere else. Hundreds of thousands of acres of forest were destroyed, and new weeds started making the land barren to crop growth. Fences were introduced and permanent land ownership kept proper growing habits from forming. The colonists were so locked into the idea of ownership that they essentially ruined the land they occupied. But this concept of ownership ruined more than the earth itself, it has ruined human interaction and ideologies. It has changed all that we strive for as a people, when we remove all the class biases and ingrained economic thought. In the next few posts I make, I will be taking apart the idea of capitalism in such a way as to show just how horrible, dehumanizing and destructive it is, both as a pure idea and as a practical system of economics. Make no mistake, this is not just for my amusement, it is in hopes that it will be read and understood by the masses. The ideas presented herein in the following posts will be mostly non-original. They have been offered by many a historian and theorist, albeit not exactly as I will put them. Having said this, I hope that even one person out there in the pseudo-society that is cyber-space comes across this series of essays and sees the subject matter for what it is, a destructive idea that runs rampant in our world and threatens it and us. One must know thine enemy before we are to destroy it, here's your chance to know capitalism, for better or for worse.

A Word on Straight-edge and the Spirit in General

2005-02-19T14:39:00.000-06:00

I was prompted to write this entry by an event this week that drew my attention to an increasingly prevalent phenomenon going on around me. This phenomenon is the breaking of edge; the event where one who swore (many swore for life) to not drink, use drugs, or engage in promiscuous activities, decides to break off that commitment. Now, I understand that many people make this decision as kids and it is helpful to them in that they essentially “stay out of trouble” and are able to make friends based on criterion other than who can score them beer or whose parents are always out of town. This, in and of itself, is great. Some make the decision when they are young because they hear about it in the punk or hardcore scene and essentially abandon the commitment once they are old enough to leave the scene. I will not be reprimanding these people here, I do not feel that these people in general are doing wrong. But there is something to be said for being a person who takes this commitment seriously and watching friends essentially end this commitment.

My first encounter with the ideology came as I was completing high school and first getting into punk music. I had never been into drugs in particular and was growing fonder of the idea of just giving up on ever feeling anything but paranoia about drinking or doing drugs. I had heard about Ian MacKaye and Kevin Seconds and those who had preached the wonders of keeping a sober mind, but I didn’t quite grip it yet. I was still committed to the idea that being young meant getting inebriated to have fun. I took this idea with me to college, where on the very day that my parents left me at college, I proceeded to get quite destroyed by smoking a huge bongfull of marijuana. The result was a whole lot of paranoia and self-loathing. It was at that moment, at approximately 10:23 pm on August 23, 2001, that I scribbled feverishly in a notebook, alongside the date and time, corresponding with the classic Minor Threat lyrics, “I’ve got the straight edge”. Since then, I have held to my commitment, and have met numerous people with similar commitments, who became friends and people I respect.

Fast-forward 3 years, and I see around me a group of people growing up and becoming adults, but leaving behind the commitments that led them there. They have succumbed to the very things that they swore not to, and some to the extent that they are inebriated all of the time in social settings. One person in particular who is a friend has fallen to this level and it saddens me to no end. It was precisely for the reason that I saw him with a straight edge shirt and saw him enter a room on the same floor as me in the dorms that I started talking to him in the first place. Though there are other admirable traits that can be attributed to him, I feel now as if something that rooted our friendship is lost and forgotten. But others have “broken edge” as well, and though I detect a certain sentimentality in their voice, they seem to regard as something that is merely grown out of. But to me, this seems to illustrate a point that I see in broader aspects of society, a phenomenon that is as widespread as it is seemingly counterintuitive, and that is the weakening of the spirit with age.

It seems that, along with this idea of the straightedge mindset, many other ideologies, commitments and intentions also are tossed aside in the name of “growing up”. People see it fit to acknowledge that it is because of these ideas and commitments that they are the person that they are today, and they still value these ideas with which they grew up, but somehow, they must be done away with. Somehow, there is less import in these ideas. Passion is squeezed out of these ideas, these movements, these labors of love, and seemingly left dormant. This is not a blanket statement, not everyone falls in this manner, but at some point in the process of “becoming adult” this phenomenon, to some extent, takes place. And it is a reluctant participation that the person puts forward. You can visibly see the reluctance on the faces of those just entering their second decade as they toss their passions into the fire. As time passes more, there are more passions and ideas thrown into the fire, and they supply a great fuel for it. But even in seeing this, there is nothing done to hold onto the passion. It is as if, without knowing exactly what it is, people growing up know that there is something ahead for which they must discard all ideas and loves of youth, even if these ideas are still highly regarded by the person.

It is possible that I am overreacting. It is possible that I am placing to much emphasis where there does not need to be. It is possible that I am just being irrationally and frivolously ignorant. But if I believe that these possibilities were not probabilities, I would not have written this. I believe that the spirit of youth is such that it should be carried on, but for some reason or other, for the most part, it is not. I see myself shoulder deep in this conflict and I see other heads with necks craned upwards to avoid inhaling what is rising below their noses, and I simply cannot take my last breath without screaming in defiance. Perhaps I shall be fruitlessly treading water forever, but I hope that there is a shore to swim to, and that I shall soon be able to get there intact.

It has to start somwhere, it has to start sometime....

2005-02-18T12:59:00.000-06:00

Don't be afraid, revolution won't bite, it starts here, or at least, we'll think about starting it here.