Saturday, November 1, 2008
Joe Biden came to Bowling Green tonight for a rally. We were not quiet in the front row, but we were close. I'll have some better pictures once I connect my camera to my computer. In the mean time, here are the pictures i took with my phone.
You know that line in West Wing, the one about great oratory starting in your toes and going through your hold body bringing you to your feet. Its true.
The iphone is not a very good at taking pictures, and they were twooted to twitter, so tiny icky pictures. Better ones to come.
Friday, October 31, 2008
"What saddens me most is your naivety in believing any county on this planet can successfully have an egalitarian society."
I don't think any country on this planet can successfully have an egalitarian society. Reality does not accomodate egalitarian societies; reality does not accomodate ideals. The question is what we're striving for.
The ironic part of the conversation is what I articulated before, that we have to pick between these two:
1) Mutual Survival.
2) Individual Survival.
What's weird about that is to apply Darwinian notions about survival. In a Darwinian sense? Conservativism is correct; individual beings struggle for survival in competition against other individual beings. Particular instances of change manifest over time and those particular beings in which the change is manifest either live or die, either pass it on or fail to replicate. But then you combine that with the fact that we are social creatures. And what's left is a dichotomy to reality itself. We're each a particular manifestation of a particular genetic heritage. But we are also partners in a social enterprise. No man is an island, in terms of survival, but every man is an island, in terms of preserving its own survival. Yet, of course, to pass on that genetic heritage we have to fuck someone else. So, again, social.
What the question comes down to is which we focus upon; which reality we pick.
Yet while each reality (individual or social) has its foundations I do not think that the individual reality, conservativism, is the reality towards which we're striving. And that's the key: "we're striving".
The Conservative mindset, economically, is that Bill Gates worked hard, made money, and so that money is his. The problem is that this mindset fails to acknowledge the social apparatus by which Bill Gates was sustained in his working. It's not the case that Bill Gates worked hard and amassed an abundance of money. Bill Gates utilized a social aparatus whereby he could amass that money. Or take the small business owner. They take a risk, they start a business. But the survival of that business is not the result soley of that business' primary investor; it is part of a social structure. One individual may have contributed a significant amount of time, but a society maintained that individual. Farmers provided food. Builders provided shelter and transit. Energy manufacturers provided energy.
Existence is a collective enterprise. We are not independent beings estranged from one another. Life on Earth exists as a result of energy from the sun. The tides move as a result of the gravitational pull of the Moon. You eat food someone else grew. You wear clothing someone else stitched. It's all inter-connected; it is all social.
So, yeah, in a Darwinian sense Conservative economic policies are sensible. In the sense that we are all in competition for survival? Of course it makes sense to focus upon economics of competition, to pit companies against one another.
But to embrace that mentality is to ignore the social implications of what occurs when Business A wins and Business B has to shut down. And, yeah, we can embrace the Darwinian notion that when Business B dies the individuals whose livelihood was maintained via Business B are fucked and so be it, that's reality.
But I don't think we really believe that. And, truly, I don't think we can even fully view it that way. Because we're social beings. Business B's failure and the social fallout of that impacts all beings within the society.
So we just have to pick which understanding of reality we will operate within. Except that we've already picked it: "we". My fellow Americans. My brothers and sisters. Our task. Change we can believe in. Country First.
We can say that we're free-market capitalists. We can say that we're for competition in the marketplace. We can say that we are independent entities whose amassed possessions and wealth are our own. But we don't really believe that.
We're not isolated beings. We're not really in competition. We're in competition insofar as there are a finite amount of resources available. But the bigger picture is that we're all co-dependent beings who are not self-sufficient but rather exist within a reality which is fundamentally not isolated and independent but rather enmeshed and social. "Your" car was made by someone else, fueled with fuel obtained by someone else, a composition of parts made by a plethora of companies each of which employ a plethora of beings.
So why cling to the notion that those items we mistakenly consider our own are our own? Why do the whole individual property thing?
I obtained "my" Tier 6 gloves as a result of the combined efforts of 24 other people. So in what sense are they mine? They're not. They exist within the social continuum by which they were obtained and are sustained; they exist as a particular manifestation of a social, communal, co-dependent chain of inter-related events.
As does everything.
And that's not egalitarian. That's a description of reality. Damn it.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
1) Why would they feature Charles Manson the ad. it seems counter productive? Sure, he brings in in the key serial killer swing group. Sure, Manson bring in the Nazi serial killers but may alienate the communist serial killer demo Obama has worked hard to get.
2) Eric Schmidt making out with Warren Warren_Buffett? Really? I know that Obama wants to protect the rights of the GBLT community. But this seems like a great way to gross EVERYONE out. Schmidt is an ugly man.
3) You never NEVER come out as being pro-zombie or pro-vampire with the economy being like it is.
4) I like his take on Ninja v Pirates. Always go with Molemen. It worked for Jefferson, it can work for Obama.
So I was reading this article on MSNBC about a woman with metastatic breast cancer who found it difficult to find men to date. She would go to bars, meet a guy, start a conversation, and the male's interest would inexplicably end when she informed them that she can't work, she can't have kids, she has a disfigured right breast, and she's going to die soon. At which point that voice in my head which tells me what I think blurted out: "What the fuck is wrong with these guys? This woman is perfect!"
Think about it. She does not have an STD, she has cancer. She can't get pregnant, so there's no potential offspring to consider. She's depressed and her expectations are low, which means she'll appreciate you all the more. And she's come to accept the inevitable end to her life. So the relationship, really, would be movies, clinging-to-life sex, and discussions of the meaninglessnes of being.
As I said, perfect.
That's not to say that I desire detachment or fear commitment. Rather, the situation is quite the opposite; I cling to commitment like Styrofoam packing peanuts to a cat. I crave attachment in my relationships, which is why they always end as a result of the other person ending them.
But a relationship with a dying girl? It's perfect! You can genuinely care for her, appreciate her, and manifest enjoyable situations with her and not worry about her changing her mind or deciding she wants something else; she's going to fucking die. She doesn't have "the rest of her life" to think about. She has like a year or two. And as long as the relationship is loving, enjoyable, and mutually beneficial it's safe to say that it could exist within an ideal state of bliss for two years.
Plus, there's the clinging-to-life cancer-girl sex. And I have to imagine that dying girls who are literally clinging to life have to manifest that in their sexual performance. Sure, this particular woman has a disfigured right breast. But the left is fine, and that's one more breast than I have access to currently. And her vagina functions, which is what it's all about anyway.
My point is not that dying chicks are hot. I think the actual point is that dying chicks are not not hot; death does not take anything away from the situation. If a woman is cute and funny it really does not matter if she has terminal cancer. All terminal cancer means is that there is a general expectation for her to die soon. But we're all going to die. You could meet a 21 year old cute, funny girl and she could be hit by a bus. At least with the cancer chick you're expecting it.
We're all going to die. I don't see any point, therefore, in belittling or dismissing an individual simply because their death is more immanent, in an odd way of thinking about reality, than the death of someone else. Appreciate a person for who they are and what they can offer. Don't sequester them away as untenable simply because of the few things they can't offer. That's just fucking stupid.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
The U.S. News Networks are not reporting this, but it might interest you to know that the United States attacked Syria. And, as one might imagine, Syria is pretty fucking pissed.
Iraq has denounced a raid into Syria at the weekend, saying it does not want its territory to be used as a launch-pad for US attacks on its neighbours. Syria urged the UN Security Council to hold the US responsible for the attack, which it says killed eight civilians. And Syria's cabinet called the attack "barbaric", ordering a US school and cultural centre in Damascus to be shut.So now when World War 3 starts at least you'll know why.
Unnamed US officials have said the operation killed a key figure involved in the smuggling of fighters into Iraq. But Syrian foreign minister Walid Muallem denied the US claims calling them "totally unjustified".
'War crime attempt'
He branded the attack a "war crime attempt" and said it had claimed the lives of civilians - a father and his three children, a farm guard and his wife, and a fisherman.
"The Iraqi government rejects the US helicopter strike on Syrian territory, considering that Iraq's constitution does not allow its land to be a base for launching attacks on neighbouring countries," he said.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Sen. Stevens found guilty on corruption charges.
Said Stevens, "Corruption is not like a big truck. You can't keep piling it on. Corruption is a series of tubes. And if you understand, these tubes can be filled. And when the tubes are filled you get convicted of seven felony charges."