Why I'm Racist/Culturalist Against Islam

I am openly racist/culturalist against Islam/Muslims. While I'm generally religion-ist(?) against anyone who's very religious, Islam is unique in that it is a massive, socio-governmental construction. Islam now is what Christianity was in Europe five-hundred years ago.

Yes, yes, no need to tell me the dangers of over-generalizations. I'm well aware that there are many Muslims who are very modern, embrace women's rights, gay rights, and whatnot. But the Muslim world, is different. The countries can be generalized. They are violent, bigoted, horrible countries with which I would prefer to have no interactions at all.

And, again, yes, I realize that our country and our culture has a less-than-stellar history with the rights of various groups. Gays, women, Hispanics, Blacks, Irish, Ital... you get the idea. But we have not made a habit of stoning women to death for some time. You cannot be killed for infidelity. We're not perfect, but we are so far beyond the Islamic world that it's comical.

Basically, the linked story just drives home that, no matter how much the Islamic world masquerades as though it's westernized, it hasn't. It's a veneer. It's a massive pretense meant to sooth jittery Westerners into investing and just accepting what they do as "cultural differences."

No. I'm sorry. I'm not falling for it. They aren't merely cultural differences. This isn't a different way of saying hello, or dressing, or singing. It is essentially bad. Violence is bad. -Ism's are bad. The Islamic world is bad.

British woman arrested in Dubai after reporting rape (The Guardian)

More Economic Ideas: The Hub

Continuing my thoughts from The Population Vacuum, here is my idea of The Hub.

The Hub is a large-scale construction designed, from the ground up, to be a catalyst of human activity. Human activity means a healthy society. Stagnancy equals Rome.

It is designed with facilities for science, art, retail, food, relaxation, and entertainment. It is designed to foment as much exchange of ideas, money, goods, and services as possible in as small an area as possible.

The Hub will have strong ties to the surrounding area. It will invest heavily in ventures near and far, and will invite in the local economy, let it incubate, and then release it back into the economy. The Hub will not be an economic vacuum, like a super-plaza anchored by major chains. The Hub’s very existence is to prevent the deterioration of the nearby economy and culture. The Hub integrates and does not dominate.

The Hub receives as much of its resources for functioning from the surrounding area as possible. Raw materials for manufacture, food, and retail products are drawn from the locals. This provides fuel to the local economic fire as opposed to squelching it. It also provides a local flavor to The Hub, meaning each and every Hub is unique and desirable. The lack of cookie-cutter operations keeps each Hub out of competition with other Hubs.

The Hub can be smaller scale operations as well. It must not be pure retail. It must include manufacturing, art, entertainment, and as much free production and facilities as is economically possible. Malls could easily be hubs. With a vibrant schedule of activities designed to draw in the local economy, malls could become stronger attractions, raise property values of nearby areas, attract new residents, and foment ideas and economy.

The Hub can be instituted on a micro-scale. Small plazas can build parks, schedule events, and utilize the parking area for tents, stands, and presentations.

One of the primary elements of The Hub is a large variety of non-retail offerings that bring people in every day. People only shop now-and-then, but people always want entertainment, food, and stimulation.

Manufacturing must be included. Objects for sale made on site are necessary for a continued connection to the local economy. Furniture, toys, fabrics, clothing, art, board games. Everything except heavy industry.

Large chains compliment the environment and the smaller stores in The Hub. Starbucks draws in people and causes increases in traffic at local cafes. GAP isn’t necessarily in competition with local boutiques. Large chains are good.

Noam Chomsky on Porn

Every time I start to like Noam Chomsky, he goes and says something to piss me off.



In this video, he likens porn to sweat shops and child abuse. I don't even need to go into all of the reasons why this comparison is so wrong it boggles the mind. He also spends the video making one long value judgment about porn. And just before, he revealed his ignorance of the porn industry by not even knowing what Hustler was. Seriously, Noam? You didn't know? You never saw The People vs. Larry Flint? If you're that clueless, you have no room to pass judgment on the industry. Shut up.

Mickey Mouse Monopoly

Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.
-G.K. Chesterton

I just watched Mickey Mouse Monopoly and have found much to disagree with. The gist of the documentary is that Disney is too large and perpetuates its biases and stereotypes through a massive, global corporation, thus poisoning our children's minds.

Using the word poisoning sounds like I'm exaggerating their thesis, and they never use that word directly, but it's accurate as far as I understand. The thoughts Disney perpetuates are negative, children lap it up, and as such it can be considered poison.



Right off the bat, one of the interviewees refers to Disney as dangerous because what she obviously sees as highly negative concepts are communicated as innocent entertainment. I can already tell that I'm not going to agree with most of what she says, since the paranoia required to see danger in innocence is not something I possess. I did for a time. In tenth grade I was convinced the government was covering up shit in Roswell.

They next have two college students that are interviewed for another part of the documentary where they both argue that Disney is mere entertainment, adults read too much into it, and that it doesn't harm children at all. These few seconds of film are the only dissenting voices in the film.

It doesn't take long before the anti-corporate bias of the film begins to shine through. I'm not specifically pro-corporate. In fact, I detest most corporations, their influence, and the people who run them. This hatred has only be intensified with the recent financial bailouts. But corporate power is not one that is forced upon us. We willingly hand over that power because we like what the company is doing. I get the impression that they are likening the corporations to government entities and I think that the comparison is not only inaccurate, but fundamentally and wholesale incorrect. A company loses the instant we stop giving it money, a government can go on regardless.

Moreover, with the advent of the internet, the supposed censorial power exercised by these large companies has dwindled. A single, scathing blog entry can be enough to rip an entire corporation down. Whole websites exist for no other reason than to air grievances against these companies. Consumerist.com, anyone? Corporations work because people like them. Corporations trying to further their existence beyond this generally requires anti-competitive practices and that is against the law. So, the only issue that is really an issue already has laws against it.

One interviewee who gets used quite a few times is Henry Giroux, author of The Mouse that Roared: Disney and the End of Innocence. He attacks Disney for suing people who try and use Disney's images, be it Mickey or even photos of Disneyland. I agree with him that this is shitty, but it's not just Disney; it's all companies. The website TechDirt.com spends it's entire time arguing why trademark and copyright law is bad and is abused by many corporations. Why focus on Disney when they are simply one element in a large network of legal and social issues? I see no reason. We should be concentrating on copyright law, not Disney.



The documentary moves from corporate issues to sexism, where it's discussed how Disney's portral of females has not changed much over the decades. Again, I agree with this to a degree, but they seek out and focus on the elements of Disney production that conforms to their argument, instead of formulating an argument based on the data. Yes, Belle, Aurora, and Snow White are all thematically similar. They're damsels distressing, and they need help. Females are usually very sexual, with fabulous bodies. But, again, isn't this an issue in all of media? And what about females in Disney cartoons like Gummy Bears? Or what about Eilonwy in The Black Cauldron? Peg in Goof Troop, Gosalyn in Darkwing Duck, Perdita in 101 Dalmations, Bianca in The Rescuers Down Under, Lilo and her sister from Lilo and Stitch, Gadget in Rescue Rangers, Elisa in Gargoyles, Recess, Pepper Ann, Teacher's Pet, Kim Possible, or Dave the Barbarian? What about them?

(Oh, and a note about the female rabbit from Bambi, she has a beard! I can't stop seeing it. She looks like a cartoon rabbit version of Earnest Hemmingway with makeup on.)

It's seems that Disney will produce ANYTHING that they think will sell. Sexist undertones be damned. I think that the comparative failure of their non-traditional films, like The Black Cauldron or Mulan, show that people actively desire these stereotypes. They want to get lost in these worlds that are obviously unrealistic and predicated on stereotypes, and it is not within Disney's power to force upon them something they don't want. The Princess and the Frog is non-traditional (to a degree, at least), and it's under-performing. It hasn't even broken $100 million in the American box office. Compare this to Snow White, the number ten movie of ALL TIME. 101 Dalmations? Number eleven. Fantasia? Twenty. In the top one hundred, you will also find The Lion King, Jungle Book, Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, Bambi, Lady and the Tramp, and Aladdin.

It's obvious that audiences enjoy something non-traditional, now and then. Both Shrek and Shrek 2 are on that list, as is Finding Nemo, but that's it. Perhaps it's because people expect a certain thing from Disney and don't want anything else? Shrek's success is a sauce that the movie companies have been trying to recreate for years. Every damned CGI film that comes out is loaded with pop-culture references, snarky characters, both male and female, and bright, colorful, over-the-top action. But, again, that's it. It's very derivative, with all the movies shooting for the same general personality. Even fairy tales are subject to this hip-ification. Happily N'Ever After and Hoodwinked both took fairy tale raw materials and applied a healthy dose of Shrek to them.

Disney takes the same raw material and applies the Disney juice to it. Just as derivative, but in a different way. They use those stories and fairy tales, which are almost universally racist and sexist, because those are the psychosocial constructs that give us cultural touchstones. Universals with which we all relate since they've been a part of our lives. Shrek lampoons, and it works because we all know them, while Disney worships, and it works because we all know them.

One thing that annoyed the ever-loving crap out of it is the myopia of those interviewed. They only attack those aspects of the films as negative that fit with their preexisting interests. The professors of race talk about racism. The professors of women's history concentrate on sexism. Well, what about all the other elements of fairy tales that can be construed as highly, highly negative.

What about "love at first sight." Forget the sexism and racism for a second and concentrate on the other cultural touchstones used. Isn't it damaging to think that I'll meet someone, love them immediately, have some wacky adventure but live happily ever after? Isn't the very concept of Happily Ever After essentially harmful because it's so hilariously unrealistic? What about Scrooge McDuck being a stingy Scot? Or the stereotypical French chef? Or, for the love of all that's holy, what about Lampwick? Irish stereotype, much?

But that's just it. It's a stereotype. It's not realistic. It's a story. A flight of fancy. If it was realistic and only discussed subjects carefully to make sure that no cliches, biases, or stereotypes were used, the whole endeavor would be tearfully boring. The women are all attractive and the men are all manly! So? That's the point. It's fantasy. If the real world made a habit of invading my fantasy, I'd commit suicide pretty quickly.

We restrict movies about real stuff to adults because children don't like those movies. They attack Pocahontas as being an unrealistic portrayal of Native American relations. Well duh! Would they rather have an animated The New World? If I was a kid, I'd leave the room lickety-split.

They close the documentary with more anti-corporate discussion, using both a quote from Michael Eisner and an interview with what I assume is some random mother, first implying and then directly stating that Disney has a moral obligation to teach our children about the real world and to not fill their heads with stereotypes.

No. No they do not. I find the very idea of that absurd. It is the parents job to do that. It's Disney's job to entertain and to make money in the process, which is exactly what Eisner said. To say otherwise is to belittle the impact of parents and to ascribe moral judgments to something that doesn't need them and, truly, would suffocate under them.

The Siamese cats were racist. Pocahontas was inaccurate. And, someday, your prince is not going to come. It's not hard to tell children these things. Let them enjoy, and then correct their misconceptions as they arise, because you will have to do that regardless of the movies they watch.

When I was younger, I liked Disney. Disney creations affected my fantasies, and that's alright. Complaining about Disney coloring a child's perception is pointless since children live in a fantasy world. The real world and the fantasy world are tightly connected. As such, saying that someone's perceptions at age eight, like the children interviewed, are guaranteed problems in later life is highly inaccurate. Problems arise as they get older and their fantasies become expectations. This is where parenting comes in. Sexism is nearly impossible if your parents aren't sexist. Like all the arguments against cigarette advertising, even though the only variable strongly correlated with starting was whether the parents also smoked.

By my early teens, I was keenly aware that those fantasies were not reality. Both of my parents were raging alcoholics by this time, so I had little parenting, but I managed to figure it all out. Actually, I became intensely anti-Disney and would regale anyone who would listen with how The Hunchback of Notre Dame was nothing like the book.

The point is that fanciful ideas about life are not harmful to a child. Their perceptual construct is wildly inaccurate and that's not Disney's fault. Incorrect ideas about life, society, and who we are in the grand scheme of things are, usually, the fault of the parents. My parents were not racist bigots, and no crows or apes in a Disney film will change that. Disney is not harmful.

The Population Vacuum

The Population Vacuum is a method by which major metro areas maintain affordability, efficiency at high population, and high living standards to “vacuum” up surrounding population growth. This limits urban sprawl and confines greater and greater numbers into as small an area as is feasible.

Requirements:

• Living must be affordable. A frequent reason for urban sprawl is the availability of large housing at prices that are in line with the average person OUTSIDE of already developed areas. Thus, people either in search of starter mansions or those merely in need of expanded housing for a new family have great incentives to look into virgin land. By ensuring large amounts of affordable, large housing in cities, and then making those cities eminently attractive, a metro area can act as a vacuum and attract those people and even cause a reduction in extant areas of sprawl.

• A city must be eminently attractive. It must match non-urban areas in as many aspects of attractiveness as it can. This will result in fewer people being driven to small towns. A drop in overall property taxes would result, but that should be offset with room to spare by taxes from the increased economic activity resulting from such population density. Areas to match as follows.

o Crime: A city must work hard to keep crime rates low. This does not mean more cops, it means better efficiency overall and finely targeted laws to reduce inefficiencies.

o Availability of nature: A city must not just have parks, it must be tightly integrated with parks. Gardens must be built into the overall design of buildings, blocks, and sections of the city. A 5/1 ratio of urban area to garden area is a target.

o Lack of pollution: Pollution must be a primary concern for city leaders. It must be kept under control at almost any cost.

o Elbow room: The design of the city must allow for “movement space,” or space in which an individual can move about without bumping into other people. This obviously applies to house size, but it must also be integrated into the side of streets, sidewalks, and general city layout. Sidewalks need not be actual sidewalks, but merely walkways that traverse the city. In a city of 10 million, walkways of 100 feet wide or more would be ideal.

o Noise: Perhaps the hardest area to match, noise must be kept under control without squelching the vibrancy of the city throughout the day and night. This could be achieved through heavy construction of underground roadways, walkways, and buildings. Separate the living areas from the noise-generating aspects of the city, the major perpetrator being traffic.

o Ease of automotive movement: Complex integration of major roadways and smaller transit lines to reduce the stop & go of city driving. Eliminate stop lights and intersections in favor of ramps and rotaries.
The city must also highlight, expand, and nurture the many aspects of a city that rural areas cannot match. These are as follows.

o 24/7: A city of sufficient population can remain active 24 hours per day. This allows for restaurants, entertainment, and destinations at any time. A city must foment this sort of behavior and stimulate activity at all times.

o Variety: A city is a complex mess of things. A city must encourage this variety and diversity through aggressive immigration campaigns from other cultures, encouragement of small business, and facilitation of mixing between areas of the city and different groups.

o Support: A strong system of governmental support is possible within a condensed population. Transportation, medicine, education, and economic support are all superior to rural areas.

• Ideal Sufficiency: A city must strive to be self sufficient in as many ways as possible. This increases efficiency by streamlining supply routes and reducing travel times. Prime candidates for self-sufficient industry are agriculture through gardens and hydroponics, and power through solar, wind, and if coastal, tidal power generation. Nuclear power is also a viable option but less ideal than the totally non-polluting forms.

• Over-stimulation: A city must have areas of quiet rest. Less-populated areas of the city without major structures with a substantially smaller degree of stimulation.

• Under-capacity: A city must always keep its population under the capacity of the city’s infrastructure. If it doesn’t the vacuum will suck up surrounding populations, pressurize them, and then eject them back into rural areas and actually encourage urban sprawl. If the population exceeds capacity *cough*LONDON*cough*, all of the previously listed things that make rural areas attractive will deteriorate within the city and efficiency will dive.

A Question Begged

I've just discovered the modal ontological argument. I'd been aware of the ontological argument for some time and actually consider it a rather strong argument, although not for what its proponents had thought.

The ontological argument is an argument for the existence of God. It goes something like this.

• God is that which no greater can be conceived


• It is greater to exist in reality than in idea alone


• Therefore, God cannot simply exist in our heads, because a God that actually exists is greater than a God that doesn't actually exist

I've always felt that this is a completely sound argument for the existence of an ultimate entity. Entities seem to exist on a spectrum, and there must be something at the ends of either spectrum. Be it free-floating amino acids on one end, and some sort of galactic intelligence on the other. But the argument says nothing about the ultimate intelligence, only that it must be there.

That's my take on it, but regardless of any novel interpretation, the argument is not widely supported. Alvin Plantinga is perhaps the most notable proponent of the argument, and being a logician, he's applied what he knows to the argument and created a modal ontological argument.

Modal logic deals with possibility. E.g. it is possible that "A". But the corollary to possibility is necessity. It is necessary that "A". Modal logic also uses as the core of its thought a concept that's getting a lot of play recently, what with string theory and all that: possible worlds. Anything that is possible is actually happening in different realms of existence. There is a world where I am the king of England and another in which I died at birth. If it's logically possible, it exists.

Thus, something is possible if it exists in at least one possible world. It is necessary if it exists in all possible worlds. And it is contingent if it exists in some possible worlds.

Using these concepts called modal operators, Plantinga sets out to argue for the existence of God. I find the entire argument to be, like everything else in the philosophy of religion, to be circular; a giant, begged question.

I stole this specifically from here.

(1) If God exists then he has necessary existence.
(2) Either God has necessary existence, or he doesn’t.
(3) If God doesn’t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn’t.
Therefore:
(4) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn’t.
(5) If God necessarily doesn’t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn’t exist.
Therefore:
(6) Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn’t exist.
(7) It is not the case that God necessarily doesn’t exist.
Therefore:
(8) God has necessary existence.
(9) If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
Therefore:
(10) God exists.

Premise 2 is a restatement of premise one. And premise 3 adds nothing. It's a rejiggering of "either God as we conceive of him exists or he doesn't."

1. If god exists, then he has necessary existence.

• Basically Iff (if and only if) G (God exists), then N (he is necessary)


• Which is G = N


• If God exists, then God exists.


• Oh yeah. There's a masterpiece of logic.

2. Either God has necessary existence or he doesn’t.

• Basically, either God exists or he doesn’t exist, because if he exists, he has necessary existence.


• This is the first part where the usage of existence jumps around. He both exists and has existence as though it's a property.

3. If God doesn’t have necessary existence, then he necessarily doesn’t.

• Once again, semantic dodge. If God doesn’t exist, then he doesn’t.

4. Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn’t.

• Either God exists or he doesn’t exist.

5. If God necessarily doesn’t have necessary existence, then God necessarily doesn’t exist.

• If God necessarily doesn’t exist, then he doesn’t exist.

6. Either God has necessary existence, or he necessarily doesn’t exist.

• Either he necessarily exists or necessarily doesn’t exist.

7. It is not the case that God necessarily doesn’t exist.

• It was dealing with possibility earlier on to reach this point. IF God doesn’t exist, then he necessarily doesn’t exist. The first “if” is not answered. Only IF God exists, does he exist. Only IF God exists, does he not necessarily not exist. And ONLY IF God doesn't exist, does he necessarily not exist.

8. God has necessary existence.

• He only has necessary existence if he exists, which has not been determined

9. If God has necessary existence, then God exists.
10. Therefore, God exists.

My slight re-wording of the argument might seem like I'm playing with words to achieve my goal, and I am. But that's because the argument is playing the same damned game. The argument jumps back and forth between existence as a property or a state and conveniently forgets that the actual question is never answered.

Socialized Loss for the Masses.

I've been getting all self-righteous over the bank bailouts, recently. I started off not caring too much, but have since managed to work myself up into such a froth that I could be used as shampoo.

I recently saw an interview with some guy on Frontline about the economy and how strongly people's perceptions fluctuate (more on this later). I'm always one to point out the stupidity of most people. Or, perhaps stupidity is too strong. Maybe contempocentric is better. Some study who's author is lost to bad memory found that a majority of people perceive time strangely. Namely, for the average person, events that are five years away are perceived identically as those six months away. Meaning that people only start thinking about events in a "is imminent" sort of way is after they start being less than six months off.

What this means is that people are fabulously good at not thinking about the past after events have passed and finished and events that are going to happen in the future. We're a fundamentally reactive species that exists in the "now."

This is obviously not an inherently bad thing. If we spent all of our time worrying about the past and future we'd go nuts. Being contempocentric to a degree is actually important. The problem is that humans take it to its limit and behave in a contempocentric way, while living in a world that allows consequences to carry on for decades. Behold climate change, credit cards, and over-eating.

But that also means that political winds will blow based on events that are only a year in either direction. Now back to that Frontline documentary. Some talking head pointed out how people get very conservative during good times and very liberal during bad times. Noam Chomsky talks about privatized gain and socialized loss, but he specifically attacks big business. And while that's true, the average person is the same way. They just have less clout than a big company.

When times are good, the conservative ideal of "succeed for yourself" feels great. "Keep your hands off of my money!" people will yell. But when the world turns, and they lose their job, they start crying for help. And sure enough, the people who have to help bail that previously-conservative person out will likely yell to stay away... that is until they lose their job.

This type of systemic hypocrisy is most rampant in those so ignorant that they have NO idea about how the system around them functions. They live in their little world, controlling their little things, thinking about stuff that's six months off and six months past. This type of person is no better illustrated than the man who yelled to "keep your government hands off [his] Medicare!" at a South Carolina (natch) town hall meeting.

I've uploaded that talk Chomsky gave on socialized loss. It's worth a listen.

Caution. Time-Traveling Children

Seriously, who the hell drew this sign? And who approved it?! Was the artist 120? The last time children dressed like this was 1905.

Innovation

It's unfortunate that our culture is so obsessed with the magical afflatus that crashes into some haggard inventor, and after facing the standard array of road-blocks and obstacles, succeeds as justice dictates he should. This idea that the inventor is what is important, and that he/she deserves success is just plain stupid. Unfortunately, our patent system is built around that idea.

What should be exalted is the discovery of how to use the invention. This aspect of the scenario is never discussed in the fables of invention. In those stories, the application is already widely known and the haggard inventor's creation is somehow an immediately accepted Godsend to all it touches. See Flash of Genius.

Reality is much more complex, and in most cases, the most difficult aspect is taking whatever was created and figuring out what the fuck to do with it. The computer had been around for years before Apple, but it was the innovation of the package and software that created the digital age.

Techdirt is an utterly fantastic blog discussing the nature of innovation, invention, and technology. It's also a great blog to read if you'd like a crash-course in applied economics and patent/copyright law. UPS has sponsored a series of short videos discussing technology and innovation, they'll take up less than ten minutes of your life and will hopefully inform and entertain.

Auto Tune the News.

It actually makes you wonder if Kanye West can sing at all.

Hacked E-Mails.

So some e-mails between scientists have been hacked that has added fuel to the climate change-skeptic fire.

Obviously, if you view the things quoted in the e-mails from a, um, pro(?) climate change perspective, it just sounds like a bunch of scientists discussing the best, delicate path to walk in a public debate defined by idiots. But if you are one of those idiots, your paranoid belief that scientists are perpetuating a massive, global conspiracy to trick the world into believing that climate change is real. This is apparently because Al Gore hates Africans.

My vote, we just keep going. I'd much rather see all of the idiots just burn. Granted, lots of fun animals will die, but I'll survive. I'm at the point of not caring. You want to drive the bus into a wall? Fine. I'll put my helmet on and do my thing while you do that.

The Purpose of Movies.

Movies are meant to entertain. That is it. They are not paintings. They are not meant to challenge or be though-provoking. They are meant to entertain. The best movies do that and challenge you, but things that are so avant garde and artsy fartsy that they become moving paintings stop even being movies. They do not entertain.

Juxtapose the experimentation of the French New Wave with Italian Neorealism. The French understood that a movie should entertain. It should be about being a movie. Italian neorealists were depressed because the war had just ended, so they started making films that were depressing and pointless.

Go watch The Bicycle Thief. It's boring as fucking hell. Yes, yes, it was groundbreaking and has had a generations-long effect on cinema all around the world. That doesn't change that it is tearfully boring. Anyone who says otherwise is lying to sound intelligent. I respect it. I comprehend it. I appreciate it. I still say it's barely a movie.

I mean for Christ's sake, the films were so pointless and depressing (and that was the point) the government told them to stop making them. Compare this to Schindler's List. It's depressing, moving, heart-wrenching, but also entertaining. It fills us with emotion and tells us a story with a beginning, middle, and end.

Socialized Loss.

I'm not one to side with Noam Chomsky on too many things. While I generally agree with many of his points, it's his paranoia where I diverge. Where he sees grand schemes and conspiracy, I see happenstance and even stupidity. He sees cabals, I see groups of greedy people rambling about in what appears to be a group.

But one of his biggest points year after year is the idea of privatized gain and socialized loss. Namely, capitalism is good for you, but for me, I need the protection of the government.

The last year or so has really driven home how true that is. Obviously, this was an extreme example, but worldwide, every year, events similar to these transpire. To argue that we have a free market is silly. We don't have anything close to a free market. The banks reaped massive profits and then socialized the massive losses.

It's kind of depressing. I guess I'd feel better about all this if the Republicans had been voting against the bailouts for some reason other than just being contrarian buttheads.

I don't usually get up in arms about things for any sense of self-righteousness, but this got my goat.

Two Types of Country

Well, we're finally bringing some of the guys from Gitmo into the country for trials. As expected, those from the "right" have started lampooning the decision, basically saying we can't apply the same rules to them as we do to ourselves.

I find this perspective interesting. The problem with our country is that we have a nationwide case of severe cognitive dissonance. We want to think that we are a country predicated on ideals and not simply a group of people, but when the realities of being a group of people pop up, we act in accordance with those.

I always said that I had no problem with invading Iraq, if we said that we were going in there for oil and control. Think about that, we need oil, is it not our mandate to acquire what we need? Let's kill everyone in Iraq and take their oil. There's nothing morally wrong with it.

The problem is that under that interpretation, we're just a group of people. The American flag is nothing more than a logo. The American Dream is an advertising campaign. The Statue of Liberty is our mascot. And the national anthem is just our theme song. Most people have a problem with that idea.

The real argument is whether we're just a group of people or an set of ideals. We might give the ideals a high-falutin' status, but there's nothing about them that is fundamentally superior to seeing us as just a group of people trying to get what's best for us. If we're correct in our self-service, then we are a group of people and not ideals. If we are a set of ideals that "transcend" the people, then our actions are pretty easy to determine.

Too bad that latter interpretation has never been true. We've never been the good guys. Remember Nuremberg: many Nazi's got off for some action because they showed how Allied forces did the same thing. Well, if we did it, it can't be wrong. Case dismissed!

A View Askew

I just found out about the gang rape of a 15-year-old girl in San Francisco, early last week.

I feel pretty safe in assuming that this will go down in psychological and sociological history in the same way as the Kitty Genovese murder in New York. Professors for decades to come will discuss what this says about the human animal and the society we've built for ourselves.

I feel for the girl in a way I usually reserve for fat women watching The View. I can't even begin to imagine what the experience was like. I mean that phrase truthfully and without cliche. I can't even imagine. I think I would rather be attacked by a lion and killed, at least the goal of the lion is to end it. Here, the torment was the goal. I feel like crying.

My partner and I have had arguments about the nature of life vis a vis sex. I have argued that things like "Gift of Fear" and the argument that women lead a different life from men to be foolish and fear-mongering. She has said otherwise, and says that I may have a hard time understanding this since I was always not only a male, but a large, loud male. I've never felt fear of my fellow humans.

Still, I argued that the fear she and other women feel is primarily the result of fear programming in our brain going haywire since there is very little to be afraid of, anymore. We no longer have to worry about sabertooth tigers and whatnot, so our brain finds things of which to be afraid.

This wasn't rooted in sexism. This was rooted in the deep-seated belief that men and women are not from Mars and Venus. That our lives are fundamentally the same. The world is identical to us both. Because, if that's not the case, we are not equal. We are different. The world, for men and women, is fundamentally and essentially a different experience.

This case has basically changed that perspective. While I still think that most of the fear that women, and truly people in general, feel about the world is the result of a scare-obsessed media and evolutionary mechanisms meant to keep us safe in the wild, this does not happen to men.

There has never been a case of women gang-raping a drunk man and then beating him nearly to death. It just doesn't happen. Say what you will about the baseness of the men involved. Argue that they are an extreme minority. Argue that women are just as likely to get killed by a coconut as be gang-raped. I'll agree with pretty much all of it. With just a modicum of caution, women will likely never be raped or even assaulted.

But that's the thing. That modicum of caution. That one, little inch. That seemingly insignificant thing permanently and inexorably separates men from women. Men need not exercise that caution. They have no need or worry. But women do. Women and men are fundamentally different. Their world, my partner's world, is fundamentally different from my own.

And that makes me want to cry.