Against the State

A Philosophical Challenge

My irritating yet astounding new book Against the State (SUNY Press) argues that all the arguments of the great philosophers (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hume, Hegel, Rawls, Nozick, and Habermas, among others), are, putting it kindly, unsound.

The state rests on violence: not the consent of the governed, not utility, not rational decision-making, not justice.

Not only are the existing arguments for the legitimacy of state power unsound; they are shockingly fallacious, a scandal, an embarrassment to the Western intellectual tradition.

So I issue a challenge: Give a decent argument for the moral legitimacy of state power, or reconstruct one of the traditional arguments in the face of the refutations in Against the State.

If you can't, you are rationally obliged to accept anarchism.

I'd offer a huge cash prize, but I'm broke.

Henceforward, if you continue to support or observe the authority of government, you are an evil, irrational cultist.

You're an anarchist now, baby, until further notice.

e-mail responses to c.sartwell@verizon.com

Yours in anarchy,
Crispin Sartwell

bumper sticker heaven

Liberty Stickers.

live blogging my visit to Obama's website

After reading Chris Floyd's recent post, where he mentions that Obama's website "calls for fighting the War on Terror in a 'smarter way,'" I decided I'd visit this website and see how Obama presents himself. I've watched very little of his speeches (though I've read the text of many), and haven't really watched any TV coverage or commercials, so this is one of my first experiences of Obama as he wants to be seen. Let the fun begin.

I googled "Obama" and found his official site. The first thing that happens is that he asks you for money. In exchange he offers a "new direction for America" and says that "This is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past." Which policies he'll be changing are not yet mentioned, nor is the direction of the new direction. But the new direction will be new. We know that much.

Before clicking through to skip the donation page I noticed something odd. The suggested donation denominations: $5, $25, $50, $100, $250, $1000, $2300. Uh, $2300? I'm guessing there's some weird explanation for that. Obama is from Chicago right? A shout-out to Michael Jordan perhaps? Anyway.

The first thing I notice on the next page is this quote. "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington... I'm asking you to believe in yours." He's also asking you to believe in fairies! If you believe, clap, clap your hands!

I look around the main page a bit more and find a part that asks where I'm from. I notice "American Samoa" on the list and click that, hoping against hope that it will detail Obama's position on issues of importance to the brave Samoans. Nope, just links to join local Obama teams. Back to the main page.

At the top there's a tab for "issues." On the drop down list is "faith." I click that. This should be good. The faith page tells us that Obama has made glorious speeches about faith. There's a link to "Barack's faith principles." There we learn that GOD is always present in our lives, and not only that, GOD is a constant source of hope. Wait, isn't Obama's campaign all about hope? This must mean GOD is for Obama! Next we learn that progressives ought to be approaching religion "boldly" which he explains means that "we" ought to be using it for our own partisan ends, so as to prevent others from using it for their own partisan ends. Truly brilliant stuff here. Back to main page.

Let's get into the meaty stuff. Issues --> Foreign Policy. Click.

We already know from Floyd that he has no problem whatsoever with the basic formulation of the US waging a war on an abstract concept. He just thinks we need to be smarter about it. So he's off to a good start.

He says he will end the war in Iraq. He also says he will leave troops in Iraq. Don't let that confuse anyone though; the war will definitely be over! He says he will "make it clear" that we won't have any permanent bases in Iraq. He also says we'll need to guard our embassy (the largest embassy in the history of the galaxy, which some people might mistakenly think was more like a permanent base, but it totally isn't). He also mentions humanitarian aid, which I suppose is nice, considering all the slaughter we've been doing. That ought to make us even.

He tells us that Iran has sought nuclear weapons. Dick Cheney says that too! He tells us Iran's leaders have threatened Israel. He doesn't mention if Israel's leaders have threatened Iran. They probably haven't.

He tells us that the gravest threat to the American people is a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons. I would have gone with global warming or heart disease or automobile accidents or a crippling recession. But terrorism is much more scary, allowing you to invoke disturbing images of Arabs, and you can spend lots of money on that without pissing off big business, so I guess recession and heart disease aren't as grave. That's why I now say that Africanized Killer Bees are the gravest threat to America!

Obama says he will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Maybe that means he'll adhere to it, unlike every other President. He says countries that break the rules should face sanctions, specifically mentioning Iran and North Korea (hey didn't someone include them in an "axis of evil" at some point?), but doesn't mention whether the US should face sanctions for breaking the rules. I think we should just assume that he'll follow the laws and accept the same justice he wants to apply to everyone else. That seems like a safe assumption, given his lack of comment on the matter.

Obama says that we need a bigger military. Whew, I was worried that spending more on military than the rest of the world combined was kind of too much already, maybe even a huge fucking waste, and that when you carry a gigantic fucking hammer everything starts to look like a nail (and by "look like a nail" I mean "we better bomb the shit out of that shit"). Good to know I was wrong about that. Obama will massively swell our military into an erect stabbing machine, suitable for deep penetration into the most dangerous of deployment regions. This will arouse the passionate love of country that Americans used to feel deep in their loins, and bring us all to a quivering climax of safety and love and relaxing naps. I suspect the neighbors won't appreciate all the noise, but they're just prudes so who gives a fuck, right? Cock-blockers.

Obama specifically mentions that he support Israel's right to self defense. He doesn't mention whether the people of the occupied territories have this right. Or the people or Iraq, or Iran, or Somalia, or Cuba, or Ecuador, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan. I'll assume that they don't. Just Israel.

Obama calls for a brutal warlord to be brought to justice. So he is interested in that kind of thing. I wonder if any brutal warlords who deserve to be brought to justice will be residing anywhere in the US during an Obama Presidency? Hmmm... probably not. Better just worry about the former Liberian President.

Alright well that's about all the BarrackObama.com I can stomach for now, as fun as this has been. I've truly witnessed a new page in history, one very different from the old pages. Obama boldly offers ambiguous notions that lend themselves to whatever glorious interpretation his supporters want to hear, while never actually committing to anything that would deviate from the imperial agenda, which I think is definitely a new direction for America.

Debate

I've been having an interesting and intense conversation with my friend Trakker that has spilled over between several posts on his blog and mine. Check out these posts and comment sections:

http://trakker.typepad.com/neon_gods/2008/05/a-stupid-tone-deaf-remark-a-thoughtless-apology.html

http://trakker.typepad.com/neon_gods/2008/05/cleaning-up-after-the-bush-occupation.html

http://trakker.typepad.com/neon_gods/2008/06/lefty-obama-supporters-are-viciously-dangerously-nauseatingly-self-deluded.html

http://seeforyourself.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-i-wont-vote-every-conversation-with.html

I argue that Democrats in general and Obama in particular don't deserve support. I say not voting is better than voting for them, and that national elections are a huge distraction from meaningful political issues, designed to create the false appearance of democracy.

Trakker says that the system might be broken, but our only option is to fix it or replace it. He says that Obama represents the best chance we have of fixing it, and so is worthy of support. And since President Obama is the only realistic alternative to President McCain, we especially should support Obama.

While I admire Trakker's passion and his ultimate goals, I think he's chosen a bad strategy in pursuit of those goals. I think his arguments are weak, mostly misleading emotion, and don't really address the points I've made. But, I would think that, since I'm arguing against him, so feel free to tell me otherwise. Good debate is healthy. Go check it out!

Tomgram: Chris Hedges, War and Occupation, American-style

This Tomgram by Chris Hedges is a must-read.

This is what our war is:

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18 year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," remembered Sgt. Geoffrey Millard, who served in Tikrit with the 42nd Infantry Division. "And this car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts two hundred rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father, and two kids. The boy was aged four and the daughter was aged three.

"And they briefed this to the general," Millard said, "and they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these f---ing hajis learned to drive, this sh-t wouldn't happen.'"

And this:

Iraqi families were routinely fired upon for getting too close to checkpoints, including an incident where an unarmed father driving a car was decapitated by a .50-caliber machine gun in front of his small son. Soldiers shot holes into cans of gasoline being sold alongside the road and then tossed incendiary grenades into the pools to set them ablaze. "It's fun to shoot sh-t up," a soldier said. Some opened fire on small children throwing rocks. And when improvised explosive devices (IEDS) went off, the troops fired wildly into densely populated neighborhoods, leaving behind innocent victims who became, in the callous language of war, "collateral damage."

And this:

Mejía also watched soldiers from his unit abuse the corpses of Iraqi dead. He related how, in one incident, soldiers laughed as an Iraqi corpse fell from the back of a truck. "Take a picture of me and this motherf---er," said one of the soldiers who had been in Mejía's squad in Third Platoon, putting his arm around the corpse.

The shroud fell away from the body, revealing a young man wearing only his pants. There was a bullet hole in his chest.

"Damn, they really f---ed you up, didn't they?" the soldier laughed.

The scene, Mejía noted, was witnessed by the dead man's brothers and cousins.

I'm sure this was all done with the best of intentions.

Why I won't vote: every conversation with an Obama supporter

Why shouldn't I support Obama? He's way better than McCain or Hillary!

Well I think it is more complicated than just comparing the few viable candidates. The first thing you need to do is let go of your idea that the United States of America is a democracy. It isn't. Look, Dr. Chomsky says so:



He's really fucking smart, so you ought to really give this notion some consideration. America isn't a democracy.


Yeah, but, like, we have elections. We get to vote, right? That makes it a democracy!

Not really. All elections mean is that the public has a choice between various candidates. It doesn't mean that those candidates represent the interests of the people, or that the people have any say in the decisions that are important to them. All elections mean is that people can choose between candidates. The real power is in who chooses the candidates.


Uh, so... who chooses the candidates?

Well, first look at a what all the candidates have in common. You might notice that they're all politicians. They all have lots of money behind them. They're all Democrats or Republicans.


Yeah but wait, if they're all the same, how come there are Democrats and Republicans?

They aren't all exactly the same. There are some minor differences between them, perhaps even some major ones. But even major differences are dwarfed by their profound similarities. And the reason they have so many similarities is because the big money that backs them generally comes from people with very similar interests.

So now to answer the question, there are Democrats and Republicans for a few reasons, but two main reasons stand out. First, while the people who make the decisions have vast areas of common interests, they do have some differences. And so factions form that compete with each other over those minor areas of disagreement.

But far more importantly to you and me, there are Democrats and Republicans because it creates the illusion of choice for the public. The interests of the people in power, the people who control both the Democrat and the Republican parties, are very different than the interests of the public. So it is important that they make it seem as if the public has meaningful choices. Parties are kind of like marketing gimmicks. They create appealing slogans that generates enthusiasm, and use various methods of deception to get the public to overlook the fact that their actions and their rhetoric don't match. The vast majority of their actions favor the interests of those elite few, at the expense of the general public and the rest of the world.


Ok, well that all makes sense, and I kind of agree. But still, Obama is way better than McCain.

He certainly wants you to think that. It is possible that it is true, though I think it is much harder to predict than most people seem to think. Like Chomsky says, the campaigns are designed to highlight character qualities, rather than positions on meaningful issues. It seems to me that Obama has been highly evasive on issues, and quite willing to outright lie.

Regardless, putting your efforts, your time, your money, your hope, into Obama is putting your efforts, your time, your money, your hope into the Democratic party. And that Democratic party is a crucial part of that whole corrupt and disorienting system that gives the illusion of choice without actually providing one. Its primary function is to attract the votes of progressive/liberal-minded people. It does this by saying things that progressives like to hear, and very rarely by passing measures that progressives like (so long as they don't conflict with the interests of the elites), but then primarily using their electoral success to serve the interests of the elites and maintain their own personal and party power.


Yeah, I kind of felt that way after the last election...


Exactly! In 2006 you supported Democrats because you wanted them to end the Iraq war. The war escalated. You wanted Democrats to stop the US from torturing people and holding them without charges. They not only stopped it, they legalized it. You wanted them to impeach Bush and Cheney for their obvious crimes, but they said impeachment was off the table.


So just because Democrats have always claimed to offer a better alternative to Republicans, just because they've said they stand for the things that are important to me, and just because they've never actually done a single thing to back up those claims, and just because there's an extremely painful recent example for me to dwell on... wait but Obama is changing everything. He's different!

Argh! Nobody gets to the position he's in without being completely a creature of the system. Big business is pouring money into his campaign; he's selling out his friends because they say true things that are politically inconvenient; he wants to increase the size of the military; he refuses to acknowledge the turmoil wrought by Israeli action in the Middle East; the list goes on forever. He's not different.


But he's better than McCain!!

Again, he very much wants you to think that, but I'm not sure I see how. You could certainly look at one very narrow issue and conclude that Obama would handle things better in than McCain in that domain. A popular example of that is military belligerence. It might well be the case that Obama is less likely to bomb Iran, for example, although Obama seems quite unwilling to advocate non-aggression. Even if Obama is less likely to launch another war of aggression, he could be more likely to inflict massive harm on people through economic sanctions, as Bill Clinton did in Iraq. Or he might be more inclined to use his beefed up military for "humanitarian" interventions, which never seem to have humanitarian outcomes. Or Obama might have the acquiescence of a Democratic Congress that allows him to pass various measures that cause long-term harm, whereas a McCain presiding with a Democratic Congress wouldn't allow much of anything to pass, preventing harmful measures from proceeding. Or....

The point of that isn't to argue that Obama will be worse or as bad as McCain, but to illustrate the difficulty in figuring it out. Which is once again why I say supporting Democrats is a huge fucking waste of any good intentions you have, because you're supporting the system that allows a decision that is seemingly so important to be contested by people who offer you no meaningful commentary on the important issues.


So you're just saying I shouldn't support anyone? I shouldn't vote? Well then what should I do? You aren't offering any alternatives.

Why does pointing out the massive flaws of the system have to be accompanied by a specific plan of alternative action? Whatever causes you support, whatever ideals you hold that you think Obama might be slightly more likely to represent than the other idiot, you'd be better served pursuing them in other ways. Presidential elections don't change that shit. They're a huge brick wall between you and your vision, and you're just slamming your head into that wall by supporting candidates. If I come along and point out that slamming your head against the wall isn't going to knock it down, isn't that pretty fucking useful information right there? But I guess some people have hit their head so many times that they can't even recognize the futility.


I'm still going to vote for Obama.

I know you are. That's the fucking diabolical beauty of the system.

sweet freedom

No more cell phone for me. We have a house line and there's a phone in my lab on campus, and that's it. I won't be instantly reachable all the time, but I expect that somehow life will continue.

bummer: no LOST for me

We missed the last 3 episodes of LOST before we moved, figuring we could just watch them online when we get here. But ABC.com doesn't let you watch them from Canada, so now we're like 5 episodes behind. I'll have to find some way to download them or something. In the meantime, nobody tell me anything important about it.

Move recap

Kira has the story.

bullshit

I noticed this article in hwong14's shared items and the headline caught my attention: "Does Power Corrupt? Absolutely Not." So I read the article and was a bit confused because the headline has basically nothing to do with the article. So then I went and read the paper featured in the article.

The experiments in the paper manipulate people's feelings of power, inducing them to feel temporarily powerful or powerless, and then gives them tasks. It generally found that people who feel powerful perform better than those who feel powerless. Read the paper for the details. One of the paper's authors, Adam Galinsky, has done other work on power, for example finding that feeling powerful is associated with reduced tendency to understand how other people think. I can see how that would bear on the corruption issue. But I don't see any way the featured research justifies a headline like that. It has nothing at all to do with corruption, though Galinsky does say it has "direct implications" on power and corruption. Aside from the headline, the lede sentence, and that quote, no other mention of corruption is made.

Coincidentally, the article was published in Time Magazine, a powerful and corrupt publication.

miscellaneous blogging from Canada

I've been in Canada for a few days now, and life here is good. The only slight negative is that we're not going to get cable TV so I can't watch the NBA playoffs. I guess I could go to a sports bar, but I don't want to sit there for 2 hours and pay $6 for mediocre beer. All food and beverage is pretty expensive here actually. I'm going to my advisers' house for dinner tonight; every free meal is going to be quite helpful.

Speaking of good life, Man Beard Blog seems to have lurched back to life, at least for a day. This must be very exciting for someone.

Speaking of lurching around like a worthless jackass, this seems to be a perfect summary of what the Democratic Party is all about. The key passage:

I think its very mendacity is the secret of its success. Crucially, it claims to offer an alternative -- however half-hearted and feeble -- to the utter, absolute, complete and comprehensive lordship of plutocracy. As crucially, it actually does nothing of the kind.

It's fundamentally just a matter of algebra. This is a country designed -- very ably and successfully designed -- to be ruled by an oligarchy of wealth. Yet public consent to this arrangement requires representing it as a democracy. The gap between representation and reality requires some term to fill it up and make the equation come out right.

That's the structural need the Democratic Party fills, and that, I think, is the explanation for its longevity. We've always needed something like like that -- some democratic cloak for our oligarchic nakedness -- and presumably we always will, at least until something changes in a big way. It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. Some institution must be built, and staffed with people who either don't mind the dirt, or can convince themselves it's not dirt at all.

He also comments of where Saint Obama and the Clintons fit into that scheme.

I'm starting basically a full time job this week doing some kind of research (details TBD) in the lab, so I'm not really sure what my blogging output will be. Also I'm using stolen wireless internet right now, so I don't know what my access will be at home until our own connection is installed (hopefully tomorrow).

Horus is cracking!

I just scratched the side and top of his head for about 20 seconds before he got scared and ran away.

schedule

The move is approaching quickly. Saturday we pick up the truck and start loading, and Tuesday morning we hit the road. I won't miss Ohio, though tomorrow night we're seeing Flight of the Conchords in Columbus.



It will be awesome.

Why I Won't Vote: Endless Slaughter Everywhere

McCain, Clinton, Obama, they all support this. And I'm supposed to concern myself about the lesser evil? Read all the gory details: the gang rapes of young women, the mutilation of children, the crushed testicles of men, and then realize that this is a course of action that all three of those monsters agree on. How hopelessly wrong is it that we obsess over the tiny differences between them while this is what is going on in the world? Fuck the media, fuck the candidates, fuck all of their wars, and fuck their worthless ballots.

Glory to the killers

Most of these "heroes," however, are dupes. They think they are fighting for our freedoms when instead they are helping to destroy our freedoms. They think they are retaliating for 9/11 when instead they are paving the way for another terrorist attack. They think they are preventing terrorism when instead they are making terrorists. They think they went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda when instead al-Qaeda came to Iraq because of them. They think they are protecting Israel when instead they are contributing to increased hatred of Israel. They think that our cause is just when instead it violates every just war principle ever formulated. They think they are fighting injustice when instead they are committing a crime against the Iraqi people. They think they are defending the United States when instead they are helping to destroy it.

I don't quite agree with all of that, but its basic thrust is a point that needs to be made. US soldiers aren't heroes. They are murderers with uniforms and medals.

catch up blogging: NPR, Jeremiah Wright, Iran, voting

• I listened to about half an hour of NPR while I was home and was disgusted. 20 minutes of it was spent analyzing exactly how black Obama is, and how that mattered for his electability. The "issues" were mentioned once, as something that Obama would like to run on, but there was concern that "the media" wouldn't let him. Gee, NPR, I wonder how that would happen?
• The other 10 minutes were spent on how crazy and polarizing Jeremiah Wright is and what damage he is doing to the Obama campaign. No examination of what he says, of course. (Not that I care if Obama gets elected. His denunciations of Wright, with various lies packaged in, are pathetic and reveal him for what he really is, not that it wasn't already obvious.) I had a recent conversation about Wright with one of my more open-minded family members, who lamented how "divisive" he is, and yet seemed quite unaware of what the man has actually said. Gee, NPR, I wonder how that would happen?
• For typically excellent writing about Wright/Obama check out Floyd and Silber.
• I might comment more on this in a "why I won't vote" post, but check out the conversation here and at the post it links to. Is this the best the opposition has to offer?
• War with Iran seems inevitable, as I've said for a while now. I really feel like I want to be out of here before it happens. I don't exactly know why. My moving date is in 11 days, so... hooray I'll be in complete comfort in a slightly different wealthy nation before thousands of people are senselessly slaughtered! That's the boundless narcissism this blog was built upon.
  

I am back

I've just returned from a trip home to the Maryland area. I have a lot of blog reading to catch up on. Regular bloggage will resume here at some point. In the meantime, read about me here or here.

Cat food warning

Since I love cats and I love his blog, I'll pass along this word of warning for cat owners.

When we first adopted our boys, we did a lot of research and decided on a diet similar to what Hodgkins recommends. My understanding is that much of the cat food industry is basically based on the idea that cats are the same as dogs. They aren't. Dogs are omnivores; cats are obligate carnivores. Their systems aren't meant to ingest large amounts of grain, and health complications result. We're convinced the best diet for our cats would be a raw diet that includes organ meat and ground bone (good for dental health), but for now we use a high quality canned food that is mostly protein and fat. It is a bit more expensive than cheap dry food, but even by cold hard economic reasoning we figure in the long run it will save vet expenses.



It seems like most veterinarians don't know much about these dietary concerns, which isn't too surprising since they sell the mass-produced dry food in their lobbies. So you might never have even heard about this issue. Do some research and make good decisions for your cats!



update:
Kira posted about our food decisions as we were going through it. That post was before we fully figured things out, and we've been using Innova Evo for a long time now. We're considering another switch in the near future.

blaming the victims

The vast majority of the American people are victims of the elites who control us. We're crushed by economic and social policy that atomize and dehumanize us, and we're subject to massive propaganda campaigns that misinform us and make a clear understanding of the system almost impossible. A lot of political commentary, including much of my own I'm sure, tends to despair about the quality of a people who could let their nation reach its current state. "Americans are fat, stupid, arrogant, and apathetic." Maybe a lot of that is true, and if it is, it is true in large part because of the concerted efforts of a narrow but dominant segment of the population. Our freedom - to speak our minds, to organize ourselves, to spend our time as we choose, to work, to think, to make meaningful decisions about our own lives - is limited. Private and public tyrannies have extensive control over just about everything we do.

People under stress, captive people, often do stupid things, which doesn't excuse them, but it is important not to lose sight of the big picture. Remove those stresses, the shackles, and most of those problems go away and the recovery can begin.

Rooting for outrage

I think this might push me over the edge towards rooting for Hillary over Obama. They're almost completely indistinguishable, but one might result in massively lower voter turn-out, which is the only realistic victory I can hope for.

failed states in the news

Florida

Afghanistan

Clarification

Since the attempt at humor seems to have failed, I'll publicly clarify that I don't actually have 3 felony convictions.

A Clash of Kings

"What will you do when he crosses?"

"Fight. Kill. Die, maybe."

"Aren't you afraid? The gods might send you down to some terrible hell for all the evil you've done."

"What evil?" He laughed. "What gods?"

"The gods who made us all."

"All?" he mocked. "Tell me, little bird, what kind of god makes a monster like the Imp, or a halfwit like Lady Tanda's daughter? If there are gods, they made sheep so wolves could eat mutton, and they made the weak for the strong to play with."

"True knights protect the weak."

He snorted. "There are no true knights, no more than there are gods. If you can't protect yourself, die and get out of the way of those who can. Sharp steel and strong arms rule the world, don't ever believe any different."

Sansa backed away from him. "You're awful."

"I'm honest. It's the world that is awful. Now fly away, little bird, I'm sick of you peeping at me."

Wordless, she fled. She was afraid of Sandor Clegane... and yet, some part of her wished that Ser Dontos had a little of the Hound's ferocity. There are gods, she told herself, and there are true knights too. All the stories can't be lies.

Yes, Sansa, they can be. Sorry.

Cat pictures

Katsu, Hattori, and Horus (from left to right). This was a pause in the middle of a massive three-way fight. Hattori is on his back because Katsu is about to pounce on him. Hattori will throw him off, and Katsu will retreat to the kitchen, strategically leaving Horus in between himself and Hattori. So Hattori will attack Horus, who will run frightened into the back room and hide under the bed.



He climbed up here today for the first time, and he's spent most of the day up there. For him to climb so high is a huge deal. He spent the first month mostly sneaking around the house in a low crouch when he dared leave his hiding spots, and we were so excited when he started to walk in an upright position. So now exploring vertical space seems like such a major breakthrough. If I were to walk further into that room, he'd definitely jump down and hide under the bed though.




The other day he came out to the main room and took a nap with me sitting a few feet away. That he's willing to lower his guard around us is big. He's started climbing that structure he's sleeping under here as well. Usually he gets near the top, then gets scared and runs away.




This picture was taken about a year ago. It is a nice contrast to the next one.




Hattori has lost a lot of weight, and Katsu has grown so much. But they still love looking out the windows and I spared you the sight of my ugly feet.




Katsu the pillow.

Return of the personal rant

I haven't done a rambling bulleted blog post in a long time. Well I just enjoyed a delicious Bell's Hopslam and a heaping helping of stir-fried veggies and rice, and the full belly and 10% ABV IPA have inspired me.

• I just got back from a 4 day trip to Canada to line up an apartment. We found one we both like, but now we're realizing that our application includes barely any income, no recent job history, no Canadian bank accounts or credit history, and my 3 convicted felonies. So we're hoping to somehow work all that out.
• Canada is just a nicer place than this country. You notice this as soon as you cross the border. Their road signs are like "Hey pal, please drive safely! It makes everyone happy!" In the US the same sign is "ATTENTION INSIGNIFICANT PROLES: YOUR SPEED IS MONITORED BY RADAR AND AIRCRAFT. IMMEDIATE PRISON FOR VIOLATORS. WE WILL TASER YOUR GENITALS TOO." And everyone you talk to anywhere up there is friendly and soft-spoken. And all the women are beautiful (but virtuous) and the streets are paved with candy and diamonds.
• I've been rather overwhelmed by emotions over the last couple weeks as the impending move is starting to feel more real. I'm very excited about it in lots of ways, but I'm conflicted because I somewhat feel like I'm running away from problems too. Maybe I'll dig more into that some other time. Or maybe it will be a later bullet.
  
• I still can't quite believe how well this whole grad school thing worked out for me. I honestly still don't quite know how I got my advisers to accept me. And then this week they put us up in their home for our visit. These are people who a few months ago I just knew as legends in the field, and next thing I know I'm accepted to their lab and crashing at their place. And I didn't even know if I'd get into grad school anywhere. It is just very weird and hard to process.
• The Lakers are so much better than it seems like they should be. And Denver isn't as good as people think they should be. Lakers in 5.
• Horus has been making huge strides the last few weeks. He regularly hangs out around us, and loves playing with a lot of toys. He and Katsu play together very nicely, and Hattori is getting a lot better with shy Horus too. Horus is starting to climb and jump up above ground level more often (we have various cat-climbing things around), and he's even taken a couple naps in human-occupied beds. He still won't consent to be petted, but if you try to touch his head now he sometimes will swat at your hand with his claws retracted. So he's just giving you a playful high-five instead of shredding your hand. He does a lot of chattering to himself in his pathetic-sounding meow voice. Good times with feline #3.
• I have to say something political right? Umm... Whatever. Fuck everyone.
• There is an amazing sushi place about a 10 or 15 minute walk from the apartment we want. It is kind of expensive though. That's going to be a problem.
• We'd have a dishwasher in that apartment. Holy shit that will be awesome. I estimate we spend an average of 20 to 30 minutes per day doing dishes now, so that will be a massive time savings. Not to mention we'll probably use a lot less water that way, which is only noteworthy for environmental reasons, as our rent will include water.

That's all.

War Made Easy

War Made Easy

I just watched this 70 minute film, and I don't even know what to say. One thing that really shocked me was seeing television coverage of the early part of the Iraq invasion again. The glorification of the violence was sickening beyond my ability to express.

Watch the whole thing.

Bush: I lied. Heh heh heh!

Bush: I supported the troops by lying to them. Wouldn't you do the same?

Hey, asshole, if you're so worried about morale, here's an idea. Don't fucking send them to invade and occupy a country that doesn't want them there. Don't extend their tours indefinitely. Don't send broken men back into battle and hide their wounded comrades in roach-infested shitboxes. Don't put them in situations where torturing and slaughtering innocent civilians is bound to happen. Don't blame their PTSD on preexisting condition and make them repay their signing bonuses. Bring them all home, and make sure their medical and psychiatric care is fully funded.

Fuck you, you lying coward.

Why I won't vote: Religion

Nobody gets elected without proclaiming a belief in an imaginary sky daddy. This means they either have a fundamental inability to understand the world around them, or they're willing to lie to the nation they aspire to purportedly serve. These aren't qualities of someone I'd want leading an organization that controls the entire world by force. Every candidate sucks.

Of course I don't think anyone should be leading an organization that controls the entire world, so the real role religion plays in this "why I won't vote" story is illustrating what a farce elections and governments are. We claim to value separation of church and state, claim to value a system of government where there is no religious test for public office, yet make a mockery of that notion every election season.

I won't analyze here what role the population and the media gatekeepers each play in this hypocrisy. But the whole process is an elaborate ritual, with everyone playing their part, that accords religion far more respect than it deserves, thereby giving superstition far too great an influence in decisions that have profound impact on all of us. I won't play my part. I won't vote.

Support the Troops?

"Support the troops" is simple sounding phrase that encompasses multiple layers of complicated bullshit. Anyone bothering to read my thoughts on the matter knows that fascist warmongers conflate any criticism of war with criticism of soldiers. And criticism of soldiers is the ultimate sin, so the standard response is that the criticism is directed at the civilians at the top of government who are making the choices to go to war, and maybe at some of the top generals, but certainly no maligning of the average 19 year old marine is intended.

Well I say fuck that. Why should I support any of them? I know that a large portion of the US Armed forces came from poor backgrounds and saw the military as a way out of a shitty situation. I know they've been deceived and intimidated and subject to various other shit that renders them sympathetic figures, pawns of the really evil people. But what they're doing on a daily basis in Iraq is fucking wrong, no matter how much they believe they're somehow defending my freedom. I don't support that. If that means I don't support them, then so be it.

But there are some troops I do support. I support Ehren Watada, a commissioned Army officer who refused deployment to Iraq. He did so knowing he could face a court-martial and years in prison. His case is currently working through some complicated legal procedures.

I support Matthew Diaz, a Navy lawyer who illegally sent a list of names of Guantanamo detainees to a civil rights lawyer. He did it because he knew the the Bush administration's refusal to provide such a list to the Red Cross was a crime against humanity. He served 6 months in jail, emerging jobless and bankrupt. The Pentagon is actively seeking to have him disbarred.

So Watada and Diaz are some brave troops who are actually fighting for something worthwhile. There are others like them who deserve support and respect. The rest of the sheep in Iraq may be brave, but their actions are immoral and not worthy of my support. However, here's how I would like to see them supported. I'd like all of them to be brought home immediately. Every wounded soldier should receive excellent medical care, and every soldier should receive excellent psychiatric care. Lots of it.

And then every crime they committed against innocent civilians should be investigated. "I'm just following orders" is not a defense for war crimes. Every solider who took part in those crimes should be prosecuted, though I would hope for some leniency for the more sympathetic and contrite figures. And if people higher in the chain of command are willing to plea guilty in exchange for more leniency for those under their command, I'd support that too.

Fuck you, Congress, Obama, Clinton and Democrats

More evidence of the Bush administration's crimes comes to light every day it seems like, lately with this Yoo torture documents, and every day Congress fails to do a damn thing about any of it. Every member of Congress should be doing everything they can to initiate impeachment and criminal trials. If Obama or Hillary (or McCain) were such great fucking leaders, worthy of the powers they seek, they'd be leading that fucking charge. But of course they won't.

And you want to vote for one of them?

Oh, that's right, somehow it is bad strategy for Democrats to try to impeach, because it would be so fucking divisive, which could cost them the chance to take the reins. That's way more important.

see, it works!

Here are some success stories about people more or less trying to do things like I'd suggest.

adspar's how to

Mox:

Adspar I'd like to see a post on what the options are for people who, like yourself, have principled objections to the laws they are subjected to. I know you're moving to Canada (and believe me, I have a lot of respect for someone who's really willing to move rather than support a regime they don't agree with), but I have the suspicion (given your recent anarchist bent) that Canada won't really scratch your political itch (even though it will be much better). What does one do when there is no nation (or region for non-statists) where one can go to that is well-aligned with one's own political ideals?

I'll start off with a few links that do a better job of answering the question than I will:

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2007/03/stop_traffic.html
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/10/break-goddamned-rules.html
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2007/11/you-may-as-well-break-goddamned-rules.html
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/10/sunday-sermon.html
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/10/children-of-revolution-part-one-zillion.html
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/10/grve.html
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/10/yutes.html
http://ajbenjaminjrbeta.blogspot.com/2008/03/stop-traffic.html

Next I'll note that previous posts here have offered answers to the question. I've tagged some of them with "Raging Against the Machine" to make them easier to find. There are probably more posts in the archives that deserve that tag, so I'll add them as I come across them.

I really would recommend reading the material at all of those links, but here are my own thoughts on the matter without any quoting of those other people or my previous entries.

---

The first thing you need to do, after recognizing the set of problems we're confronted with, is to realize two key points. 1) You're going to be confronted with these problems in almost all aspects of life on a daily basis, and 2) that you aren't going to solve these problems. There's no magical catharsis here. So the way I see it, all anyone can do is make the best of things, which involves some combination of fight and flight. Some of my suggestions for each are below.


Fight (a.k.a. disrupt the system)

• Learn as much as you can about these problems, and speak about what you learn to anyone who will listen (and some people who won't). Spread the message. Knowledge is power. Raise awareness. Educate. Advocate. Inspire. All that shit. It matters.
• Call things what they really are. Up isn't down; black isn't white. Don't let words become meaningless. The US Military isn't fighting a war in Iraq; they're occupiers. America isn't a" democracy" in any meaningful sense. The Department of Defense doesn't defend; the Department of Education doesn't educate; the Homeland Security Department doesn't make us more secure; the Department of Justice doesn't provide justice. Intelligent design isn't science. There's nothing conservative about neo-conservatism, and there's nothing liberal about neo-liberalism. Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama aren't anti-war. John McCain isn't a straight-shooter. Public Relations is propaganda. The Bible is a work of fiction. Declaring "war" on an abstract noun or certain kinds of chemicals literally makes no sense. The President of the United States is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, not the nation. NAFTA isn't a "Free" "Trade" "Agreement." Collateral damage means innocent people were slaughtered. Enhanced interrogation techniques means fucking torture. Call things what they really are. Words mean something, and have tremendous power. The lies stop at you.
  
• Paper currency passes through your hands on a daily basis. It could look different when it leaves your possession. Lots of other people will see it. For example, should religious messages be legible on government-issued money?
  
• There's an important day for the federal government coming up in 11 days. You probably don't want to risk large fines or imprisonment, but aren't few little innocent mistakes bound to happen in such a confusing process?
• Minimize: driving, taxable income, electricity usage, non-essential purchases, paper trails, interaction with illegitimate authorities (including voting for them), processed food consumption, television, religion.
  

Flight (a.k.a. enjoy life responsibly)

• You'll never find a perfect place, but you can move some place more in line with your ideals, a place where you can be more comfortable with the consequences of your daily decisions. Keep fighting when you get there.
• Immerse yourself in an occupation or hobby (one that doesn't compromise your principles).
• Have sex.
  
• Buy as much of your food as possible from local and sustainable farms. Experiment with new recipes. Eat slowly.
• Self-medicate.
• Play sports. Go camping. Listen to music. Adopt a pet. Take a walk. Read a book. Join a club.
  
• Keep in mind that flight is actually a fight strategy too. You're leading by example, demonstrating that people can be more happy and healthy outside of the fucked up system.
  

Why I won't vote: Sham Democracy

Perhaps the most important factor in my decision not to vote is that democracy is a sham in the United States. Business interests, not popular opinion, control the machinery of government, regardless of which button we push every four years (I'll leave a discussion of how votes literally don't even count for another entry). Elections are an elaborate charade providing the illusion of choice, but issues of public concern are carefully avoided. The policies enacted by our federal government are widely opposed by the public, and yet incumbents rarely lose congressional elections. As a result of the way campaigns are conducted, with the mind-melting techniques of the public relations industry, public awareness of the positions of candidates on issues is abysmally low, while voters increasingly cite "character" or "values" as the reason for their selections. (Here's what I think about the character and values of politicians.)

To quote Noam Chomsky's discussion of public opinion and public policy in his 2006 book Failed States:

A large majority of the public believe that the United States should accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Court, sign the Kyoto protocols, allow the United Nations to take the lead in international crisis, and rely on diplomatic and economic measures more than military ones in the "war on terror." Similar majorities believe the United States should resort to force only if there is "strong evidence that the country is in imminent danger of being attacked," thus rejecting the bipartisan consensus on "preemptive war" and adopting the rather conventional interpretation of the UN Charter reiterated by the UN's High-level Panel of December 2004 and the UN World Summit a year later. A small majority of the population even favors giving up Security Council vetoes, so that the United States would follow the UN's lead even if it is not the preference of the US state managers. On domestic issues, overwhelming majorities favor expansion of government programs: primarily health care (80 percent), but also funding for education and Social Security. Similar results on domestic issues have long been found in these studies conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (CCFR). As noted, other mainstream polls report that large majorities support guaranteed health care, even if it would raise taxes. Not only does the US government stand apart from the rest of the world on many crucial issues, but even from its own population.

I refuse to support this system and add to the illusion of its legitimacy. I won't vote.

Why I won't vote: Ambition

I've long thought that the only appropriate approach to any election is for people to say what their positions are, what they'd be likely to do if they gain the position, and basically offer their services if the voters decide their approach is best. In other words, people could agree to serve if selected, but wouldn't be trying to win by doing what they think people want. The ideal scenario would be a member of a community reluctantly agreeing to submit himself for consideration at the urging of his peers who believe he'd be a great leader.

Think about every class election you ever saw in school. Did anyone run because they wanted to represent the student body and make sure that their interests were served? Did they genuinely believe that they had a unique and crucial ability to perform this task better than any of their competitors? Of course not. They ran because they were ambitious. They wanted to be popular, or to improve their college application, or make sure the prom could be how they wanted it to be, or whatever other benefits they'd reap. So they said things that they thought people would want to hear.

National elections are the same way, except the ones running are the most ambitious from a group of 300,000,000 instead of a group of 300. By my math that makes them a million times more ambitious. And they aren't competing to see who gets to pick the time of the pep rally; they're trying be the general manager of the largest empire, equipped with the most lethal machinery, in the history of civilization. To even get anywhere close to a position where they have even the slightest shot at running for president, they had to have contorted, conspired, compromised, cheated, lied, backtracked, betrayed, bought off, threatened, punished, and perverted themselves in ways I can't even imagine. And then repeated all of that again after breakfast until lunch. And then again until dinner, and after dinner until bed. And then keep it up continually over several decades. These are the kinds of people I'm supposed to support with my vote?

Time magazine published this article by Michael Kinsley, which A Tiny Revolution highlighted, that draws attention to this problem.

[V]oters are also right to feel that something is phony about democratic politics and that it's getting worse. Even a candidate who agrees with you on all important issues and always has—no dreaded flip-flops—is forced by the conventions of politics to be disingenuous about at least one core issue: why he or she is running.

Ladies and gentlemen, they are running because they are ambitious. No, really, they are. You probably suspected as much. And yet you would abandon any candidate who dared to admit this, or at least they all believe that you would...[T]he purest form of ambition is political ambition, because it represents a desire to rule over other people.

When you hear the presidential candidates carrying on about democracy and freedom, do you ever wonder what they would be saying if they had been born into societies with different values? What if Mitt Romney had come to adulthood in Nazi Germany? What if Hillary Clinton had gone to Moscow State University and married a promising young apparatchik? What if Barack Obama had been born in Kenya, like his father, where even now people are slaughtering one another over a crooked election? Which of them would be the courageous dissidents, risking their lives for the values they talk about freely—in every sense—on the campaign trail? And which would be playing the universal human power game under the local rules, whatever they happened to be?

Without naming names, I believe that most of them would be playing the game. What motivates most politicians, especially those running for President, is closer to your classic will-to-power than to a deep desire to reform the health-care system.

Like most installments in this series, the ambition issue doesn't stand on its own as a make-or-break point in opposition of voting. It basically just falls into what will probably be a common category: why every candidate sucks. I'm extremely reluctant to support candidates who suck. The most viciously ambitious people usually suck a whole lot, and our system is designed to filter only the most supremely viciously ambitious people into contention for national office.

Why I won't vote: Introduction

I'd like to write a series of posts reflecting on why I generally refuse to vote. This seems to be a controversial issue, so I hope people will join the conversation in the comments. I hope my arguments will be persuasive, but my writing style tends to reflect my primary goal of figuring out what is right. I'll try to be polite and considerate and whatnot, but I don't intend to shy away from indelicate truths.

I'll say up front that I'll be talking primarily about federal elections, mainly Presidential though Congressional should be basically the same. State and local elections are somewhat different, I'll note specifically if I'm including them in the discussion.

I'll credit the following for contributing greatly to my thoughts on this topic and various matters that will enter the discussion:

Arthur Silber
Who Is IOZ?
Chris Floyd
Noam Chomsky
Jonathan Schwarz
Winter Patriot
Dennis Perrin
politicalcompass.org

This of course is not to say that I agree with all of their views or that they'd agree with everything I'll say, just that they've been very influential to my thinking.

Contrition... contemplation

People who supported the invasion of Iraq were fatuous, bloodthirsty, ahistorical, immoral, politically naive, callous, unthinking, reprehensible morons--to the man. The proper attitude is contrition, silence, and contemplation.

IOZ is right, on both points.

I frequently think back on the multitude of profound failings that led to my supporting what I supported (albeit a disinterested and inactive support). Michael Shermer says that "smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons," which I suppose is part of the explanation. For some "weird things" that might even be comforting, allowing me to still think of myself as smart, and to shift the blame to my environment. I just adopted the views of my tribe without adequately examining them. No big deal. But this wasn't just some silly squabble about which sport is more exciting or whose imaginary friend is better. Real lives were at stake. I was not just callous, fatuous, naive (those charges I could live with); I was bloodthirsty and immoral. I remember thinking that war was exciting and that hunting down Saddam was, like, fucking awesome! If a few innocent people happened to get in the way, well, whatever.

Reprehensible isn't a strong enough word for what I was. I don't know if I'll ever get over that. And now expressing that feeling sounds like unforgivably pathetic whining compared to the pain of the families of over a million dead Iraqis and the unfathomable human suffering unleashed by an invasion that I cheered on. Woe is me with my wounded pride, my scarred ego, and my guilty conscience, right? I guess that's why my contemplation and contrition should be done in silence.

More shit! (This time with political commentary)

Since I've gotten started blogging about shit, I might as well keep going. Advance apologies for the prolonged analogy, but it serves a purpose.

I was recently chastised for being too critical of Obama and not sufficiently critical of McCain, thus supporting a McCain presidency. I thought I'd made my opinion of each candidate fairly clear, but let me clarify.

John McCain is a warmongering idiot who will say or do anything at all to increase his power, and is probably starting to become senile. Of the three remaining candidates, the thought of a McCain presidency is probably (but not certainly) the worst.

Barrack Obama is an elegant and charismatic speaker whose lofty rhetoric almost disguises the overwhelming similarities between him and McCain. Obama has demonstrated no principled objection to McCain-style warmongering, and has shown that he too will say or do anything at all to increase his power. He'll just do it more smoothly. Of the three remaining candidates, the thought of an Obama presidency is probably (but not certainly) the least offensive to me.

So that's my position on those guys. So, why the focus on Obama criticism? It is a function of the audience I'm addressing. In regards to my blog posts, I don't imagine that I need to convince many of my readers that McCain is a lunatic (though I've made that point repeatedly, just not very recently.) The same logic applies to personal communication. I just assume that this position is well established. John McCain the presidential candidate is a big steaming pile of shit.

Why criticize Obama so much if he seems to be the best of the viable candidates? Because he's still a terrible candidate! Obama the presidential candidate is a big steaming pile of shit, but with a slight sprinkle of deodorizing baking soda on top. This is a point that I believe needs to be made loudly and often, and the idea that this is de facto support for McCain can only come from a mind so beholden to power as to fail to recognize that an individual has more than two fixed choices on election day. I'm a fucking anarchist, not a fucking Republican. Yes, Republicans and I have a common interest in not wanting an Obama presidency. But Democrats have far more in common with Republicans than I do: both of them want huge steaming piles of shit in the most powerful office in the history of the world, but one of them prefers the huge steaming pile of shit that smells a slight bit less shitty. I don't want a pile of shit at all! And while I'll certainly get one, I'm not going to vote for one, and I'm not going to be shy about complaining how much it stinks.

This shitty post might serve as a good prequel to a series I'm thinking about writing on the topic of why I won't be voting. But I'll leave you with this last stinking nugget for today. If everyone who didn't want a steaming pile of shit refused to eat it, instead of eating the least stinky one, what would happen? Or conversely, what happens when people who don't want a pile of shit will continually eat shit anyway, if that is all they are offered? Is there any chance they'll be offered anything else?

Shit!

It occurred to me today that I'd much rather be in a bidet culture than a toilet paper culture. I suppose that might be kind of elitist but they can't be that much more expensive than toilet paper, right? This thought is brought to you by a Chipotle chicken fajitas burrito with hot salsa.

Kids have sex, which is a crime

What in the fucking fuck is wrong with everyone?

SHEBOYGAN, Wis. - A 17-year-old Sheboygan boy is facing criminal charges after allegedly fathering a child with his 16-year-old girlfriend.

Kou Yang is charged in Sheboygan County with repeated sexual assault of a child. The charge carries a maximum 25 years in prison.

A criminal complaint says the girl told police she and Yang started having sex shortly after they met in August 2005, when both were 14.

The girl gave birth to a girl in December.

Authorities say Yang has acknowledged having sex with the girl.

This is either atrocious reporting or insane state overreach, ala Genarlow Wilson.

I hate everyone.

Why Obama is a joke:

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

Euphemism and American Violence

Check out this excellent piece by David Bromwich in the New York Review of Books about how the US Government and news media's use of obfuscatory language has helped keep our national conscience from acknowledging our violent crimes throughout the world.

The "Free Market" at Work!

"But analysts said it was clear that JPMorgan Chase was getting an extraordinary bargain, buying Bear Stearns at a tiny fraction of its market value just one week ago, and with the Fed shielding it from much of the risk."

Obama = asshole

yup.

update: more

Grad School News

I've accepted an offer to study at McMaster University. I'll be in this lab. This couldn't have worked out any better.

shame

15. CNN. American news has become so shamelessly propagandistic and idiotic that today, a blatant White House propaganda tool like CNN is considered "liberal" simply because it's gotten a wee bit squeamish over the whole Iraq debacle, as compared to FOX, which, like the gang in Hitler's bunker, is still issuing cheerful dispatches about inevitable victory in Iraq. Then there's Lou Dobbs, the guy with the freakish child molester face who transformed himself from neoliberal "New Economy" tool into a sleazy Mexican-bashing rat. This is what passes for a "liberal media" in the United Embarrassment of America.

That's just number 15 on a list of 20 shames of being American.

I'm moving to Canada soon, and I'll be apologetic about my nationality.

"daily" rage 2

Checka, checka, check it out
They load the clip in omnicolour
Said they pack the 9, they fire it at prime time
Sleeping gas, every home was like Alcatraz
And mutha fuckas lost their minds

No escape from the mass mind rape
Play it again jack and then rewind the tape
And then play it again and again and again
Until ya mind is locked in
Believin' all the lies that they're tellin' ya
Buyin' all the products that they're sellin' ya
They say jump and ya say how high
Ya brain-dead
Ya gotta fuckin' bullet in ya head

Just victims of the in-house drive-by
They say jump, you say how high
Just victims of the in-house drive-by
They say jump, you say how high

Uggh! Yeah! Yea!

Ya standin' in line
Believin' the lies
Ya bowin' down to the flag
Ya gotta bullet in ya head

Ya standin' in line
Believin' the lies
Ya bowin' down to the flag
Ya gotta bullet in ya head

- Bullet in the Head



Ya gotta bullet in ya fuckin' head!

The Wire Finale

I'm sad that The Wire is ending tonight, but I'm looking forward to the finale. This last season has been a notch below the previous 4, though that is a lofty standard. If we're lucky, we'll get a Wire movie in a few years.

what is the point of school

A while back I mentioned an interest in home schooling, but haven't directly followed up on it since. I haven't done much more research specifically about home schooling, but I've done a significant amount of reading and reflection about learning and the function of institutionalized education.

When I first contemplated home schooling, one of the first drawbacks I considered was about socialization. How would the kids learn how to interact with people? It is a very common concern, but I imagine almost all of the people who share this concern have one thing in common: they went to standard schools. Since that's where they (we) had their (our) first social experiences, it is hard for us to even imagine growing up in a different environment.

My sister sent me a great essay about this topic of socialization in institutional schooling that makes several great points. Exactly what does this oh-so-important "socialization" process actually teach kids? That they have to stick with people of exactly their own age? That you should sit indoors, bored out of your mind, being forced to pay attention to some subject you don't care about? That you shouldn't talk to your friends or make jokes in that situation? That you have to keep interacting with the same asshole that you don't get along with every fucking day because that's the way the seating chart is assigned?

Basically my position now is that I see little of value in the traditional education system that couldn't be better achieved through alternative methods. And I see lots of things in the standard school system that are extremely negative, aside from what I mentioned above. In my recent post over at Inertia Anonymous, considering how academic success is largely measured by test scores, I wrote:

Well what do tests measure except the ability to tell authority figures what they want to hear, to regurgitate information that we committed to short-term memory simply to earn the approval of the authorities, to jump through fucking monkey hoops just to see a shining "A" on the "report card" that the school authorities sent out to other school authorities (not to mention our home life authorities.)

Institutional schools are class societies. The ruling class makes the rules and enforces them cruelly. They control information and tell you what you can believe. They allow you a certain amount of freedom amidst your drudgery, and you spend your whole days looking forward to it, but they always remind you that this is a privilege that they can revoke at any time. The lower class must obey the rules, or else they are punished. They must stand in lines and tell the authorities what they want to hear. They are prevented from doing what they naturally want to do, and forced to do mundane tasks for no apparent reason. They must stick within their own groups in the lower class, groups formed arbitrary conventions like age and name, with little regard for personality, interest, or ability. Sure you sometimes have honors classes, debate teams, or a sophomore on the varsity soccer squad, but these are exceptions and afterthoughts (that suit the needs of the ruling class, who have their own rulers they must answer to).

I don't even have a kid, and it makes me queasy just thinking about putting a child through that if there are better ways to raise them. I don't know that that makes homeschooling the default alternative. I could imagine a variety of alternatives to mainstream schools, involving various combinations of formal and informal opportunities.

daily rage

Trappist Achel Extra - Belgian Strong Dark Ale

Back in October I picked up a bottle of Trappist Achel Extra at Whole Foods for $12. That's pretty expensive for 750ml of beer, so this is a rare luxury indulgence. It is definitely an outstanding beer, even at that price. Beer Advocate calls it a Belgian Strong Dark Ale, although some commented that it should be considered a Quadrupel. Some beer styles tend to overlap, and I could see how this one could be a borderline case. Anyway, those are two of my favorite styles, so I had been looking forward to trying it. An icy Ohio night seemed like as good a time as any for it, and it didn't disappoint.

It pours a deep amber brown with a creamy tan head that fades to a frothy cap. The aroma is very Belgian and dark, a complex bouquet of dark fruits, caramel malt, candy sugar, and spices. The complexity of the smell carries into the taste. It is surprisingly crisp with some tart fruitiness, balanced with a roasted coffee and caramel malt presence. The Belgian spices are prominent throughout, and some slight hops profile shows up in the aftertaste, quenching and leaving you wanting another sip. This beer is very smooth, and the 9.5% ABV can really sneak up on you.

Strongly recommend it if you're willing to pay extra for an amazing brew. Here's one thing that monks can do right!


All my beer tasting notes.