the only easy day was yesterday

Friday, August 31, 2007

but why male models?

i've been listening to bbc a lot, and sort of getting my bearings a little bit, so politics will play a bigger part now...

congratulations america! you've been outsmarted by the president who you all seem to have been under the impression that you were smarter and more capable than. on the whole stock market mortage system, he ripped you idiots a new asshole with something to the effect of: STOP SPENDING MORE FUCKING MONEY THAN YOU HAVE.

"It's not the government's job to bail out speculators or those who made the decision to buy a home they knew they could never afford"

thats what he actually said, but you know what he meant. everyone in this country is so outrageously involved in becoming as far away from an actual human being as they can that they will go beyond their unhuman means to obtain other unhuman things, among these things is extravagent houses. i need a roof, a place to shit, and a place to sleep, and so does everyone else, and now thanks to all of the idiots of our country not only can many people not afford the NEEDS of human life, but the whole economy is going haywire because of their irresponsibility.

well done, you morons.


okay i have something to say now. i dono how its gonna turn out, but here it goes.

philosopy, and as a whole the creation of logic as a study and a concrete entity in human history, may have been the worst things that could have happened to our race. on one side of the argument, it has enlightened us as to the nature of the universe in which we live, and in effect heightening our quality of life as a species (largely) a million fold; but on the other hand, it inspires complaceny among idealists and rationalists, and ambivalence for everyone else, in that it gives any given person an escape rout on any given issue, in so long as he is well schooled in logic and philosophy. if philosophy and logic as studies and lifestyles were to have preceeded (this was clearly impossible, and either way a negligible point) the many aspects of civilization that stay today and motivate people by less-than-human (though they'd say more, or rather that's what the want) goals - money, power, (respect), etc. - then philosophy and logic would have been the greatest thing ever to have happened to humankind (besides it's creation), because it would not have been used to exploit the selfish goals of idiots. unfortunately along with intelligence and diversity of thought, these ideas will come and the way the world is is probably inevitable by that line of thought. my point here is, if i even have one, that philosophy creates, in my mind, and im sure in others minds, such ambivalence about sociality and morality that i know i will never be comfortable with anything i think, and furthermore i know that anyone who pleases can reason themselves out oof whatever they want, becasue as long as an argument is not based on some ultimate truth, whether it exists or not, it cannot be better than another. im not sure well ever get over this as a race. people are overwhelimingly disappointing to me, and im not sure what anyone can do about it. i have a hard time believing that some people have minds at all, how is life so not good, why are we such idiots that we can't "get along".

Thursday, August 30, 2007

im too lazy to actually say anythig

yes, ray, you are. he looks sick already. check out the game highlights, looks like hes playing retarded sloths. also check out the absolutly disgusting catch thats bound to be in those highlights...

and mr beckham is probably out for the season...

La Di Da Di

Democracy and Hip-Hop Project: The Democracy and Hip-Hop Project

An interesting manifesto of sorts of hip-hop...

what should've been. the real super bowl xli, september 6th.

this is entirely irrelavent, but i have nfl network now. im a happy boy.

its not about joey

couldnt find one i could embed, wait til the end jerious' td run is bush-esque

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Drop Sneakers Not Bombs

So today I went shopping with my dad for clothes for school. I wanted to get a new pair of skate shoes, some shorts, and t-shirts. Our journey took us all over LA, including somewhere between lost and very lost...When we got back on the right track and found ourselves in Santa Monica my dad saw this store called "Active" located across the street from the Vans store we had just left. I went in there to find not just red skate shoes that fit and looked cool, but my t-shirts and shorts as well. When I got back to my Uncle's house, I started flipping through the mail-order catalog i grabbed before i left. I found this section devoted to this project called "Drop Sneakers Not Bombs". Here's some excerpts from that section: "Founded upon a hope to generate some positive energy in our little corner of the world. Indirectly shedding light on one of the many world issues that we all can do our part to help remedy, by showcasing something as simple as sneakers." "A portion of the proceeds from Drop Sneakers Not Bombs will go to Invisible Children , a non-profit organization which has sprung from a captivating documentary film created by three San Diego natives [...I guess that answers that question from Anchor Man]. The film exposes some violent and horrible truths about a civil war in Uganda..."
Jasper [and others], this is one of those things you can do some research on to get some perspective.

After the page explaining what could best be called the mission statement, follows multiple pages where the sneakers themselves are showcased along with commentary from the respected companies. It turns out my kicks' design " based off of the Keffiyeh pattern." "The print is a symbol of the people of the Middle East, their culture and the Anti War view of the DSNB. We wanted to rip through the stereotype that the current war has brought to this country. As one skates the Keffiyeh pattern will tear and reveal the sneaker/bomb print that lays underneath."

Who woulda thought that I'd start the day looking for red everyday sneakers, and finish it learning about civil war in Uganda and Keffiyehs....

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Thursday will see the 10th aniversarry of the death of Diana Princess of Whales. She was one of the few - especially among brits - wealthy individuals who seemed to actually to have a passion for philanthropy and charoty and helping the needy. She was killed, as everyone who was alive in 1997 knows, in a car accident caused by the very papparazi that made this picture possible and who created an environment such that most people in Diana's position stayed and basked in the glory of being in Hello Magazine every month instead of making an effort to effect social change as Diana did. I suggest we all just take it into account as another weight on our own consciouses and another reason why we should get off our asses.

I'm listening to a report on BBC for the second time that I can't decide whether is real or not. It's about fat being beautiful somewhere in Africa and women being force fed and thus being made beutiful. It's so exaggerated and the reporter is so disengaged I really can't believe it's a real report. They interview a bunch of fat women who speak surrprusingly good english (I don't know the language of the land) and they discuss the force feeding in morbid detail like they're talking about yesterday's lunch. It's really repulsive they're saying that they feed them til they cant eat anymore then make them vomet then eat the vomet. THis is all apparently for increasing the trae value of women so that their family prophets more from a marriage...

From Today's Paper

peta sent me a self righteous email

im subscriber to the peta newsletter and i was sent an email on friday from ingrid newkirk about how 300.000 people helped and made a difference in the michael vick case. in case you are actually all living under a rock, unfortunatley we did not have any such an effect whatsoever. the actions were going to take place whether we protested by the millions or not. vicks plea, which admitted nothing about actually cruelty to animals, was not a result of peta's efforts, and i don't see how anyone could think that. furthermore his sponsors did not drop him from endorsements because we said it was wrong or even because violence against living beings is immoral, rather because they feared that they would lose profit from negative advertisment. The sad truth is that if a large majority of america were supporters of dog fighting and animal cruelty, nike wouldn't have flinched. don't pat yourselves on the back and don't encourage people who have no idea as to extent of this problem in our country and the small extent of petas effect on it to be complacent. tell them that they haven't done anything and that they need to get off their asses and actually do something to stop the immoral and immature behavior that all too many people on our planet participate in. and please, don't put yourselves into the market, commercializing the vick issue and profiting off of it is in essence MAKING MONEY OFF OF DOG FIGHTING. think. you'll never make the impact you would actually have made if you resign yourself to it not being possible.

I Have No Idea What To Name This Post.

I'm not quite sure what there is to say to this. To those who don't know, these are the two main characters from High School Musical, quite possibly the most akward piece of film anyone will ever watch. And now they've succefully turned it into the most akward (and embarassing) magazine cover anyone will ever look at. It makes me feel awful.

In short, because I don't have the energy to rant, this is what human relationships have come to. Commercialism has relegated them to the point where the slaves to it's systems of social dictatorship actually seem to cease being human beings. American companies want us to believe that there is one true love for all of us in the world, this way we buy more shit to look and smeel and appear more hyper-human than we actually are because today might be the day we meet the one. Somehow, they've either tricked these two poor souls, who are child actors anyway and have no choice but to be lost and confued and swept away my our pseudo cultures current, into thinking they have a real affection for each other (they don't, they only care about themselves), or they're paying them a ton of money to keep this myth of one true love going and getting their own asses rich. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if a new high school musical came out tommorrow. this sucks.

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Friday, August 24, 2007

Vick Jukes Legal Blitz

Yea, I should be a sports writer, or at least an article namer.

I've been out of the loop for a few days but apparently Vick isn't pleading guilt to killing dogs or dog fighting. Wonderful job US government. The point of a plea deal is for the accused to admit GUILT, he's dodging a huge bullet here. He killed 8 living beings you fucking morons. i mean really why don't they get it? who are they going to piss off if they give him what he deserves? no one. they're fucking idiots. he killed dogs and her fought them and he financed it all. why don't you actually commit you moeny and time in a case in the public eye worth the time and moeny. i'm gonna go smack the taste outta this judges mouth, although with the level of humanity that he judges with, he may not have a mouth or any taste in it.

america is in another irrelavent international sports tournament. but they're dominating as they should be so far. 123-59 over the virgin islands...

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Plato's Opinion

This is a few toughts that came to me while reading the section of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy on Plato's Theory of Ideas. I wrote all of this for an entry in a class blog sort of thing. We have recently been discussion the nature of truth and truth of statements along with relativism. A big point made last class was that every statement, opinions included, is either true or false but never both.

In this section Russell explains and expands somewhat on many of the ideas put fourth in The Republic, one of which particularly caught my attention given our last class discussion. He explains in this section Plato's view on opinions:

"Plato, however, thinks that what can at any time be a matter of opinion can never be a matter of knowledge. Knowledge is certain and infallible; opinion is not merely fallible, but it is necessarily mistaken, since it assumes the reality of what is only appearance."

I sometimes find it hard to separate what others understand and what I think I understand, so if I'm unclear here let me know.

I saw this as particularly relevant to our class because it deals with absolute truth outside of the human mind, as we just had a conversation about. An important thing to recognize here I think is that Plato's truth and reality lie in his famous world of forms in which there is a God and perfection of mind and knowledge, and that today there is widely accepted belief as such that we can all work off as a base of argument. In essence, his theory holds true whether one believes in god or not and this is why: there is inevitably a reality present in the universe, and whether or not a statement holds true to that actual reality outside of ourselves is the deciding factor - which we may never be able to see - of whether a statement is true or false. Now I haven't yet read any of Hume in order to set things strait in my mind as to the nature of there being a good or morality built into the working of the universe somehow, but I am still able to make this statement; if there is a truth and morality built into the universe, then such statements as 'rape is wrong' can be judged on such bases and be proved true or false, but if there is none, then it can only be said to be false; either way it is either true or false.

What Plato suggests here, to make this relevant, is that all opinion is necessarily false because it is not based on truth (if it was based on truth it would be knowledge). Today given the existence of the studies of metaphysics and epistemology we are very aware that we have no idea as to the actual nature of 'reality' or 'truth', so it follows that everything must be regarded as opinion, whether it is rooted in reality or not because we cannot know if it really is. This idea of Plato's seems to be the singular basis of the assertion that every statement is either true or false, but never both at the same time, and if nothing else I hope will help people by giving them background on the subject or maybe clearing it up a little, if not it's good brain food, I tangled with it for a while; it always feels good to come away form a reasonable piece of thought feeling like you've gotten somewhere; even if getting somewhere is understanding an idea that was present 2300 years ago.

Just another piece of food for thought - I know this is getting long, but hopefully you're enjoying the thinking - it also came up a point that Plato made about the idea of a bed being extant only in the world of forms and that all beds merely take part in that idea that God created, and he only created one 'ideal' bed (to make this relevant; think about chairs in this sense; a chair becomes anything that takes part in the ultimate idea of a chair that God created. The only thing that is fully 'A Chair' is the idea in heaven). Russell continues on to mention Plato's view of geometry and how it cannot be proven because of human inability to draw a perfectly straight line, but in heaven it could be because there is straight line there. Russell becomes too quick to criticize here because he equates there being only one bed to there being only one line, and with one line it is impossible to make a three sided object such as a triangle, that would require three lines. I think he did not consider that it follow from that line of thought that a bed could not exist in heaven because it could was made up of multiple trees and feathers and springs (or whatever it was that made up an ancient bed) which are all already busy with being the perfect idea of their own thing (Trees, geese...springs...). Plato I think proposes that the perfect Ideas gained by philosophy, reason, and dialectic are such ideas as can be found in the heavens, a bed was just a simple physical idea; beauty, as I think he uses at a different time, is a much better example. Temporal things can partake in beauty and there can still be beauty fully realized in the heavens, but there's no real reason why a bed...or a triangle, would be in heaven. Heaven is supposedly a place where these things are in their purest forms; math and geometry are tools for observing and inquiring as to the nature of reality, once that state or place or truth is reached we can experience as it is, math and related studies would become useless. This is in a Platonic mindset, I myself don't quite agree, but that's irrelevant.
some fun thoughts and a few thoughts that came to me during my intro to epistemology and metaphysics class:

-->if ever statement is true or false, but never both at any given time:::

if there is one barber in one given town who shaves every and only men who don't shave themselves, does he shave himself?

what is the epistemic value of the statements:

It's all a matter of opinion

Truth is relative

If I believe it, then it is true

Those are just fun little tidbits to think about nothing too groundbreaking just thought I'd share them. The real debate that came to my mind was the epistemic value of ethical statements such as:

rape is wrong

abortion is wrong

It's not all that bad, I just want to bring the thoughts to other people, if you're curious there are "answers", but people need to think...

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

This or That

I'm feeling good, and determinalistic. Isn't that strange.

Our human experience is based entirely on our cultural and social experience up until the current moment. We can never escape that we are going to be something no matter what, and that that something is going to be entirely dependent on where, when, and how we experience our lives. So have fun with what is happening in your culture, whether it's artificial or not; because being a more 'enlightened' person than others is entirely part of your experience and was helped along by that culture you grew up in, and that culture is subconsciously more of you that your consious philosopher. Indulging in it somewhat may feel better than we give it credit for. We all live in unique times in unique mindsets and are presented with unique experiences that have never before been experienced through a human mind; is it not perhaps counterintuitive to turn down these experiences if they are presented? Possibly, but then if you are conscious of other alternatives that you deem a better use of your time it may be just as human, no? Either way, you are going to experience something and either way you are going to become something and think something and do something. I will call this Rational Determinalism, because no one has ever thought of it before. NOT. I just haven't researched it, it sounds pretty legitimate to me. Someone look it up if they have time I'm too tired.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

An Inspired and Complete Meditation on Alchohol, and it's Place in American Youth Culture

Let me start out with two notes before I begin.

--->First of all, if you are a nihilist or want to tak nihilist tones with my argument I have one thing to say to you; kill yourself. I'm absolutely serious, if life means so little to you that you mean to waste yours away disrespecting the glorious thing that you're experiencing than you need to be gone, it is extraordinarily inconsiderate to push your way of life on others and influence others who may actually value this beautiful experience we call life. So "if we're gonna die anyway, why not have fun with it" go die now, or learn to do so as a human being and accept the limits of being a human being in this particular reality, because the ways in which you do it are most certainly not in the best interest of our people.

--->Secondly: I will be stressing the concept of humanity and the human being here and I would ask you to look past the typical linguistic identity of humanity and being a human being and jump into my conception of it. A simple explanation of my human being is a being that is able to consciously recognize itself, its thoughts, and its emtions and feelings and analyze them and appreciate them in ways that we know no other life form on this planet can. We are able to appreciate much of this through the convention of language, but it can be a burden on our complicated minds, and we must remain aware of how deeply language penetrates our conscious AND sub-conscious while dealing with issues like these.

--->Lastly before I begin, I welcome any refutation (what true philosopher wouldn't), but warn thatI ardently support my thesis and am confident in the depth of thought that I have dedicated to this subject in particular, a depth that may not be apparent in a blog post entry length piece of writing. Furthermore if you cannot deny my logic or refute it with success I hope that you will have the presence of mind to stop any participation that you have in the consumption of alchohol and warn your friends about the way they are living their lives, instead of continuing to fold under social pressure rather than prosper under the light of maturity and reason and intellectual individuality.

We all work off of one general assumption by which we seem to live our lives, or at least we think we do. From Aristotle to Derrida it is agreed that the ultimate good that is at all relevent to mankind is the good that appeals to his mind and to his senses and emotions. So it is needless to say that we seek to do as human beings, is it not? Well as a philosopher in modern times unfortunatly it is, as I am aware of many facets of the effects of language on psycology and the human mind; we all want to live our lives as "happy" and "satisfyed" HUMAN BEINGS, because that is what we are, we are human beings.

So for arguments sake, let us say that the human body is self sufficient, or that we live with the exact nutrients which the human body needs to flourish exactly as it naturaly was 'intended' to - we eat exactly what we need and drink exactly what we need to drink in order that our bodies are in "prefect" condition, or as perfect a condition as a human body can be in. This is a safeguard for annoying comments like saying that eating pancakes makes you feel different than eating eggs; that is irrelivent, we eat them for their taste, not the way they make us 'feel'. Furthermore we cann all agree, I'm sure, that alchohol consumption is not a matter of taste, other things taste better, ad if you have an aqcuired taste, some things might be more important. Either way, if I had it my way I would be perfectly self-sufficent and I'd want to run as a humans body should run - wouldn't we all?

Now, to get back to our main discussion; if we are not to seek "happiness" while being a human being, then what are we to seek it as? In being drunk and consuming alchohol, under the ideal assumptions we've laid out, we are doing something that is removing us from our humanity, we are becoming something that is not human in the basest sense of the word. Now, of course we are still physically the species of homosapiens homosapiens when we are inebriated, but this is not how we seek to live our lives and now how we intend to live as happy and satisfyed; if for no other reason because we'd die in hours if we remained that intoxicated.

My point here is that we seek to be happy as a sober form of human being, ideally one which is operating on the exact nutrients it needs, in which case we can worry more about our mental and emotional states, which are the things we must be concerned with if we are concerned with our own hapiness. In short, it does not follow that we want to be happy as human beings, but proceed to turn ourselves into things that are not in essence human.

Along with the inability to see how hypocritical they are being, young people today are also unaaware of the psycological effect that these actities have, which are largely imprinted in the sub-conscious:

The blatant problem here is the outrageous disrespect that "getting drunk" pays to humanity. In some way, some how, we came to be what we are, and it is undeniable that being human is an incredible experience (THE incredible experience, possibly), and when people drink and in a way try to escape what it is to be human they disrespect what it is to be human; they are saying that the human experience isn't good enough, that being human is not an amazing enough feeling, that they are bored and hate it; to these people I say the same thing as I do the nihilists, if you do not enjoy being human, fuck off and leave the people who realize how amazing it is to be LIVING alone. This leads into a very large cultural notion in commercial american culture coined by Umberto Ecco called Hyper-reality. Ecco has his own meanings for this, but to me it speaks to humanites obsession, as of late in recent history, to try to transcned what it is to be human; get drunker, have bigger parties, have sex like Venus and Anchises, have bigger tits, have a bigger penis, be happier than a human. Hyper-happiness? How can we be any happier than the limits of a human being to be happy? Can a human being be happier than is possible for a human being? This borders on metaphysics and a lot of other things in linguistics, but I'll give a dimmed down version for the sake of length; no, because if one were to become that blissfully happy he must in turn cease to be human and become something else, which we will not, we will remain human.

Behavior like this - disrespecting life - is typical of democratic societies in culture, the thought patterns lead to nihilism, and they just want to have fun while they're here and don't give a shit about the integrity of the human experience, so again if you are in that group, you know what I say.

Moreover, for those not familiar with Ecco and hyper-realities (those who were never in ACS mostly), I will briefly explain American commercial culture. It goes sort of like this:

Somewhere a genuine thought is had, it could be an excellent intellectual thought, it could be just a more artisticly expressive idea; these ideas get advertised, clothes, music, physical artwork, it's like regualr culture. But now here comes capitalism. With the free market companies now see that this kids pants are popular among youths and this hair dew will sell and this and that, and soon enough they become commercial and cultural market schemes that youths buy into as genuine culture. This goes for all fasion, every item of clothing you wear, every piece of jewelry is a product of greed and the people involved in commercial companies ignorant lust for in-human possessions. This is called commodity fetishism. It sucks a lot. So now that there is an established set of "cool" "trendy" companies (i.e. abercrombie and fitch, bebe, seven, etc) the market realized that there is a ceratain socially akward group of children who will want to rebel against these companies because the kids who are associated with them are mean and socially bully them - already we see here a close association between humanity and market identity in the eyes of children. So the market comes up with a counter culture, and sells it as such. Dickies, Vans, Hot Topic; they aren't there because they understand that a natural and intelligent human tendency is to be really fat and wear maekup and baggy pants, they're there because they exploited the idea of a counter culture, and they want money. And the kids eat that shit up. Even people who think that they are steering clear of these niche cultures fall into mid-niches and such, theres a market for every kind of kid, they work on it non stop because they want the moeny and they want the power, They've effectively destroyed any sense of culture and individual identity and replaced it with market identity where people become extremely associated with what sections of culture they ascribe themselves to to the point where they become inseparable and the marketized culture becomes part of that persons humanity, and eventually replaces it.

Here is where the hyper reality comes into play. Once these trends are worn out, then what? The people up top don't have creative minds, they just have minds for money. They go out and they see what the youth has turned their culture into, and step it up a notch. Girls like wearing littler bikinis? We'll make see through ones and ones that are even littler than is yet socially acceptable, but it will be. Kids like hard rock and make-up? We'll blow limp bizkit and korn up. Kid's like to get drunk, we'll aim our alchohol ads to them, and make movies like dude wheres my car - they'll be so proud of how shitfaced they were last night! and they'll just keep getting more shitfaced because everyone else will think it's cool, and because they'll never save the universe the next day. The market feeds off of the culture they've created and hypes it up a notch, makes it a little more hard, a little more riske, a little more drunk, and kids follow, they just can't see it.

So here we can see, well if the ideas new tou probably can't and you think it's crap but hopefully you will get over yourself and come around, that in this essence the sociality that drinking may be ascribed to is not genuine human sociality, it is market-dictated sociality, the money dictates where and how you socialize and what drink you hold while you're doing it. Furthermore socializing while drunk cannot be seen as legitimate socializing because by the sheer nature of drinking you are becoming a different person (a different thing from a human being) than you actually are and it ceases to be you that is sociallizing it becomes a fragment of the human being that you are socializing.

I can only conclude concicely: don't fucking drink, there is no intelligent reason to, as you can see. This goes for drugs as well. If you do not want to be human or are not satisfyed with it go die, and leave the living to the people who appreciate simply being human.

Monday, August 20, 2007

The Academy

In essence philosophy has been a useless and capricious study for quite some time:

"One of the defects of all philosophers since plato is that their inquiries into ethics proceed on the assumptions that they already know the conclusions to be reached"
- Bertrand Russel

To argue on the basis of an assumption toward a predetermined end is a convenient norm that most philosophic arguments follow. I myself use the assumption that one's own humanity and awareness of one's existence in thought and emotion and sense is the most important reality and ultimate truth and that the ultimate good is that which caters to one's mind and one's emotions. Others argue under different assumptions, like Descartes for example, who says that since the human mind has the ability to perceive something greater and more conscious and more perfect than itself then by virtue of that fact the thing must exist (god). Any way about it arguing under an assumption before the ultimate truth, reality, and good are actualy known - when these things are known, if they are to exist (I personally don't believe in them), then they willi give us basis to assume in order to argue points - is futile, each argument can only go as far as it's users ability to analyze and work around counter-arguments. This is the sophists point of view; the good or the right may not be moral or what we expect, they argue that in order to find it one must only follow arguments. I guess supposedly logic through many arguments would lead them to the good eventually, I'm not exactly sure where it goes from there, but their opinion that working off any assumption in order to argue for something good or right or real is silly before the good and right and real are known, because those assumptions could very well be wrong and logic will lead the person assuming to another, wrong conclusion besides that which is actually real and right and good.

In light of my argument about the nature of western philosophy I shape the introduction and spirit of the humanities programs in my imaginaru school; each philosopher and world leader and influencer, from Plato to Ghandi to Marx, deserve the same amount of respect and attention for students because each's influence is ony a product of his/her ability to reason with their own assumptions; for none could have argued off of the assumption that they knew to be reality, or (if reality and the good are all they're cracked up to be) we'd have known. The emphasis I would suppose to place on these studies would be of the freedom of thought of these individuals as well as where they failed to transcened influences of their time in order to create their own morality.

To say this is the right way is clearly a dogmatic statement, but I sincerely think that this is the best way in which to intorduce students to the studies of humanities, and since I know more in particular about philosophy, philosophy. Anything I missed? Ideas? Changes? Qualms?

Sunday, August 19, 2007


i was talking to warner on the phone earlier this evening when an idea that had been floating around my head was brought to the surface. we were talking about some kid and his aspirations and something about teaching came up and it brought to the front of my mind the idea of myself becoming a teacher. i've toyed with this idea, because of the sheer influence i would be able to have on young people (the best stage in life to get to people, obviously), but i can never figure out who i would want to teach - the subject is slightly less important as of now. the upside to being a professor is getting mature students and deciding my own cirriculum, but chances are i'd do so in philosophy or some humanities, and in turn get students that are already somewaht interested and exposed to ideas that i want to emphasize to youths. any children below early high-school age are not mentally mature enough to handle concepts that i would want to get across to them, and later high school students would listen, but the ciriculum wouldn't be my choice. so where do i aim?

then this thought came to me. one that seems to be a tough goal in reality, but would be a fruitful investment and project, i think. i would love to open my own school. like a private school, but free. with teachers willing to teach for free. or as free as we could make it; charge and pay all parties involved the bare minimum in order that the school could continue to operate. in this case children of many ages would be there to influence and ciriculum would be of my own, or the teachers own choices. the problem here is that in making a single private school is that very few people would be influenced by it and poor people could not afford to pay for it if we were to have to charge to large an amount.

either way, a school in which i could teach my own philosophy of life and leave the rest to the children, and provide necessary teachers for any topic that they may be interested in, etc, would be a great way to influence people, and one of the few ways to get to a great many people through honest means, it seems.


This may prove to be a sidenote to my last post, it may not, but it deserved a mention.

My moms two friends just visited from santa cruz and berkeley. They're really nice people that i've never had any problems with. So i went to the park with the dog to read and came back and they were talking about this thing called branding. Branding is in essence using semiotic and linguistic psycological effects in order to sell yourself or your company or your city to people. It surprised me because I hold a certain level of respect for these people that they didn't see the outrageously obvious support of dishonesty and lying for all humanity. This deppressed me. Really. This is a whole "philosophy" of bussiness and sociality that says that people need to discover a part of their 'personalities' that can be brought out and sold; for job interviews, for new friends, etc.

Maybe this isn't so readily apparent to the person who is not aware of the study of semiotics and who is not in a philosophic state of mind. This idea simply tells people to lie. It tells people that being your own human being is not an option. It tells people that they must attribute themselves to certain phenotypes of personality that our commercial culture has pre-dictated to them. It's like you're given a choice of 50 people you can be and then you live that persons life. There's much to be expanded upon in this and I invite people to do so because it makes me angry so I'll start saying biased shit...


No, seriously.

I put up the thought here for discussion that among such a heavily influencing culture (by that I mean we are constantly bombarded by moralities and advertisements and social norms and social and aesthetic human perfections) that a human mind by the age of 20 is nearly entirely void of any un-influenced humanity. We live by so many social norms and so many accepted behaviors that we don't give thought to. Our minds may be so polluted that we cannot actually think for ourselves (if we ever could in the first place), we may always be subconsciously influenced by the social conditioning that we've been put through. We percieve love to be something in particular , we percieve friendship to be something different, we percieve emtions to be this this and this, not mixed and complicated feelings inside of us. It seems far fetched, and it may be. But I know people, we all meet them every day, that are totally oblivious to the FACT (as far as fact can ever be used) that if they were born in the middle of a jungle that they would still be yearning for a starbucks at 6 p.m. My point is that people have no idea that the world is not the way it is for a reason, it's not like this because it's best for everybody, and either way that the correct thing is not to go with it but to exercize ones ability to change his physical surroundings and others lives. The world is like this because a handful of greedy people in history saw that if they treated people like you in a certain way that you'd act just like this and let them bask in meaningless comfort and fiscal stability. I mean, I love football, don't get me wrong, but talk to an NFL player, he'd have a hell of a time wrapping his mind around it if you told him that if he was born a plain and simple human being somewhere "natural" that his calling wouldnt be throwing a funny shaped ball around. A better example is people who I used to swim with (and this was one of the reasons I couldn't stand them); a common response to this sort of this is this is what i like to do why cant this be right: and my answer is: because it is what you're good at and its been told to you that its an okay thing to do, the chance of you being born into a random place in a random year and suddenly discovering the secret to human happyness and satisfaction is infinity to one, you have an obligation to your fellow human beings to be a real huma being and get off your ass and look at the world from a position of distrust and questioning instead of in your comfortable little place where other morons tell you that your life is going well; I know that words cannot portray thoughts and that getting a completely honest answer if only for that reason is impossible, but I know that no matter what a person like this does or says there is a gnawing uncomfortable feeling about life sometimes, that shows like greys anatomy and reassurance from other people that american morals that you've been fed all your life are in fact right fill right up. There you go, that may not have been very coherent, sorry. But i open the floor for discussion:

how human are people who are participating in american commercial culture, the worker ants? Eating up the commercialized social norms and spitting them right back out into the cycle - how human is a person who does this and doesn't ever question it? How do you reason them out of it - regardless of the actual extent of the damage?

Saturday, August 18, 2007

Battle in the Bay

Jasper's not going anywhere tommorrow the traffic is probably going to be insane. Yes, for a pre-season game.

Friday, August 17, 2007

The Michael Vick Experience

It's so adorable. And poigniant.

And for those who don't know and are phased by Vicks sort of culture; pit bull terriers are loving, intelligent, fun, and loyal animals, sometimes to a fault when they are abused to be that way. Pit bulls have had a reputation for being mean natured animals because of this culture and the people who they appeal to; they are very strong dogs and have a jaw muscle that is much larger than any other domesticated animals and that wraps nearly wround it's entire skull, so when these people get a hand on these dogs and abuse them like they do they are prone to hurt people, and with their muscular bodys and jaws, do considerable damage. This goes for every breed of dog, do not be fooled by the cultures raised around these animals; german shepherds, rotweilers, pit bulls, cane corsos, canary dogs, etc, they are all just exceptionally strong and loyal and unfortunatly the wrong kind of people get their hands on these dogs, they are not to be reputed to anyone as mean because of people like michael vick. Furthermore let this post bring to your attention the ignorance that humans (while putting ourselves on a pedestal as if we are something so much different) pay to other animals - we fear lions, tigers, bears (oh my!), vultures, bees, sharks, when these things are dealing with the same life that we are dealing with, but with less ability to do so succesfully - the level of our conscoiusness of ourselves and our environment and our cognative abilities give us an extraordinary advantage, of course. We need to consider ourselves co-existants to these creatures and not live around or in fear of them and try to distance ourselves; dangerous as they are and as life is with them around, I think the distancing of us from them only adds to our metaphysical complex of trying to transcend being human.

Anyway, the true purpose of this post, which is bound to be shorter than that, is about michael vick's situation in itself.

I think it goes without saying that Roger Goodell has little moral choice but to ban michael vick from ever participating in the league again, but before this can even take place I think that our government should be taking the initialtive on this. As it happens I've suspended any faith that I ever had in organized government until I can think something through, but in the cases where there are 'powers that be' that can have immediate impact (Goodell, Blank, The U.S. government, etc.) that it is their responsibility to take action. My qualm with government and organized religion is how it instills morals that people take and live complacently with because they never have to use their minds for anything 'real', and unfortunatly action on this situation may fall into that category, but simply under the guidlines that that won't change over night and the children who go by the every word of the united states and its capitalist society (you know) are already getting into this complacent state they need to at least instill something that is morally comendable. With that out of the way (seriously, did that sentence make any sense?) my point is that it is the united states' governments responsibility to not only limit michael from ever participating in professional football (on a side note the CFL is putting in place a suspended NFL player ban) again, but to prevent him from being a public figure whatsoever; make him disappear, put him in witness protection just so no one will ever hear of him again, and take away his life as he knew it. A man like that shouldn't even be in the public spotlight, it's not like he's enlightening people about what things are wrong and what are right, things like dog fighting should be so unaccepted that we don't even need to express the morbid hate that we have for it.

In conclusion, I think that they should try to hang vick, fail, and then drown him in a 5 gallon tub of water, which is what he and his two homies did to 8 dogs. I mean, trying to put aside how horrid this is; imagine vick and his two bros all thugged out in the timbs an big wrist watches n shit in the woods lookin all confused with these dogs they just tried to hang. What kind of idiot doesnt want his dogs anymore and decides just to hang them. its stupid. its fucked.


New Shits

I spent a buncha time on changing the whole format, and it sort of sucks for the most part, but I like the title thing with the duck. Let me know if it's unbearably crappy to deal with and I'll change it around some more...

Sean Taylor, Sing it Brother

"It's almost like you play a kid's game for a king's ransom" (on taking his job seriuosly as an NFL player)

This is why I have a blog to share stupid shit like this.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

You, yea you.

It's become apparent that the only time when this blog is of interest to people is when I say something that strikes a nerve. That's wonderful and those posts might appear now and then, but this is far from the point of this blog. I'm not here to present my ideas so that people can tear them apart by the standards of their morality. If you disagree, do so respectfully and back it up with solid philosophical evidence, not dogmatic claim. I also don't care for contextua arguments, don't attempt to disprove my arguments because you've found a tidbit that will disprove my reasoning, use how that information disproves it to structure a real argument, the discourse here should be viewed as an idealists discourse; do not accept ANYTHING as truth here accept the existence of your thoughts and emotions; when we can argue on as base a level as that there will hopefully be not talking past each other.

This blog is to be a place where the person behind whatever facades we put on during the day goes away and the human being in our mind comes out to exercize his humanity (intellectually, I'm aware of the paradox in exercizing our humanity over the internet). Honest and respectfully worded HUMAN dialectic is my purpose here. If we are interested in a true dialectic and philosophy than we were the kids who always bugged people about shit they did wrong and corrected people. We need to grow up now, we're past that phase of curiosity and questioning and not trusting what we're told. It turns out a lot of it was bullshit and now we're the few people who can ever hope to change how it is.

Anyway I see the last two posts that I put up as very important ethical discussions that deserve input; much more so than weather Mr FAB told someone to break my car window. I mean, who the hell cares? There are certainly much more pressing issues at hand than that one instance and one of them is the inability of the human race, and americans as possibly the worst fo them, to accept humanity for what it is and live that way...

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

The Possesive Glare


I've never experienced the possesive glare before, here's how it goes for those who, like me, are possesive glare virgins.

I was sitting in the park thats next to my new apartment with the dog - there's tons of dogs in this park almost all the time so it's great for her. So I'm sitting there chillin' readin my Descartes and this pretty girl sits a few feet away - everyone just sits on the hill and hangs out while the dogs play - with her golden retriever. So after my paragraph ends I see the retriever (who by now I've discovered is named nico) is playing with a tennis ball. I like dogs who play fetch. My dog doesn't. So I start throwing the ball and nico goes about fetching it and I strike up conversation with the girl, whose name I've forgotten, as is necessary when you play with someones dog when they are close by. Now I'm playing fetch with the dog - I really love dogs who fetch, I don't know why - and talking to the girl about how much I love dogs that fetch. At some point the conversation dies out and I'm just messing around throwing the ball to nico and letting her catch it (another thing I wish my dog could do) and I see some guy walking over and - I guess me and the girl were gigglinh about something about the dog or something - so this guy walks over and I look over to the girl for that assurance that what I'm laughing at isn't just funny to me - we all know that glance - and the guy sits down next to her kisses her on the cheek and say 'hey babe'. All while glaring right at me. You can't make this shit up, man was it funny. So I said 'what's up' to him and let them be. What a grill, though, he was ready to jump on any fool who tried to snag his meat.

Anyway, the relation between this and the previous post is that this is a little better of an example. The way of nature, and of human beings, is to be possesive of mates, and generally agressive to outsiders, but as an intellectually mature person, I see no sense in possesiveness of loved ones, or in difference of love for different people at all. Support the glare, or support "free love"? That free love thing was sarcastic. I hate when thoughts can conveniently be categorized into movements that have already been written of by previous morons.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Paved Paradise/Atomism 2k7

This is one big topic in my mind that I'd like you all to participate in, one that I think will, when answered, clear a lot of things up for myself. And as always, I hope that it will help you in anyway it can;

I have a hard time distinguishing between where things should be considered under the guidelines of humanity, and where, since we are a complicated emotional and conscious species, we should be considering things in the lens of transcending humanity because we are able to accomplish things that make life more pleasent. It's a decievingly simple question and I'll give you a decievingly simple example, until I can think of a more complicated one, which I will post. But for now: People perspire, we smell when we perspire; today we have products which aim to stop the perspiration and the smell of it. Furthermore we have cologne and perfume that aim to make people smell better. It seems that they might be bordering on a hyperreality, but viewed through the right objective eyes, they are enjoyable things. Which way do we consider? Humanity: fuck deodorant, we're humans and we need to respect that that is all we are and will ever be, once we come to terms with that, then we can become happy - at which point we abandon all technology and such and live in the wild (hyperbole). On the other hand if we advocate for the transcendance: So what if we want to make people smell better? We smell bad sometimes? When we finally get over ourselves then we can finally get to the business of discovering the truth in the universe by transcending what it is to be human and looking at the big picture. It's not this black an white when it's applied to more complicated issues, unfortunatley I'm drawing a blank right now, I'll try my hardest to think of a better one than that, I know that one sucks.

It does bring up another closely related quesition, though, that is intergral in answering the moral question. This question is: at what point do things stop being "natural"? We consider a beavers dam part of nature, but if I were to kick the dam and ruin it someone might say I was interfering with nature. Is writing part of nature? Bird calls are. What about this computer? I know of nothing outide of the so called manmade things that I'm calling into question here that are not natural that could've made it or it is made from. When is something not natural? Where is the line? Are we perhaps trying to transcend humanity by separating ourselves from nature? Could this be part of the modern human condition? Are not things created by the human mind and the human body natural creations? Is a death-dealing robot that was once created by a living creature something that is not made by, from, or resembling something from nature?

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Goin' Dumb Like The Ringer

Man, the bay is desperate to be ghetto - but hey, at least they're honest about being morons. My car got broken into last night, the first night we were here, and 15 dollars got stolen. Our 49ers tickets (4 of them) for the monday night opener in september were lying on the floor. So earlier thismorning my mom went to the grocery store and some guy was next to her when she was parking and he was like "someone took some stuff, huh?" and she was like "no, they left everything valuble and took a few bucks" and he was like "they musta saw the new york plates and just felt like breakin in for fun." It's just so sad, not about the car, but that hip-hop and rap culture have made society stoop to the kind of level where violence and unfriendly behavior is promoted; if you are living and you grew up in San Francisco you have some money, if you wanted to live comfortably you could probably move somewhere much cheaper and do so, but these people chose to stay in the city and act like idiots because the 'culture' which they ascribe themselves to says that that is the right thing to do.

This is a question that was first brought to me by the play Heights, which portrays a positive environment for a human being in a seemingly typical 'hood' in Washington Heights. The play gave me temporary hope that the culture that we call american culture today can be preserved while humanity can still be promoted, but when I get back into a real city I see that people are so bound by their fear of social norms that they become slaves to those norms and cease to live an independent and free life - the basis of the american 'dream' which has been taken so far out of context. So my question to you is: (goin acs on you here, sorry) To what extent is the capitalistic pseudo hip-hop culture, or any other niche american culture, a plausible environment for the intellectually independent human being? It seems that if one exists the other has no chance.

Just Knowin' That the World is Round

I've recently come across quite a rough spot:

I was on some epistemology blog that had a post about people doing tests on how belief in free will effects behavior by giving some people a reputed essay and using another group as a control. Theres so many things wrong with this I don't even need to say any of them that I see, you can pick and choose. The people on this site seemed to think that they were involved inn a very intelligent discussion about whatever shit they were talking about and conveniently ignored what I had to say.

My problem is that I've decided to go to school and major in philosophy and go as far as I can take it, only for the purpose of earning the respect of my contemporaries. People will respect what I have to say, sadly, much more if they say Jasper Yate, Ph. D. It seems, though, that with my experience with some of these types of sites - not all are ignorant as this particular one I mentioned was - and also with my brother who is majoring and going to graduate school for either philosophy or literature that all of these people are so enveloped in their own shit that they have no idea what they are thinking about or why they are thinking about it. The people involved in these types of things seem to be the very pedants that give philosophy the name that it has been given as opposed to it being simply a person being thoughtful about his life and his environment, not to the point where it ceases to be in the lens of human life.

So my first question is; is it even worth pursuing all this shit if I have to put up with teachers and ciriculum that are of this mindset that I hate? And second, how legitimate can epistemology and metaphysics be if their students have absolutely no interest in human life, especially given that their thought on the subject is entirely human in nature (the reason that they apply to their problems is human reason, it may not be universal reason)...

Saturday, August 11, 2007

Is Reason Reasonable?

Something that I rarely hear mentioned in all things philisophical that I read and hear is the concept of the system of reason which the human mind operates on being flawed or incorrect as compared with an ultimate truth which it so often tries to reach. The reason that I myself use I view as useful because I am a pragmatic philosopher and I see all philosophy as a study of life in as far as being a human being and living a human life in a human mind and with human emotions, I seek nothing external. The idea I want to raise here is simply the question of whether reason is reasonable - our mind says that yes, one of something, and another of something, makes two of something; but if there is an ultimate truth or ultimate right it may not agree with this, our reason (it seems impoossible doesn't it) could be wrong. A single thing could have an entirely different nature than what we think it has, etc...

Friday, August 10, 2007

Of what avail is the proud outcry?

Lately I've been reflecting on how I've gotten to where I am now in terms of political views, morality, and identity (among other things). Throughout my life I've been free to come to a lot of conclusions on my own (regarding the aforementioned aspects of me). My parents have not been overly dogmatic, which I think has allowed me to reach my unique positions. However, here is my conflict. How will I allow for my future children's intellectual independence, when I myself will have come across beliefs (in the realm of politics, morality, and identity...) which I will wish that they carry on to the next generation?

ex. If I push Yiddishism on them, will they reject it in adolescence and accept assimilation? In the same thread, if I let them form opinions on their own, and their views end up differing from my own, I will still lose (in regard to what I have believed to be "right").

My Mom's Dad, was an orthodox Jewish immigrant from Poland (via Cuba, where he was a Rabbi). He kept a kosher house, however when his children (my mom and two uncles) left that household as adults, they embraced non-kosher food immediately, which translated to their respected children (well at least 8/9 of them). Among my Mom and Uncles there was that need to rebel following years of "repression"(?).

Surely the next generation should benefit from the accumulated "knowledge" of the previous, but also be able to make new realizations on their own. Should not these new realizations be based on a solid foundation from the previous generation?...but then how will that previous generation dilute its dogmatism (as to not inspire rebel behavior among the youth)?


Tuesday, August 7, 2007

I Love Football

Since this is a sports blog sometimes, and since I love football, we're gonna play the pre-season playoff picking game...

We'll start with the


AFC East:
I'm sorry jets, but this one's a no brainer. I'll put it this way, if the Pats aren't in the playoffs this year it's because Jesus already came back and judgement has commenced.

AFC North:
Unfortunately for TJ, the Ravens are fucking old, and the way things are going Steve McNair will have died in a car accident in which he let his friends six year old daughter shoot up and then drive his Lamborghini before the season even starts. The browns aren't going to give up and put Brady in until maybe week 8 and probably only win one or two during that time, and when Quinn gets I even have to say it? He's gonna suck. With Mike Tomlin just coming in and the surprisingly not-yet crippled Ben Roethlisberger looking good in the Hall of Fame game on might be fooled into thinking that they are a more legitimate contender for the division title, but when a defense loses it's heart and sole like Joey Porter, and is then is put into a new playbook it may take longer than some might think to come back to steel curtain prominence. So I'm taking the Bengals, but not without good reason; Carson should be rockin' it with no hesitation this year, and with less off-field distraction under Mr. Goodell coupled with a young, strong secondary, they're clearly the choice here.

AFC South:
It's like the same as the AFC East, but more pathetic. The good thing about the lack of competition in these two divisions is the inevitable meeting of the two champs in the AFC Campionship Game in what is my favorite rivalry in all of sports; Colts Pats.

AFC West:
When the teams are this damn good it almost makes the picking part boring, but the playoffs make up for it. Chargers. Lights Out.

AFC Wildcards:
I'mnot gonna go through it all, but I'll give you my picks...
The Steelers are not going to get past Wildcard weekend, nor are they going to be division winning quality under Tomlin, but they'll win 9 and sneak in.

The Broncos. Cutlers gonna come up huge this year I think and with Jamarcus Russel possibly getting playing time this year and Brody Croyle and Damon Huard in KC Champ and new addition Dre Bly are going to have field days in those division matchups. Too bad the chargers are in their division.


NFC East:
First might I say THE GIANTS SUCK. The Redskins aren't goin anywhere either, although I like J-Camp, yea, I called him J-Camp. Now Cowboys and Eagles is sort of interesting, but I'm gonna take the Eagles, they're just too solid for too long. Phili won't accept anything less than a division title.

NFC North:
Roy Williams and Calvin Johnson, but unfortunatly no quarterback to speak of. Lions are out. Tavarius Jackson, no dice; A.D. can't actually go all day. And the Bears D is just too nasty, I'm sorry Brett, I still love you.

NFC South:
It sucks that a team even has to come out of this division, it wen't from one of the strongest to possibly the weakest in a year. But it has the Saints and I'll take them, although they won't be anything like what they were last year, they don't have that self righteous motivation this time around.

NFC West:
This has to be the most interesting division in the league. Every team is legit, it's the new NFC East. Unfortunately I have to leave one out of the picture. I'm gonna take the Cards on top of it this year, I just got a feeling about their whole shit coming together. Matt Leinarts gonna be tearing shit up.

NFC Wildcards:
These are both comin' out of the NFC west this year, I'm telling you they're nasty, but who do I choose?

I'm gonna take youth because I can't decide. Seahawks and Niners. Rams are just too old and their D isn't anything I care to talk about....

The Rational Latte

Chicago is a cool place to be. I'd never been to Chicago before but it's a great city. And it's got cool coffee shops like Descartes' Coffee. You should visit...

Over Population

Just a note on overpopulation and all that jazz in the light of the One Child Policy in China. I was just having a discussion with my mom and Alan over our smorgasbord (spelling more than questionable) about overpopulation. We were discussing (i was getting schooled in) the One Child Policy and its many consequences. It was brought up because Alan, an importer of many chinese goods in the form of halloween costumes and easter/ christmas gizmos, mentioned a meeting he had earlier with someone my mother (his wife) knew. She asked how he was and to that Alan replied; nervous, like other chinese factory owners. Schockingly there seems to be a shortage of workers in China. I wondered if it was because there are only so many people from each generation, and Alan added that the people of newer generations also do not want to work in the factories. These children it seem are spoiled, as they get all the attention when they're younger. Usually there would be a lot of children because of chore and agriculture needs. Chinese culture then included a 'respect the elders' emphasis and a necessity to share. Now with only one child it seems that less people feel an incentive to share, and similarly a lack of inspiration to take care of the parents especially when the one child has to take all the weight of supporting two parents. Working in a factory wont exactly cut it.

Also it seems since China is male dominant, some of the women choose to abort if they know the baby is going to be a girl. Consequently, there seems to be more males then women. This is good for population control, but not so good for all those lonley men reaching and then passing "marrying age".
My mom commented after that maybe China should take in refugees from Sudan and employ them in the factory to give them a 'better' life away from rape and plunder.

Last note or 2: I strongly suggest that anyone reading this try guava in any form (fruit, jelly, candy...) and if possible get your hands on a whole fruit- they smell delicious.
Hong Kong so far is one huge shopping mall. My very first impression was that the buildings looked like sallactites. It reminded me of superman, and the fast growing kryptonite land OR a cave ceiling as a floor.
ok maybe 3: I've seen some misty mountains. They are the back drop to panasonic, toshiba, motorala, lg, and sony buildings...

[This post is by Maddy, not The W]

Sunday, August 5, 2007

The Trolley Problem

What y'all think... This is an old thought experiment created by who the hell cares that I just want to hear what people have to say about. Think it through from all angles. It's called the Trolley Problem.

Five men are tied to a train track and a train is travelling at full speed towards them and will surely kill them if it is allowed to reach them. You are standing near by and you have the ability to flip a switch that will guide the train to safety and save the five people, but there is yet another one person tied to the other track that the train will go onto if you flip the switch. This person will die if you flip the switch. What do you do?

Another version of this problem has the 5 people tied to the track as confirmed murderers, and the one other person as an innocent man who may commit a murder after this event if you save him. Flip the switch?

Yet another variation places you on a vantage point above the track on a bridge standing next to a large man who's weigh will stop the train if you chose to sacrifice him and push him off the bridge and onto the track in front of the train.


Friday, August 3, 2007

I want to see you when you finally figure out what the planets, stars and space are all about

God, I have no idea when I'm going to have time to get to the real discussions I want to get to, but these little things came to me today.

First of all I came upon the thought of how people are for some reason afraid and want to hide 'going to the bathroom' and all such related bodily functions. We all know I deal a lot with the semiotic effects of things that people do and say and see, so I'm sure you can imagine what I'm going to say. The people who do this openly try to make the human being a hyper-being, they try to make themselves something other than what they are, and this inevitably leads to people thinking in ways which lacks respect for human life that human life deserves, so please, you're a human, respect what it is that you are...

My other thought came to me while I was listening to a song in the car today... It's called 'car' and it's by Brand New - yea, I listen to them a lot.

It just makes me want to say; appreciate the beuty of the life and the reality you are living in. There is no doubt that whatever life is and whatever you feel and see and taste and smell is amazing and theres never an end to the joy you can bring yourself by participating in life and enjoying what you're senses tell you. Life is beautiful, don't get too caught up in your intellectual pursuits and forget what you have and what you're trying to help be appreciated and utilized. Love your life and what you see and feel, and love others, we are all in the same boat, and we can all appreciate the beauty that lies outside this computer screen.

I'llpost when I have internet, which is apparently not very often when you're staying in pet friendly hotels.

I love you all, keep on truckin' and lovin' life.

Wednesday, August 1, 2007

This sign warning residents of the South Sudan capital Juba of the dangers of war

and if i wasnt, then why would i say i am

Today at work (as a sailing instructor) was the usual day: no wind, kids swimming, and me driving aimlessly in a motorboat. However, today i was accompanied by the yacht club's Israeli windsurfing instructor. We talked a lot about Israel and Jewishness, but eventually the topic changed to race. He asked how big of a deal it is to say "Nigger" in America. As I continued to engage him in conversation regarding the issue of racism I quickly found out that he knew nothing of America's dark past (and present) regarding the descendants if those whose ancestors were brought here as slaves. I found myself teaching about sit ins, segregation, Rosa Parks (who he brought up thinking it had something to do with a grandma in a taxi). I described how Blacks were treated, using Jackie Robinson as an example of integration (but then using the fact that he wasn't allowed to go out to dinner with his team as illustration of America's backwardness). I realized that he had grown up, not here, but in Israel; but it seemed so bizarre to me that such things were not taught at all. He was completely oblivious too of the rampant anti-Semitism in America as well. I found myself teaching of the WASP order that dictated so much of life in America for so long, and I used Borat as an example of its continued presence today. He was very surprised to hear such things. I, too, was very surprised to see a kid (17) that didn't look foreign and spoke English to be as oblivious as he was.

The entire experience gave me a new perspective on country's other than America, and got me thinking that the American Experiment with regard to its disastrous history (and present) with race and ethnic relations should be something that is taught all over the world. I feel that my country's mistakes should be learned from in other places around the world. In many ways America's disasters have more international educational value than many of its achievements (i.e. the revolution, planes, and other shit that probably gets a nod in international curriculums). In the spectrum of World History, race in America should be covered more than anything else in American history (with the exception of WWII).


I've been inspired by myself to go a different direction tonight. I want to post a song, but I don't know how, so I'll just put the name, pretend it has a link or whatever, let you download it because it's great, and write the relevent lines in a fasion that acts as if you have listened to it.

Dashboard Confesional - Jamie

This song seems to be originally written by weezer, but seeing as they are idiots, I'm not sure that they understood quite what they wrote - plus they suck at singing it. This version is much easier on the ears, and captures the sarcastic tone of the song in a way weezer couldn't have dreamt.

The line to which the entire song builds goes like this:

Jamie, oh Jamie, I'm so glad you're mine
We'll be together a long time
Jamie, believe me, I won't let you down
'Cuz you're the best lawyer in town

This is for anyone who writes of this kind of music as 'emo'. This song is a very intelligent social comment on the treatment of people, and women more specifically, as objects; means to an end. The music goes that you are led to feel the love-song melody and feel what goes with that, and if you are attuned to this quip leaves you with a stale, sad feeling, one almost of confusion - conflict between your dissapointment in thought, and the beauty of the singing create a strange emotion, one that I cannot provide you with by simply stating my displeasure with our culture.

Some other songs that demonstrate clear intelligent though in the genre of 'emo'...

Augustana - Heart Shaped Gun

"The Castle walls been breached girl
Kissin down your neck"

The thought here is more centered on the meaningless seduction and use of women as sexual objects, a similar thought can be found in Brand New's "Me vs. Maradona vs. Elvis"

Another Brand New song that can be related is one of my favorites; Logan to Government Center

"Let my hands stray past the boundaries of your back
To get you breathin, to get you started"

The idea here is obviously to highlight the sexual nature of our culture - it actually vilifies the woman in this instance as sexually obsessed, she is so used to being used as a toy and being told by culture that thats what she is meant to be that she cannot be anything else, she is not a person, she does not show any emotion unless she is being used as she believes she is meant to...I mean, damn when you hear that. It's great.