LINE OF THE DAY, part XXVII

      I saw this comment today in a brilliant Cracked article written by David Wong called "5 Ways to Spot a B.S. Political Story in Under 10 Seconds." Seriously...read it. It's fucking awesome.

     Anyways, in the always amusing comments section, I came upon this post made by JPR776:

"What we really need is some form of virus that can attack the servers hosting these stories and surreptitiously insert the letters "ir" into any story about political gaffes. Then, those headlines would be a lot more entertaining. (and no less accurate, oddly enough...) For instance, here's what today's Google news headlines would look like:

Obama's Giraffe Hints at Hidden Agenda
Jerry Brown Sees Giraffes as Key to Election
Romney Campaign Giraffe Reeks of Desperation
Without Santorum, We Face a Giraffe Shortage
Romney's 2007 Bin Laden Giraffe Comes Back to Haunt Him
France's Sarkozy admits Fukushima Nuclear Giraffe"

      Crackedinator responded to this comment with, "Not only does Japan have Godzilla but now they have a Nuclear Giraffe as well?! Where will it end? Where will it end?"

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XII

      Sometimes I wonder if we just have it backwards in certain aspects of our lives and I wonder if what is impeding the acceptance of outlier groups in our society is that backwardness. I think of a speech given by Daniel Webster in 1830, an excerpt here (click on the quoted text to read the full speech if you so desire):

"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

     This idea that we must first unite under a banner and then attend to freedom is an interesting one nor can I say that I disagree with it. It had me thinking about "hyphenated Americans" - y'know, sub-groups of this country variously identifying themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Asian-Americans and so forth. Usually it's an ethnic or racial identifier but occasionally examples of religion or other minority-type groups will appear. There's nothing preventing the idea of Gay-Americans (or Lesbian-Americans), Disabled-Americans, etc. from existing. Is part of the problem with acceptance one of language?

     The thing about identifying yourself as a hyphenated American is that you're putting your sub-identity ahead of the group identity. Just as we are more willing to aid a friend rather than a stranger, might we not be more willing to aid our countrymen over that of "just anybody"? Personally, I don't accept the appeal to humanity argument. I really don't give a fuck that you're a human being. When all our accoutrements are stripped away, we are animals in competition with one and other over limited resources...just like all other life. Appealing to humanity is idiotic at best and a huge invitation to accusations of hypocrisy at worst. There are no human rights, there are only sovereign rights. Anyone advancing the idea that there's some sort of supernational set of rights and privileges afforded us by virtue of having been born homo sapiens is at best counterproductive and more likely a fucking idiot. Are you not a man? Yes, yes you are but when you are "but a man", you are my competition; my competition for food, territory, miscellaneous resources, and mates. When you are "but a man", your analogue is that of a paramecium, a single-celled organism unto itself...for itself.

      But what if we are banded together, having formed a tribe or community? Now, we work together for food, territory, resources, and mates...sharing amongst ourselves as a kind of multicellular superorganism. Together we stand a greater chance for success than we ever did separately. And we work together as a tribe in order to benefit the tribe because we are all relying on each other for our success. But tribalism has its limits and I think we've found that limit at the national level. At best, I could see humanity allying at the continental level, but no further. The planetary scale? Never (not without an existential threat at least and even then, I'm not so sure but regardless, it would be a temporary coming-together).

      But here at our national level and in our national discourse there are many minority groups fighting for recognition and privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States of America. I have no problem with this, not in the slightest so long as their ambitions do not endanger the integrity of this nation, who are we not to grant them/enforce them? However, I think the arguments as currently presented, do not lend themselves to acceptance.

      A big, still fairly oppressed group in this country are the homosexuals and what I'm saying in this poorly constructed argument is why would, or even should, Americans care about the plight of homosexuals as a general subject? America, despite occasional boasts to the contrary, in no way, shape, or form controls the world (nor should it aspire to). There are many homosexuals beyond the borders of the United States. Why are they of our concern? They're not, nor should they be. I think that asking that they be of our concern is a problem with their cause.

     But what if the cause were limited to not to Homosexual-Americans, but to American homosexuals (or to put it another way still, Americans who are homosexual)? What if the argument were phrased Constitutionally rather than humanitarianly? It's an Us vs. Them argument and if you're phrasing your argument so as to be one of "Them", why would I be interested in what you have to say? Why would I be interested in helping a group which identifies themselves separately from the main one? Why would I be interested in helping a group presenting itself as competition? Why would I want to help a group seemingly placing its needs above that of the nation's? Why would I wish to help a group desiring its Liberty first before coming together as fellow countrymen? Do not come to me as a man but as a citizen of the United States of America. Presenting a problem as a humanitarian issue is the same as not having presented it at all. The United States looks after its citizens, not humanity as a whole. Make it out to be a citizens' issue, not a personal one.

       Convince me that I am your brother, and I shall stand beside you; convince me that you are an other, and I must stand against you.

A BOLD PREDICTION (a.k.a. How Many Episodes Until I Am Completely Proven Wrong)

      I finally started watching the legacy series to Avatar: The Last Airbender called Avatar: The Legend of Korra. It's wonderful to again find myself in a familiar world, a world I imagine that will not end in cancellation disappointment like Babylon 5's legacy series Crusade. I actually forgot that Avatar Earth is Wuzzle planet :-)

      The series is three episodes in and I am boldly and almost certainly incorrectly making these predictions:

1. There is a fifth element in addition to the traditional four of Air, Water, Earth, and Fire and this element is, for the lack of an appropriate term, Qi [Chi]. This possibility came to light in the original series's finale when Aang removes the Fire Lord's ability to bend.

2. Amon, the leader of the Equalists is a Qi Bender and knows this, but is content to manipulate everyone opposed to Benders in an effort to secure his position of power.

3. Qi Bending affects the other four Elements, but not the Qi Element.

4. Korra will battle Amon, possibly in the first season finale, and lose her ability to bend for most of, or the entire second season. This will give her an invaluable opportunity to see life from the other side. The Equalists accuse the Benders of oppression of non-Benders. She will now be in a perfect spot to find out if this is true or not. I think she will find extensive evidence of Bender oppression that she will dedicate her life to correcting.

5. Korra will regain her ability to bend the traditional Four Elements by either learning how to Qi Bend on her own (paralleling her current difficulties in mastering Air Bending), learning how to do it from Aang (somehow), or through an encounter with a reclusive lion-turtle.

6. Korra, upon mastering Qi Bending, will thus become the world's first true Avatar as no Avatar previously, has ever shown true mastery of all Five Elements (except for perhaps Aang) most likely due to the reclusivity of lion-turtles.

WAITING FOR THE ALLERGY PILLS TO KICK IN THEATER PRESENTS...

(supposed to be titled)

--- WHERE ARE ALL THE FREE SPEECH VANGUARDS? ---

      Sometimes I think we need an N.R.A. type organization for the First Amendment...an organization which will fight tooth-and-nail to keep governments from the municipal to Federal level and businesses from Mom&Pop stores to multi-national conglomerates from passing laws, mandates, or guidelines which in any way restrict the free-speech rights of its citizens as well as, yes, the other aspects of that Amendment too - I'm not forgetting them...speech is kinda the cornerstone aspect of the whole Amendment. Removing free speech rights negatively affects one's ability to exercise religion freely, be a news reporter, assemble peaceably, and petition the government with grievances.

      One that would fight just as vigilantly as the N.R.A. does now for the Second Amendment. Just as the N.R.A. opposes any restrictions on gun-ownership rights for American citizens while promoting responsible gun use, I would like this imaginary First Amendment organization to adamantly oppose any legislation which restricts one's ability to practice free speech while actively promoting responsible free speech use.

      I'm one of those people who tends to believe (not always mind you) that outlawing something doesn't necessarily change the behavior being outlawed. Prohibition is this nation's ultimate example. Outlawing alcohol sales and consumption in the United States did not cause the nation as a whole to give up alcohol. I'm sure a statistically significant percentage of Americans did give up booze for the entire time it was illegal never once regretting having done so or having given thought to breaking the law to get some alcohol in their system. This, however, would not be the case for most of the rest of the nation and it resulted in the rise of organized crime, widespread disregard of the law, and the spread of dangerous alcohols (since like with illegal drugs today, you really can't go to the Better Business Bureau to report having been sold cocaine of a less-than-agreed-upon purity nor could you then report that your illegal booze had been spiked with antifreeze to give it an extra kick). I'm also one of those people who tends to be against creating laws prohibiting things which are already prohibited if it would just be applied to an already-existing law (e.g. Hate Crime legislation is redundant as it is already a crime to rob, beat-up, assault, murder, etc. an individual - the color of the victim's skin, gender, orientation, etc. are not relevant and even if they were a motivating/deciding factor in the crime committed, it doesn't change the fact that the crime committed was already a crime).

      And while yes, I understand that an organization promoting First Amendment rights would quickly overreach and get out of hand, I would still rather have that than the micro-managed world I feel like I increasingly belong to. And I would want this imaginary group to sue over the stupidest things too like not keeping score in a game or forcing kids to give Valentines to everyone or guys in the workplace not being allowed to hang up pictures of scantily-clad women in addition to opposing legislation against broader topics like bullying and harassment as well as other topics which are easy to recognize but difficult to define. The classic example is pornography and the definition given is usually some form of, "You know it when you see it." Try defining pornography for yourself and see if you can do it in such a way which does not accidentally exclude actual art or education. Basically I'm looking for a group which protects the assholes in society. They're not the kinds of people you can legislate against. People who are petty, self-absorbed, inconsiderate, offensive, baiting, etc. need to be dealt with extra-legally. That's what managers, teachers, and other people in positions of authority are for. Otherwise you end up getting laws seeking to micro-manage and I really can't get behind that kind of shit.

      I know I'm not speaking for everyone when I say this but I would much rather have to figure out how to deal with jerks and assholes than to have everyone afraid to say anything to anyone for fear of legally offending another. I'm not happy living in a litigious culture. I really and firmly believe in what Abraham Lincoln counseled in his days as a lawyer: "Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser -- in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough." I firmly believe we need leave authority in the hands of those who have it. Let a boss at the workplace determine what is acceptable and what has gone too far. Let the teacher be able to determine the difference between "Knock it off!" and "send to the principal". And so on and so forth. It would be most certainly an imperfect world but it, I think, would be a better world to have too little legislation affecting our First Amendment rights than to have too much.

      I find that those organizations which do exist with the First Amendment in mind (G.L.A.A.D., the A.C.L.U., and N.A.A.C.P. to name a few) more often seek to create restrictions rather than preserve freedoms. And as it has been said before, there is a big difference between "I am offended" and "I am offended and no one should be allowed to do that"

      Okay...pills are kicking in now. Enjoy some Patrice O'Neal.

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XI

      I daydream and fantasize a lot. It is a very useful means for dealing with frustration, anger, sadness, anticipation, and other consuming emotions. The daydreams are very cathartic and occasionally that catharsis requires that I kill someone. The thing I find interesting from a psychological point of view is that I never touch the person I'm killing in my fantasies. It's always through the use of something else be it a proxy (i.e. allowing someone or something else to do the job for me); psychokinesis and/or telekinesis (think Sylar or Force Lightning), weapons (like whips, chains, arrows, and guns); supernatural stuff like finger spears (think Lust or the T-1000) or the substantiation of my shadow (think Pride); or any other awful thing I can think of that's usually inspired by something I saw on television or in the movies (pyrokinesis and cryokinesis). I wonder what that means...what it represents? What would represent the greater psychopathy? Making physical contact with the pretend victim or putting that barrier between them and me? I guess actually touching means I can't run away from the fact that I did it and not touching allows for denial later on. Whatever clothing I'm wearing in the fantasy usually has my hands looking as though they've turtled into the sleeves and when those hands are revealed, it almost always portends something terrible about to happen. What is it with the obsession with my hands?

Lust - Fullmetal Alchemist

THE ART OF COMPROMISE

      I had an extra long walk today, plenty of time for my brain to think about stupid shit. One such thought came on the heels of an announcement by the Canadian government that it will be discontinuing production of its cent coin this Fall. This is of course leads to discussion about the future of the U.S. cent which, although has less than a cent's worth of metal in it (about ½¢ as of this writing), when shipping and distribution charges are figured in, each cent ultimately costs 2.41 cents resulting in about 1½ cents of negative seigniorage for each coin for the U.S. Mint. The Mint has been losing money producing and distributing the cent and nickel since 2006.

      The basic reason the cent is still with us despite relentless inflation eroding its value and despite recommendations for its elimination going back to at least the 1970s is because of its depiction of President Lincoln. It's politics plain and simple. No Congressman or Senator wants to be known as the (wo)man who voted to eliminate Lincoln (never mind that he's still on the five dollar bill). It's the same reason President Washington was not removed from the America the Beautiful Quarter series in favor of President Theodore Roosevelt. I imagine that is also the rationale behind retaining the one dollar bill and that is, besides convenience, it would be a politically bad move to remove President Washington (never mind that he's still on the quarter).

      The cent and dollar bill also have their supporters in two specific lobbies. The cent is now comprised primarily of the element zinc (97½% by weight with a layering of copper to retain its old appearance) and the dollar bill is produced in the greatest numbers of all the paper denominations (though in 2010, the $100 bill has held the top position). This gives the zinc lobby and the Crane Paper Company (the company which supplies the Bureau of Engraving and Printing with the paper our currency is made of) an incredible incentive to maintain the status quo as they profit handsomely from this arrangement.

      Finally, the metallic composition of the nickel (75% copper and 25% nickel) exceeds its face value and that's before shipping and distribution costs are figured in. Only Congress can alter the composition of our nation's coins and until it finally gets around to doing so, the Mint is forced to make cents and nickels at a loss. Seigniorage from the dime, quarter, half-dollar, and dollar coin still keep Mint production and distribution costs profitable overall (thus giving Congress additional time to drag its feet in this matter), but the amounts have shrunk most years since 2006.

      Now while I would much rather the Federal Reserve System work to deflate our currency in an effort to restore its value and return to having our coins depict personifications of Liberty rather than dead Presidents, I know that will never happen so how about this for a compromise? Something that should address all the problems above...

      As of now, there is a dollar coin program in effect showcasing all the Presidents. Barring some horrific tragedy befalling Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, the program is slated to end in 2016 with President Reagan (living people may not be depicted on circulating coinage). Let's use that as a starting point. Make 2016 the last year the cent and dollar bill will be produced. Starting in 2017, begin circulation of a new Lincoln Dollar using the current Victor D. Brenner portrait of Lincoln (look at any cent made since 1909). The reverse of the coin can either be a continuation of the current Union Shield or something else...but a Lincoln Dollar. This covers the bad politics of eliminating Lincoln. Although his cent will be gone, billions of dollar coins bearing his likeness will replace them annually.

      Once the dollar coin is forcibly introduced into circulation and dollar bills slowly disappear, production of the $2 bill will increase substantially. Though production of the $2 bill  will never reach levels attained by the $1 bill, its production will be in the hundreds of millions annually reducing losses to the Crane Paper Company. They won't be happy, but they will also know it could have been worse since a two dollar coin would be sensible in this inflation-ravaged age too.

      Finally, alter the composition of the nickel to be cupro-nickel plated zinc. The nickel would still look like a nickel, but would be composed primarily of zinc now (it would also be lighter). This should appease the zinc lobby as well as create a nickel that costs less than five cents to produce and distribute.

      Is that fair? Should I be writing my Congressman?

ADDENDUM:  I have given thought to the $2 bill. It too may require some compromise. As you may have noticed, the $5-$100 bills have all been redesigned with large, off-center portraits but the $1 and $2 bills have not. I am thinking the loss of a Washington dollar may also cause agitation so perhaps it is time (in this scenario) to update the $2 bill in the style of the large off-center portraits that the remaining bills employ. This bill could also be one without color which, given the large amount of production the $2 bill would have in this scenario, may prove beneficial. This $2 bill, since it would be a revised note, could feature a large, off-center portrait of George Washington and the reverse of the note, instead of the Great Seal of the United States that the $1 bill features now, could feature a depiction of Mount Rushmore (replacing the Signing of the Declaration of Independence featured currently on the $2 bill). The reason for this being that not only was this suggested around the bicentennial, but also because fans of Thomas Jefferson may object to having his likeness removed from the $2 bill. Since Jefferson is on Mount Rushmore, this would be a way of keeping both these Presidents on the note.

OCCASIONALLY I REGRET THE THINGS I SAY...

      I fully admit that I am an asshole and not just "at times." I am a straight-up asshole and as such I can and do say and think things which, upon happenstance and occasionally outright education, can be later found to be indefensible. I figure in the spirit of this capacity to change and presumably "grow" as a human being, I would let you in on two things I have come to reconsider lately.

      Gawker a few weeks ago published another story in its continuing takes on the Trayvon Martin killing. In this article, it was mentioned that somehow respected newsperson Geraldo Rivera was quoted as saying (and I am quoting, likely out of context but wha'e'er), "I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Trayvon Martin's death as George Zimmerman was." If you're fairly enlightened already, I suspect you have found that comment to be revolting. The thing is, I didn't and for a while (and I mean long before this particular story came out) I was of the general opinion that people shouldn't go around acting suspiciously and that would go double for minorities as they are already looked upon suspiciously so don't add fuel to the fire by adding a layer of conspicuousness to it all. Yes, hoodies look intimidating. I would argue because it partially obscures one's face depriving you of an important aspect of body language to ascertain and because the large pockets in front in which both hands are sometimes in can make it look like you're concealing a weapon. Yes, I have on occasion felt nervous when hoodied (my memory's cloudy but let's face it...black and/or latino) gentlemen had approached me in passing. Basically, don't wear clothing that makes you look like a thug. Sounded reasonable. Then in the comment section of that same article, I read this by geraldlott65 and promptly felt like an ass:

"As a Black man in America, I have always had to be aware of how I am perceived. I have a 14 year old son who doesn't know what its like to be called a nigger by someone means it. The fact is - racism exists. What should young black men do, dress in khakis and boat shoes with polo shirts and sweater tied around their necks. Let's be honest, once most young black men start wearing the "prep" look, we'll have stories of racists killing them because they look threatening in their pink Izod shirts. I bet we even hear that some gangs have Polo and some wear the alligator!

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he could. He was looking for an opportunity to play "Sheriff" and found a victim. Trayvon was a black stranger that wandered into Zimmerman's turf. He is as bad as gang-banging hoodrats that prey on the inner-city. Zimmerman stalked this young man, called it in to the police to get an excuse, instigated an altercation and stood on Florida's law to execute this young man."

      Geraldlott65 made perfect sense: it's not the clothing that these youth are wearing, it's the racist/bigoted attitudes behind them. If you just plain don't like black people, you'll find an excuse to cling to. I've since incorporated this commenter's logic into my brain and will have it at my ready disposal should anyone in my vicinity attempt to make the argument that clothing has anything to do with these types of crimes. I won't accept it anymore.

       The next thing I learned was that I can and do arrogantly dismiss things. Now while I would like to sit here and pretend that that behavior has been eradicated from my mind wholesale, it has in fact not been...just a singular aspect of it. I found myself reading several blog posts this morning from predominantly feminist points of view - this may be the topic of future entry here - and in one of the links I followed, I came across something called "Trigger Warnings" which, briefly stated, is a warning "...designed to prevent people who have an extremely strong and damaging emotional response (for example, post-traumatic flashbacks or urges to harm themselves) to certain subjects from encountering them unaware. Having these responses is called 'being triggered'." My initial asinine response was pretty much, "What kind of whiny pussy-ass shit is this?!" Very brutal and dismissive...perhaps even condescending, I'll grant that. My inner voice isn't exactly known for its subtlety.


      Thankfully, the wiki entry provided a link to (TRIGGER WARNING: This link contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors) an essay written on a site called Dreamwidth by a blogger calling herself Impertinence. Although it was not her job to educate assholes like me about triggering, she chose to do so anyway and in so doing, explained it to me in a way that was perfectly sensible and made me feel ashamed for my private dismissal earlier (no one heard me think it is what I'm saying). It counts as another thing I've learned and something which I hope I will be mindful of should I ever actually enter into dark discussions in this blog o' mine.

      I'll leave it at that...

WHAT I AM DOING INSTEAD OF SLEEPING...

      David Wong wrote another of his insightful articles on Cracked the other day called, "5 Ways Modern Men Are Trained to Hate Women". Like it or hate it, it generated many thousands of comments in just a few days (over 8100 as of this posting). I don't really know what to say about it. I'm not gonna claim that it's 100% true but I'm also not gonna sit here and act like I didn't "get it" or otherwise intuitively understand where he was coming from with all of this. I took the time to read many of the articles comments. I'm not posting any of them here so you'll have to take my word for it. Instead I'm just going for my two bits.

      This is not my entire point of view, merely a part of it.

      I view women as a civilizing force for me. I'm not gonna claim all men but you are welcome to corroborate the assessment. Women are a virtuous force and I am actually referring to the Seven Heavenly Virtues (chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility). I say this as someone who has spent far too much of his time alone. I say this as a man who, when in the presence of women and especially those women he has become attracted to, feels compelled to be less me and more us. When alone, the temptations of the Seven Deadly Sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride) become ever more insistent. Repeated failure excites lust (not caring about her feelings for others and for the feelings others may have for her), sloth (desiring to get others to lay the groundwork for wooing her on my behalf because clearly I am failing with self-generated efforts), wrath (especially self-directed, but occasionally outwardly directed), envy (wanting to diminish the influence of or outright remove her friends and family because they're in "my" way), and especially pride (because well, I "deserve" her and I am superior to her other potential suitors and who is anyone to tell me I do not deserve a slice of happiness to call my own?!). Greed (desire, I suppose, to possess those things and attributes necessary to win her) and especially gluttony (I seriously don't know where gluttony would come in here...for her time, maybe?), play smaller roles...but they're all present.

      A woman I desire causes me to feel embarrassed that I should have ever wanted such awful and horrible things. A woman I desire makes me desire to become virtuous (though, like gluttony in the previous instance...not so much chastity ;-) ). Without one, I feel only the dark sides of my personality acting upon me, influencing me, and poisoning my thoughts. Even the mere hope of a woman (a crush) is enough to shine bright light upon those dark recesses and bring about a much needed yearning for positive change and growth and with each dashing of that hope comes a renewed vigor to tighten my selfish grip. The soil of my moon soul, though fertile, needs the light from the promise of her sun love to encourage and nourish the growth of mutualistic goals. Without her, only parasitic selfish notions may flourish...