Archive for the ‘ new releases ’ Category

The Morality of Smashing a Cow in the Face With a Big Hammer, or However They do it These Days

Those who believe it unethical to eat meat assume a link between human and animal suffering. they believe a cow experiences slaughter with fear and can feel the pain of being slaughtered in a way that is relatable to how humans experience pain.

If they are wrong about the animal capacity for suffering, the eating of meat becomes amoral because the animal is not complex enough to feel pain. You swat a fly because you make an implicit assumption that this is the case. If animals are too simple to feel pain then eating meat is amoral.

However the more likely possibility is that animals do feel something when you take a hammer and smash them in the forehead with it. Given this, how can eating meat be moral?

To understand how meat eating which is not necessary to human survival can be moral is to understand The only reason there are so many cows, sheep and poultry in this world is because we want to eat them. That’s why we breed them in numbers which far exceed the animals self-supporting populations. If we were vegetarians we wouldn’t care how many cows there were, there domesticated numbers would fall as our need for them shrank. We would not keep a million cows alive and fed for kicks.

However, because the world has an insatiable appetite for meat we do grow these animals in abundance and thus it is humanities meat habit which gives them the gift of life. Most pigs, cows and sheep are alive today because they will be eaten tomorrow. If we were all vegetarians we would not bother to raise any of these animals at anything close to their current numbers.

One thing we can be sure of is that a cow does not reason as a man reasons, to a cow, the good life involves grass and sunshine and seeing other cows. That life is abruptly ended in a cruel way, but if we gave up meat most cows that get to experience life would never exist.

Thus eating meat is ethical because the meat we eat gets to live before we decide to eat it. Without are desire to eat meat, the cows that live what they must consider a good life because they have known nothing else and being cows cannot conceptualize of something better would never exist and would not ever experience anything at all about being cows. The relationship between man and the animals it kills to eat is a symbiotic one. We allow animals to live, and then when we want to eat them we kill them.

Cows cannot think, my friend that other cow is gone, they must have eaten him, which is why they remain in bovine ignorance of coming slaughter, and thus until the point of slaughter their lives are good. The choice we’re left with is cows being able to live and being killed before old age, or the number of cows we eat each year never being born in the first place.

An animal is not a person, which is why we don’t consider Seeing Eye Dogs to be slaves. They don’t have the capacity to envy pets or wolves, and cows don’t understand they’re born into a life built around their eventual murder. If animals have any kind of intelligence, they must appreciate life. But we are a self-interested species and will only support a cows lifestyle if it gives us something in return. In our current situation, everyone benefits. The cow gets to live for a while, and I get my steak.

I wrote this for a contest that the NewYork Times organized back in November or December. I did not win. I do want to point out that I don’t care if an animal feels pain. I like steak. In all seriousness if it came down to it I would shoot a cow myself to get steak.

If you enjoyed the post, follow the blog.

Is it Right to Bear Arms?

People kill people, but people with guns kill more people and kill those people with ease.

This is a truth everybody calling themselves an intelligent person has to accept. If the United States had a complete ban on firearms, we would have far fewer gun deaths in this country.

In the United Kingdom and other countries which have banned firearms, you don’t see a violent rampage every year or so. In the united States, where there are more guns than people, you do see a violent rampage every year because some crazy sad sack decides his personal demons have become too much and he wants to blow some innocents away. He can legally buy guns, so he buys them, goes to a public place,  and shoots away until he gets shot, bored, or shoots himself.

Directly due to lobbying by the NRA, our background check system is not all that it should be. If you have ever been convicted of a feleny, you should find it impossible to own a gun. This is not the case. Loopholes, such as being able to make unregulated gun purchases at gun shows, mean that many people that society has decided should not be able to own guns of any kind still own them.

But as last Friday’s horrific event in Aurora illustrates, even when the system is working perfectly, some person beneath our nations contempt and sympathy is still able to buy an AR15 and walk into a public place and kill at his lejer.

This is a direct consequence of people being able to own guns. Make no mistake.  It is people who kill people, it is guns and hundred round clips that make that killing easy. The problem, technically is not guns, as proven by the millions upon millions of people who own guns and don’t go on shooting sprees. These people want to own guns for reasons of self-protection, collection, or shooting sports, and more power to them. There are towns where more than half the population owns guns and no one is being shot for no reason whatsoever.

But focusing on this part of the issue makes no sense. Because there is only so much the government, both state and federal can do, to separate accurately the good folks from the batshit insane folks meaning that if guns are sold in this country every year or so we are going to see an awful massacre. Security measures which would make impossible rampages such as the one James Holmes went on last Friday would be prohibitively expensive.

That means in this country we have a choice. We can try as hard as we can to get rid of every single privately owned firearm and see a huge drop in violent crime, or we can tighten our gun laws to stop the mentally retarded, criminally insane and convicted felons from being able to own guns and even so we will still have mass murders like columbine, Virginia tech, and Aurora. It is one or the other. Pull your head out of your ass and deal with reality.

There is of course a third choice, don’t tighten our gun laws, keep the loopholes open so that determined mentally ill folks and convicted felons can still procure guns,  and let the NRA continue to lobby against common sense, and we’ll have even more mass murder. This is probably the choice we will opt for at least for the next decade.

You may be surprised after all of this to know that my choice is not to ban  guns. I strongly believe in the second amendment. I believe that all sensible precautions must be taken, a felon caught with a gun should get life without parole, and mentally incompetent people caught owning guns similarly should be remanded to psychiatric hospitals. Perhaps we shouldn’t go that far with the retarded, but the point is that the people we want to remain without firearms in our society should be ripped apart by the might of the law if they are caught violating our will.

As I said, however, once all precautions are put into place so that only sain law abiding citizens are allowed to own guns, we are still going to see mass murder. It is a natural consequence of lethally armed humanity. For every  million sane and civilized folks, there’s one or two insane monsters and those monsters will take advantage of their ability to buy lots of guns, lots of ammo to  kill lots of people. This part is inevitable if you are a second amendment supporter. If you find this price too high, join the organizations seeking to repeal the second amendment, or live as a hypocrite.

I have two reasons for supporting gun violence.

The first is that if someone tries to shoot you, whether or not you have a loaded weapon on your person at this point in  your life is literally going to be the most important factor in your continued survival. I believe if someone draws a weapon and is going to shoot you or your loved ones or someone within your sight, you are not just allowed to try and kill that person but obligated morally to blow his brains out the back of his head.

Similarly, if someone is robbing you and you have a gun you should shoot them.

I do not advocate Batman-like vigilantism. No one should wander the streets looking for crime without a badge.  The victims of James’s Holmes violent tantrum did not deserve to die for a failure to arm themselves . All I am saying is that an armed citizenry is the best deterrent of violent crime. It is not an ideal deterrent, but it is a thousand times better than criminals with guns and victims of criminals without guns. See my post on a solution to prevent most rapes if you want to read more about this.

But this mode of self-protection is merely my secondary reason for why we as a country should leave our second amendment rights mostly unfettered. I believe in hundred round clips, assault rifles, I believe, in short, that if you are legally allowed to own guns, you should be able to own whichever guns you want.

Why?

Because of the remote possibility that our government someday turns on us and tries to create a dictatorship.

Here is where I am roundly mocked. So go ahead. Take a moment to scorn my position, and then continue reading and let me defend it.

The United States government abandoning its founding principles of democracy and becoming a dictatorship is what we call a Black Swan event.

Black swan events are those which are low probability events, events which are outside the range of normal expectations, leaving them almost impossible to predict. The conquest of North America is the best example of such an event. Unanticipated by the natives, and deadly for them nonetheless. If you had asked the most intelligent Native Americans of 1300 the likelihood of white devils coming at first in thousands and then in millions from across the ocean, carrying lethal diseases with mortality rates for the indigenous population upwards of 90 percent, they would have mocked you like you are mocking me for my belief in the second amendment based on the remote chance that someday our own government will turn on us. The odds are low, but there is a difference between low odds and impossible odds.

Lets take another example. Alien invasion. This probably isn’t helping my case.

But if you believe in the existence of extra terrestrial life you then must concede that the possibility of alien invasion is there, however small that possibility is.

I’m not saying that we should prepare for an alien invasion because I believe the odds of such a thing happening make the odds that our own government will turn into a dictatorship look phenomenally high, I’m saying that a country prepared for a black swan event will be able to react to it better then one which is not prepared for such a thing. No country has lasted forever. Often countries transform because of internal revolution.

In the United Kingdom there is almost no gun violence. But if David Cameron had the backing of the military, he could set himself up as king. How many people do you think a platoon of British soldiers armed to the teeth could kill if those people could only arm themselves with knives from their kitchens and cricket bats and crowbars? Those soldiers would just shoot and shoot and kill and kill. In this respect, the social contract is only enforced at the mercy of those in power. It is not about intent but possibility. In countries with no armed population, what stops government from violating the social contract is forbearance, nothing more.

In the United  States, however, if president Obama tried to set himself up as king, and had the full backing of the military, what we would have would not be a massacre, but a civil war.

If free speech was abolished tomorrow, and then two days after that freedom to assemble, and so on and so fourth, America as an armed people could and would rebel.

What the second amendment does is to let the social contract mean something. Because it is maintained by all of us, although we have the means for armed insurrection at our fingertips.

And before you raise your next objection, I believe the last few years of disgusting partisan rancor proves my point for me.

There are lots of republicans who hate the shit out of Barack Obama and the democrats. Lots of gun owning republicans. But there are no revolutionary groups attacking our government because these Republicans recognize the difference between serious political disagreement and a subversion of the democratic process. We are experiencing the former, not the latter.

Now if you don’t mind I would like to present myself as an ass hole to make one final point.

What happened in Colorado last week is tragic. It turns the stomach, it makes us all reflect upon how lucky we are not to have been shot, it shows us that some of us are sick with hate and insanity. It should show us that people like James Holmes should be locked away somewhere deep and dark, and if that deep dark place cannot rehabilitate a man like Holmes, he  should stay there until he dies, for our own safety.

It shows us that it only takes one crazy man with a gun to send cracks up and down the glass of our peaceful civilization. In the shooter we see the worst of humanity, and in the reaction of the nation we see the best of humanity.

But now that our grief is muted and not as fresh as it was, lets put this in perspective.

Here’s the part where I’m an ass hole.

The murder of twelve people is horrifying because we have empathy, but it doesn’t matter statistically. Already from last Friday our population has grown, and even as a percentage of this last weeks population growth, those twelve are much less than one percent.

These types of mass shootings are ugly and we should do all we can short of taking guns from law abiding citizens to stop them, but when balanced against the price of a potential disillusion of our republic they do not matter in the slightest.

I must  reiterate that such a transmutation of our country from bastion of democracy to dictatorship is unlikely. It is more likely never to happen.

But unlikely and impossible are not at all the same thing.

England, France, all of the first world with the exception of the United States bars its citizens from owning guns. And that means the citizens are powerless to make changes to the social contract once force is a factor. If England or Germany had a civil war with the military on the wrong side, the only way it would turn into a war rather than remain a bloodbath is if the opposite side got its hands on lots of guns.

Here that is not a problem.

I am not advocating armed revolution over nothing, what I am speaking of hopefully will never happen. But if it did happen, if it did come down to war to reclaim our democracy, the single reason we could win such a war is because of the second amendment.

In this country right now I am sure there are a hundred thousand AR15’s, a hundred thousand m16’s, and hundreds of thousands of other assault rifles. We could create a large militia if our government ever turned on us.

I am not being paranoid. I believe this possibility to be so remote that in all likelihood we will never have to test if I am correct or not, with a war.

It is easy to consider this argument hogwash because of how peaceful our country currently is. George Bush and Barack Obama never did anything to make any intelligent person think either man was setting himself up as a dictator, and may this hold true for future presidents until the end of time.

But if we give up our guns and enjoy increased safety because of fewer murders, what would we do if our government ever decided it wanted to become something other than the republic it is today? If we had to try and fight our own military with swords pipes and knives, how would that go?

So only if you tell me you know for a fact that our country never has to fear such a thing will I tell you your wish to ban firearms makes sense. Otherwise gun violence is the price we are forced to pay.

Of Course There are Better Cultures, you Dumbass

There is a common school of thought which has arisen because of a massive logical fallacy. This is that because all people are equal, all cultures are equal and therefore all cultures are equal because they were made by people.

This is false. Some people believe that a preliterate society that still is hunting and gathering is as good as a modern industrial state.  And the only thing I want to ask the people who seriously believe that is what have you been smoking?

Here’s the thing. If you really think all cultures are equal, go live in Afghanistan. I’m not telling you to go live in Afghanistan because I want you out of this country, I’m telling you to go live in Afghanistan because I know you wouldn’t like it there and after a week and a half removed from the First World or whenever you happened to see an honor killing you’d come back and admit to me I was right and you were wrong.

All people are… Well they aren’t created equal. But because fairness is advantageous to everyone we should pretend they are. The law shouldn’t differentiate between the smart and the stupid, the rich or the poor. Because our culture values the concept of equality. And this is right. Its not like stupid people should be jailed for murder while smart people should be let off the hook.

A culture isn’t a person. Cultures are   institutions crafted by people, much like fighter jets. and, as we can empirically show some fighter jets are better than others, similarly some cultures are hands down better cultures for the well being of the members within them.

I never thought I’d say this, but serious disagreement with my thesis comes from over thinking the issue.

When we look at our history, we judge ourselves based on how we are today as compared to how we were in the past. We can all agree slavery was wrong. All slavery, not just ours, Roman, Greek, Egyptian was categorically wrong. It is wrong because you would not want to be a slave, and even more agregus than slavery itself was the fact that the distinctions by which some men were enslaved while others were not were based on nothing more than ignorance. . The argument which is made by some academics is, “Who says slavery is wrong?  Isn’t your anti slavery ethos created out of your western values? The people who hold slaves don’t think slavery is wrong, and your demeaning them by dismissing them as savages.”

First, yes, my western values tell me slavery is wrong. That’s one of the great things about my western values.

Second, every slaver is not necessarily a savage, but is certainly savage.

And if you really want to keep arguing this with me I’m just going to come up to you with a bullwhip and my laundry and beat the fuck out of you until you admit to me that slavery is better off dead.

Or until you’ve  done my laundry.

Either way I win.

There’s a word that liberals shie away from these days, and that word is evil. It gets hidden away in the wreak of moral relativism.

Here’s how this works. Murder, rape, human sacrifice and theft are all evil.  Why? Because you would want none of these things to happen to you, and the infliction of pain for no larger goal other than ones personal ends is wrong.

This has a basis in logic and in empathy. If you had to watch a rape from beginning to end hopefully you’d feel sick. If you were raped you’d be devastated. Thus the first is the empathetic reason, it hurts us to see other people in pain, and second the logical. We don’t want to be in pain thus we stop rape and murder whenever possible because it is implicitly understood that its always possible the next person who is murdered or raped might be you or me.

A culture that allows evil within itself is by definition evil.

The United States isn’t perfect. We have problems. Too much rape and too much murder. But we’re trying hard to improve and the very fact we see rape and murder as serious problems to be dealt with rather than as a permissible status quo indicate we are moving in the right direction. Our own   Societal improvement isn’t always as rapid as we’d like it to be and sometimes its slower than anyone with common sense can fathom, but it is happening.

The existence of cultures where rape and murder are encouraged and also of rapists and murderers within cultures where rape and murder are discouraged are two sides of the same problem. Evil.

I do not claim that men are born evil. Men are made evil through circumstances which are almost too complex to parse, in every country there are serial killers, sociopath’s and gangsters. These people commit crimes we wish they wouldn’t. And some cultures, such as that of Rwanda, commit acts of genocide we wish they wouldn’t.

A good culture where bad things happen, however, is different than a bad culture in which even more bad things happen. Recognition of this fact is essential.

There are countries that you would never want to visit, even for a day, because the odds of you getting shot are way too high. Why is this? Because these countries are shitholes. Some of these shitholes are evil, some are simply anarchic.

Let me break this down quick.

There are places that are great to live, America, Europe, Japan, south Korea, Canada, the rest of the first world and the best parts of the second.

Then we get into a second area, the second world, where things are improving but haven’t yet reached the high standards of living enjoyed in the first world. On the one hand you can drive a car and drink the water without shitting yourself to death, there is an upper class, the economy is growing rapidly, education levels are rising, but on the other hand people still get kidnapped and the kidnappers chop off an ear as a ransomed note, and this is common enough that it doesn’t make headlines, as it would had it happened in the first world,  and the murder rate hasn’t dropped to historically nonviolent first world levels.

Then there are places where the population either wants, or should want, to emigrate. Somalia , Seria, Iraq, the rest of the middle east minus Turkey and Israel, Northafrica, central Africa, Southafrica, North Korea, Mexico, the list goes on for a really long time.

That’s because these places are the aforementioned shitholes.

What must a country do to be designated a shithole? In short, the technical definition is as follows. Shithole. A country in which no one is surprised to hear of something completely shitty happening that day.

Car bomb kills a hundred. In the United States that would be headline news for ten days. If the headline instead read, car bomb kills a hundred in… Yemen, at least my reaction is, no shit. Then I eat my breakfast.

Its not as though anyone sane is going. “A car bomb? In Yemen? God I just didn’t think it could happen here!”

In the first world we take peace mostly for granted. Its unlikely you’ll be shot today. This is a blessing of civilization.

In the second world there is reform, because some one realized there are places more civilized and peaceful, and they want there own country to be like that. So your odds of getting raped or shot are higher then they should be, but get lower every few years.

And then  There are countries where the incidence of rape and murder are much higher than in the first world. And much of this rape and murder is institutionalized, weather by government legislation or savage tradition.   Poverty is rampant, and not American poverty where your poor but have food and clean water and a TV and your kid goes to school, and perhaps you get to drive a beat up car, but third world poverty where you shit worms and have malaria by age eight and finding two meals a day is the overriding struggle of your life. Because there are no food stamps. Because the government sucks.

Some of these countries lack a powerful government, such as Somalia, and some of these countries have a powerful government, and that government is evil. Iran.

There is a huge difference between the shitholes and the nonshitholes.

For a long time the world was a shithole. So it isn’t surprising many countries are still shitholes.

Lets all take a moment and focus on the good news, which is  that some countries are no longer shitty. Western Europe, Asia, eastern Europe, the America’s,  all used to be shitty.

Here’s the historical context of shitholes. Your a dude. You never go to school one day in your life. You  work the field. Your back gets bent before your balls have hair. You die at thirty.

Your a chick. You never go to school one day in your life. You  work the fields. Your back gets bent before you have your first period. You have a kid. You have a second kid. You have a third kid you have a fourth kid. Half of those kids die. You have a fifth kid. You die in childbirth at twenty.

Your a dude. You have a lot of money. You get everything you want but your really religious and live in an extremely violent society. You fuck peasants and there is no rape in marriage. Legally speaking and being a product of your time you take full advantage of this.  You either die in war or from a disease today we cure with a pill. You die at fifty. Your a chick. Your family has lots of money. Because your a woman none of your families money is yours unless your lucky and become a widow. You get married off to a dude. You have no say in who the dude is. He can cheat, you can’t. the statistics say You aren’t allowed an education, you have a kid. You have another kid. You have another kid. You die at twenty-five.

For most people this is how life went down for millennia

Then came modernization. Modernization gave us  so  much that even a bare bones listing of its achievements would take twenty pages, but I’ll tick off the high points.

Modernization is why you are not a subsistence farmer or a peasant, modernization is the reason why  women aren’t raped at random with the blessing of society. Modernization is why we don’t burn witches. Because we don’t believe in witchcraft.  Modernization is why criminals aren’t stretched on the rack, its why criminals aren’t crucified, modernization is why criminals don’t get noses, hands, ears, or other more important body parts chopped off.

Modernization is why if you get into a bar fight, you don’t pull out a sword and gut the dude who called you a fag. Which is what used to happen all the time.  Modernization is why its now a crime to beat the shit out of your wife. Modernization is why women don’t die in childbirth, which was so common that nobles would often marry two or three times, because the first wife died birthing kid ten. Modernization is why you don’t have kid ten, because  you can control the number of children you have.

Modernization is why there are doctors who have effective cures for disease which do not involve the four humors of the body or leaches. Instead the cures involve kidney transplants and chemotherapy and skin grafts and vaccines. Modernization is why all your friends don’t have smallpox scars. Its why we brush our teeth. Its why we can fly in airplanes and drive in cars. Its why horses are now something rich girls learn to ride for the fun of it, rather than as a means of transport. Its why HBO canceled a show when three horses had to be put down on set. Its why you have no fucking idea how to hitch yourself up to a plow and drag it like an ox. Its why being fat is a problem. That’s a real modern problem, btw.

In short, every single convenience you take utterly for granted today is a product of the march of civilization. The civilization your living in is a product of cultural movements whose aggregate over centuries has been  modernity. The civilization ruled by a despot is the product of fear and a weak willed population ignoring the flourishing of more successful forms of government. For the most part.

The degree to which the members of a country still live the bleak existence described above has to do with how modern they are.

The American farmer is not a European peasant. But an African peasant is much like a European one. What separates them is five hundred years.  Africa and the middle east, in fact, are the dark ages with guns.

Let me continue to break shit down.

Writing is good. Efficient farming is good. Cars are good. I mean all of these things are good for people.

If you can’t write its hard to trust your history because memory is fallible. If you can’t write, sooner or later, your memories which have been past down through oral tradition die or are corrupted and your history is lost.

Writing allows for all sorts of things which will forever be beyond the illiterates comprehension.

Cars are good, because you aren’t stuck to the daily speed and distance of a horse.

Efficient farming is good because society cannot advance until someone can pull his head out from the dirt to stop breaking his back with drudgery and instead use that time to think.

Writing, farming and cars are good advancements. This does not mean that the people without efficient farming techniques, literature and cars are bad people, they are unfortunate people. They are not lesser people, they are people forced to develop in a lesser society.

On the other hand, chopping off a girls clitoris is not an amoral  action. Its immoral.  Evil. I hope this isn’t news. The culture that institutionalizes clitoris chopping is a savage and evil culture first because Clitoridectomies  are awful in themselves and second it isn’t as though the culture where this happens is just like ours except for that one thing, its one of those markers that allows you to stereotype a ton, and you’ll be right. The problem is you can’t blame any of the dudes who went along with this, kneeling on some screaming chicks wrists as the tribal elder sharpened the freakin rock,  because he doesn’t know any better, he was raised in clit chopping land. He’s like a southern racist from the fifties. Evil, naturally, but when everyone around you is evil you’ll grow up to be  evil as well.

When someone says to me, all cultures are equal, none are better, none are worse what they must mean is that there isn’t anything wrong with five guys holding a girl down and using a sharpened rock to fuck up her shit.

They fall back to this weak ass position. They go, “Well, I’m not saying I approve of that action, but your value system is based on your culture, and there value system is based off there culture, and you can’t force your values down someone else’s throat.”

First, yes I can.

Second, its very simple, really. A country where evil rampages around unconstrained is a bad place. No, all the people there aren’t bad people, but something’s rotten in Denmark if the Dutch are killing each other every day and if Dutch women are raped all the time and if theft is rampant and if slavery or subjugation are the norm.

The west has, in fact, shoved its values down lots of other countries throats. If we had not democracy would never have spread. This process doesn’t always happen because we as a society make a concerted effort, sometimes good idea’s are so good they are transmitted like viruses.

I hate to use emotion and sentimentality as a cornerstone of an argument but sometimes when explaining moral issues I believe I have to.

When people believe in an idea, whatever that idea is, they naturally construct rationalizations for why the idea is good. In societies where murder is commonplace, a lesser value is placed on human life by the people in that culture. Moral relativists would have us accept this. But I will not.

The world has improved. Some people refuse to believe that we’ve experienced progress throughout history because they are liberal and progress has not been distributed equally throughout the world.

As I said already, it isn’t surprising that some of the world is still awful because two thousand years ago the entire world was awful. Even Rome, our first real grasp at a civilization that could have become modern, wasn’t America with toga’s. It was misogynist, women were under the control of either there wife or there father. The roman ethics was even more warlike than the later Christian ethos when it came to conquering territory. Rome may have  evolved into something more like our civilization later, and is noteworthy because until it began to collapse it was a society in existence, stable and trending upwards nonetheless Rome entertained itself with gladiatorial combat that today we would never countenance. You put two people in a ring with swords and watch them try and kill each other. Now we see that in action movies. The closest thing we have to gladiators is the ultimate fighting championship, and we’ve put in place rules to insure the safety of the participants.

It comes down to this. If every person could choose to take there family to a new country or stay in there own country, the amount of emigration from any given country would give you a good idea of the supremacy of that country.

Most people probably would not want to live in the third world if they could magically get teleported to the first. But very few people living in the first world would want to go live permanently in the third.

It doesn’t matter if this is unkind, that’s why cultures and people are not the same.

It is foolish to evaluate a person without also looking at his culture. Many of the presidents historians consider to be among our greatest were racist. They thought Blacks were inferior and this belief was so strong it remained unexamined. The kings and queens of England had prediusis even harder for us to understand. Hitler did not invent anti-Semitism.

It makes no sense to hate people of the past for being racist because the belief was so prevalent that it took exceptionally good people from that time to understand it was wrong.

But you can easily look at a culture and see its moral shortcomings because what you are evaluating then are the common beliefs of a society.

This is why, had we to do it all over again, we probably would not have made genocidal war on the Indians, because now we see land grabs as wrong.

It is redolent of the imperialist mindset of the nineteenth century to claim western cultural superiority, but that is an unfortunate coincidence.

When looking at how people in the second and third worlds live, there attitudes towards there living situation are not important.

Slavery must have given slaves ghastly psychological scars. But there must have also been slaves who made there peace with being enslaved. In general people make peace with adverse conditions because its do that or kill yourself but this doesn’t mean because they have found a way to live through shit that it isn’t shit they are living through.

Similarly the woman forced to wear a Burka or who is not allowed to talk to men without a male family member present or who is denied an education based on her sex may be content with her lot because realistically she cannot expect any better. But her contentment with awful circumstances does not justify her placement into those circumstances because the same Burka wearing woman born in Iran may have been a scientist had she been born in England.

 

What goodness, for lack of a more intellectual term comes down to is choice.

If you want to wear a Burka, go ahead. If you want to be a housewife or hunt and gather, your free to not work or to hike out into the woods and go off the grid and grow your vegetables and hunt deer. Realistically our government is not so omni-present to stop you from doing the latter and has no desire to stop you from doing the former.

But the important aspect of your situation is that you have the choice.

In the first world you have free speech which allows you to say all cultures are equal. If you said that in Iran they’d shoot you in the face, there bye denying you freedom.

I have written this post because its so easy to discount civilization. People complain about things which prove the progress we have made. If you think you live in an extraordinarily violent or brutal society, and you are living in the First World, you believe this to be true because you lack an understanding of how awful things used to be everywhere.

I do not say we must try and right the worlds wrongs. But it is absolutely important to recognize that there is a right and wrong in an international context. Our country is not always in the right, we are not a cartoonish perfectly moral guardian. But there is a difference between the United States and Iran, the United Kingdom and north Korea, Germany and China.

These differences were not preordained. But they exist. It is important to understand this when focusing on international relations because you must understand the moral point a country is speaking from in order to evaluate its moral authority. Iran’s wanting to wipe Israel off the map or the genocide in darfure or the ethnic cleansing in Cosivo are evil being practiced on an international scale.

They are not the same as the United States accidentally bombing a hospital.

This is bad. Hospitals shouldn’t be bombed.

But compared to where the rest of the world is coming from, the fact that we even care enough to apologize is progress.

In mid evil times, or in Africa or the mid east today, you’d go to war and slaughter villages to the last child.

This post is not foremost a defense of America. Its a defense of the first world.

The goal is that there will at some point only be a first world.

When I read about all the awful stuff that happens in other countries on a daily basis the only thing I think is, that wouldn’t happen in my country.

This is not because we are better people, its because we were born into a better culture, which is why we are not killing each other over a spring or three goats.

The first world, year by year as a society the first world is struggling to get better. We try and stamp out ignorance, bloodthirsty ness, religious strife,and  bigotry.

These things are hallmarks of bad culture.

If something bad happens– excuse me, when something bad happens  in the Arab world tomorrow, lets say its a car bombing, the question that should be asked is, what’s the absolute root cause of why that guy just took his truck and blew himself up and took out that restaurant of civilians along with his worthless ass?

In the United states if we had a car bombing, it would be front page news. And car bombings dot the foreign section of the New York times like periods.

The fair rule of law, a trust in government, the cultivation of intrastate peace, the education of children, all of these things are so important.

The first world is not a utopia, at all, unless you compare it to the third world.

There is nothing noble about savagery. The strife afflicting Africa isn’t fine or noble or just or a northern model of how shit should get done, its barbaric and needs to stop. Similarly, the Chinese or Iranians don’t get to claim they are civilized and great if they don’t allow there people freedom.

We, the first world, already went through these struggles.

The thing is that if you were looking for the seeds of utopia, you would find them here, in the first world.

Thank you.

Smoking, a Guide for the Blind

I’m blind. I don’t mention it in the blog because it usually isn’t germain to railing against god or drug laws or the fact that HBO canceled luck or whatever I usually talk about, but this time its important for the post.

Blind people have forums, which I never go on. But I was bored and so I was looking through the topics, found one about what blind people think they miss out on. Some kid said he didn’t know how to smoke cigarettes. I hate that I smoke cigarettes.

You can’t post to the forum unless you have an account, and I’d made one four years ago to ask a question about something which I hadn’t used since it got answered. But I went back and found my username just so I could write this little essay on how to smoke if you can’t see. So to old men going blind, curious people with vision and my fellow members of the army of darkness, enjoy.

So I have my own thing I think I missed out on, but first let me respond to the smoking thing.

My initial advice is don’t

 

fucking smoke. I smoke, I’ve been smoking for five years, I’d love to quit, I can’t.

That said, if you want to smoke, here’s what you do.

Get a bick lighter. You’ll know its a bick because its oval. The bottom of the bick is flat, the top is raised with a wheel. On one side of the wheel there is a hole. This is where the flame comes out. On the other side of the wheel there is a small… trigger. Its not like the trigger on a gun, it feels more like the spray button on cleaning fluid, its flat and doesn’t push down very far.

Hold the lighter in your dominant hand. The trigger part faces towards you, the hole faces away from you. You know your doing this right because your hand makes a fist around the lighter and your thumb is free, kind of hovering over the thing. Now take your thumb, and rub it quickly down the wheel. You want to push, not mad hard, you’ll figure it out when the wheel turns. As the wheel turns, your thumb should almost automaticly slide down to the trigger. Once it hits the trigger, push the trigger and keep your hand there. If all has gone well you should now have a flame lit. You’ll know because you’ll hear it fwish and feel the heat.

 

 The flame is now going to be in existence above your fist.  lol, is this description totally retarded?

Anyway, practice that a few times so that you feel reasonabley sure you know what your doing.

 

 It should be one quick little motion, not all fumbling, kinda like snapping your fingers.

Now, get your pack of cigarettes. If your cigarettes have filters, when you open the pack of cigarettes the filters will be facing you, that is, filters = top of pack, end of cigarette you burn equals bottom. Cigarettes have a weird rapper like a pull tab, but just tear the plastic rap to skip past more crap you don’t want to deal with for now.

Put a cigarette in your mouth. If your cigarette has a filter, you will know because if you hold the thing in between your teeth, not between your lips its gunna have some give to it like rubber and when you poke at it with your tongue it will be flat. If you have tabaco on your tongue after doing this you either have a cigarette without a filter or your about to screw up.

 

 If you light the filter, something I wanta point out for whoever’s keeping score I have literally only ever done once in five years, you will know because your going to smell burning plastic. If the cigarette has no filter you will know because you will feel the roughness of tabacco at both ends.

Moving on.

Put the cigarette in your mouth. Now hold the lighter just in front of the tip of the cigarette, like you may have done as a kid when you were playing with magnets, almost touching but not, The flame comes straight up out of the lighter and widens, so if you hold the tip of the cigarette fucked up your going to light it crooked or in the upper third, rather than the tip. If you were to draw a line from the tip of your lighter to the tip of your cigarette the angle would be something like fifteen or twenty degrees.

 

Oh my god I just used geometry for the first time since high school. Now light your bick and when the flame is working puff on the cigarette, do this two or three times. If its lit your going to know.

Now when you smoke, hold your cigarette between pointer and middle fingers, almost but not quite at the tip. When you aren’t actually dragging on the cigarette you should lower your hand, you don’t leave your hand up in front of your face. Hold the cigarette either by the filter if it has one or at the butt end if it doesn’t have a filter, don’t hold your hand up towards the flame or you’ll look retarded. To flick ashes off your cigarette, flick the corner of the butt end with your thumb. When your done with your cigarette, you can’t see, so jesus, grind it out

 

, don’t just drop it. I never do this and I guess god must love me. I’ve rarely seen cigarettes light other things on fire, but it can happen.

But really, you shouldn’t smoke.

P.S. The two things I missed are colors, I like to write and am always struggling to use subtle color descriptions, a novel wouldn’t work with no colors at all, but its hard, are cars usually blue,

 

 maybe red, but dark or bright red or rusty brown… Its all about setting a mood I can’t see and only has to be there rarely, because people need it. I know there not pink, that kind of stuff.

P.P.S. The other thing is dancing. When I’m at clubs or parties I’m sure

 

beyond a shadow of a doubt I look more retarded than whiteness can excuse.

P.P.P.S Everyone worried about eye contact, just wear a pair of dark shades.

 

 It might make you look like you think your a douchey  asshole, but I’ve gone out shades on and shades off and the “is he a fucking retard” quotient is way lower with shades on. Dark Shades inside tip people off, especially with a dog.

Eighty year old woman who is not pilot lands plane!

There’s so much bad news every day I wanted to pass along the craziest good bit of news I’ve heard in years.

So this elderly couple was flying home from their summer house, or to their summer house, it doesn’t really matter, when the husband, who was piloting the plane, fell unconscious. The wife, who was in her eighties, called the police and explained the situation.

With her plane running out of gas, a flight instructor was quickly dispatched in his own plane to fly next to her and guide her through landing the plane. After a practice run and then one attempt where she was coming into the runway too fast she successfully landed the plane on her third attempt.

That’s so bad ass! It’d be cool if it was someone in her twenties, but the fact an eighty year old lady whose husband had just lost consciousness kept it together enough to learn how to land a plane within ten minutes, man, its so inspiring. What it will inspire me to do is nothing, but I got this warm glow when I read about it. I can’t believe she didn’t crash! Its like something out of a movie!

Of course the bad part is that her husband died on the way to the hospital, but that happens all the time so we don’t need to get sad about it, we should instead spend time marveling at how sick it was that this woman landed a twin engine plane with five minutes of lessons! This is why I love being alive.

I keep reading about how much the world sucks, and then I hear about something like this and its so cool and touching and all that good shit that I’m I don’t know, glad it happened? Glad she landed the plane, I mean, not that her husband died.

A link to the NewYork Times article is below if you want to read more about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/us/learning-to-be-a-pilot-with-fuel-running-out-in-midair.html

The Hunger Games is Pretty Good

The Hunger Games is pretty good. I know that description is inelegant for a book review, but its been a while since I’ve written a book review and I’m trying to get back into the swing of it.

In case you’ve been living under a rock and have no idea what the Hunger Games is about, the plot introduction follows.

Katniss Everdene, a girl living in a nation formed after ours was destroyed in an unnamed cataclysm watches as her sister is selected to participate in an annual blood sport tournament in which twelve boys and twelve girls are forced to battle to the death and because her sister is twelve and has no chance whatsoever of winning Katniss volunteers to take her place.

The premise is neither new or complicated but Suzanne Collins fidelity to it serves the novel well. The novels biggest strength is its plot, by chapter three Katniss is already on the train to the capital City of Panem, the nation that replaced the United States. Also by chapter three, all of the major characters have been introduced.

There are two love interests, the first is Katniss’s hunting partner who gets little screen time as he is not selected as part of the hunger games, and the second is the boy from her town who is selected, and whom Katniss may have to kill. These love interests benefit from the strong characterization which is found throughout the novel so that even though they are stereotypical bad and good boys respectively they both are three dimensional. It also helps the dark atmosphere of the novel that she’s going to have to try and kill one of them. There is also a drunken mentor who spends his first few appearences wasted and indifferent to whether or not the people he’s mentoring survive.

The novel isn’t exactly a character study as its more focused on story, but Collins does a good job with the first person narrator of Katniss. She’s been raised in the poorest of the twelve districts that make up the nation of Panem and thus is hard bitten and used to violence and struggle, but has managed to hang onto her humanity enough to be horrified at many aspects of her society which allows her to tell the reader what he needs to know, while also freaking out when she sees people die in front of her. This allows her to kill people and remain sympathetic.

The story moves at a fast clip, only slowing down every once in a while for flashbacks to earlier times in Katniss’s childhood which serve to flesh out a few of the characters by showing them in a context which doesn’t involve a bloody battle to the death.

For a book about twenty-four teenagers trying to kill each other, its not as violent as it could be, and the bleakest aspects of the dystopian society Collins has created are handled with discretion so that the book is appropriate for younger teenagers. The glossing over of sex and gratuitous violence is handled perfectly, however, so at no point does it feel like Collins was afraid of the subject matter she decided to write about, she implies with a few details what some authors would spend pages belaboring, and in that one way the censorship imposed upon her by the demographic she’s writing for benefits the novel. OK, that made up for pretty good, right?

The book can be roughly divided into three parts, before the hunger games, which is the name of the blood sport, the hunger games themselves, and the aftermath. The first part works at ramping up the tension so that even though I was pretty sure Katniss lives because there are two more books after the first I was nervous that she might die at any time once the hunger games started, and Collins does a good job of never letting the reader forget that death’s always right around the corner.

The Hunger Games are a reminder to the citizens of Panem that rebellion will not be tolerated, they are supposed to be punishment for an earlier rebellion. They are broadcast on TV like a reality show, and the book satirizes how our reality shows work. Katniss has a stylist who makes her look pretty for pre hunger games interviews, and the members of the capital see nothing wrong with watching people brutally kill each other.

The interviews themselves resemble the fluff pieces on good morning America, and the early part of the novel keeps showing us almost banal preparations for the contest to come. The contrast between getting makeup done and trying to shine on TV as compared to what’s coming is unreal. Because the novel is first person we stick with Katniss all the time she’s being prepped to die, and Collins does a great job of showing the stress that would result from being in such a situation.

Once the hunger games start, there’s a nice implied contrast between how bloody and violent the contest is for those involved in it and the idea that its entertainment for other people is made to be properly discomforting.  Teenagers die left and right and some of the deaths resonate. Given how short the book is, making miner characters vivid enough  that the reader cares about them when they die is a mark in the books favor.

The world building is balanced perfectly with plot. Katniss will mention facts that are important in passing several chapters before we need to know them, but at no time does the book get bogged down in tons of stuff that is irrelevant to the story. When the facts later come into play they’ve been introduced recently enough in the book that you remember them and its always nice to see how careful bits of exposition are important later on.

As more contestants die, Collins shows how awful it would be to have to participate in such a contest and she gets extra points for making the authoritarian and bloodthirsty society of Panem believable, everyone in the capital endorses the Hunger Games and enjoys watching them, but few of these characters strike the reader as evil, instead they are all misguided and ill informed.

Whoever decided this book would make a great movie has a wonderful eye for this type of thing as one of the books strengths is the way in which Collins draws you in through the settings she conjures up. The capital is decetant and foreign and very flash bang science fiction, while all the characters that populate it are believably human. The arena that the games take place in is dangerous and without comfort and the hunger games themselves which take up the largest part of the novel are well written. The battle fatigue and stress and fear that’s inherent in the concept of having to try and shoot someone in the face with a bow and arrow never abate or grow stale or repetitive.

The best illustration of Collins’s skill as a novelist work is that Katniss is a product of her society. While she’s against the Hunger Games, especially once she’s in them, she isn’t one of those unbelievable characters who lives in a dystopia and has an instinctual sense that everything about it is wrong. She reacts to the cruelty inflicted on her and her family, not on the cruelty inflicted upon the society as a hole. As the book continues and Katniss sees people dying all around her for no reason, the stirrings of a political conchisness begin to show themselves, but this evolution is naturalistic, and isn’t ever ham handedly done through pages of preachy monologue.

If you like science fiction or adventure, or books that keep you turning pages, give this a try. You won’t be disappointed.

One final thing. Some people have noted rightly that the Hunger Games is quite similar to a novel called Battle Royale. The only thing both novels share is that they are both about a reality show where kids try and kill each other. Battle Royale, however is a novel consumed with blood, whereas the Hunger Games works so well because it starts days before the first drop of blood is ever spilled and the comparison between the two is like comparing Dracula and Salem’s Lot. Simmilar but by no means the same book.

wysocki it. why the hell not?

www.wysockiit.wordpress.com

the ella wysocki. wysocki it. yes she named her blog after herself. because its a great name.

she’s talented, a bit scattered, and fairly clever. she writes random bits. i skip those. but she comes up with some interesting points of view, definitely quirky sites and has a style all her own (like all Western Massachusettsian girls of Polish origin like to think they do)

in all seriousness, click it, read it and comment. for kicks, for points of view, and definately for a laugh.

best part? she writes like how she talks.

The Ipad. Half Netbook, half phone, half Kindle, mostly useless.

The Ipad’s on the tip of everyone’s tongue these days. Why, I have no idea. Stuck in the awkward position of being a weak laptop, a roided up blackberry, a high functioning kindle, and a bulky telephone, its practical application seems mystifying.
If I want to call someone I’ll use a phone, if I want to go online, I’ll use a laptop, if I want to listen to music I’ll use an Ipod, but what is the use of an Ipad?
in a new York Times article published today, a few possible answers are given. “It’s beyond technology. It’s a culture. It’s a community,” said Rey Gutierrez, a die-hard loyalist with a tattoo of the Apple logo on his left hand, who had waited outside the San Francisco Apple store since 4 a.m.”
OK, so its a cultural statement to buy a computer that fits no nitch. I guess that’s a personal decision. But all the Ipad hysteria seems strange to me. I love the Ipod, the Iphone is nifty, a phone with wonderful applications and enough functionality to serve as a stripped down laptop yet small enough to work as a phone, but the Ipad, with its wish to be all things computer related, is probably going to fail.
Sure, sails are going to spike this month, but I don’t see Apple being able to sustain sails of the device into 2011. Netbooks all the way, in my opinion.
I leave you with this final oddity from the Times article. “We’re totally excited. It’s going to change everything,” Tracy Kahney said while her son, Lyle, 9, fidgeted uncomfortably in the cardboard Ipad costume she had made for him.”
In fact, the Ipad will not change everything. Its going to change everything? I just want to know how someone got themselves into a weird head space. The Ipod changed a lot, so did the Iphone, because now MP3 players and Smartphones are ubiquitus, but the Ipad, is like the retarded child of every portable electronic device that has hit the market in the last five years. Its crack addled, and is going to spend its life first loved, then resented for the hole its burning into its parents pockets, then it’ll die a slow death in fostercare.
This is the times article sited. Its definetly worth a read. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/technology/04ipad.html

Thoughts on Northangar Abbey

   I shall boil six eggs for you. It will be no problem.
   Just read three or four chapters of Northanger Abbey over lunch. Its strange how much social moors inform novels. Things you don’t notice when reading something contemperary will jump out at your grandkids as strange, just as I find it a constant unsettlement to discover that no women in Austen novels work, and that it is, in an Austen Novel, for women to travel wiith men who are not related to them. This disturbs me.
   The chapters I read weren’t particularly good. Three chapters involving Katherine worrying because she blew someone off who she was to take a walk with. What a strange world, where that’s an issue.

a glimpse into the world of Polaski

To tell you something you probably don’t care about, they have a great cheese plate at this cookout. Bree, Chetter, and some weird sharpish smoked cheese. I think I’ll casually eat the entire thing before anyone else gets an opportunity to pick at it. I like cheese.