On Villains and Villainy

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” – Gerald Seymour in Harry’s Game

When I first heard the Joker movie with Jaoquin Phoenix was being made, I admit I was disturbed in the slightest. Critics of pop culture have long criticized what has seemed like a gradual and unnecessary decent into what seems like an anything-goes mentality for entertainment’s sake. The inundation of sex, drugs, and violence in pop culture appears to be on one hand merely for the sake of titillation yet on the other hand a reflection of the Western world’s dark underbelly it seems the average citizen doesn’t want to concede exists nor accept their explicit or implicit role in.* It is, however, the glorification of the villain that has troubled me the most when it comes to pop culture. I can name countless movies, not to mention countless musical artists, whose villains and villainy outshine their protagonists.

[Perhaps the same can be said for the world at large.]

To be clear, I prefer my villains to be complicated, for their motivations to be more than evil simply because that’s who the villain cannot help being. Certainly, the new Joker movie is a reflective character analysis in this regard. Even the long string of Marvel movies were part of a story arc that centered around stopping a ‘mad’ Titan, Thanos, from wiping out half the life in the universe. His murderous methods aside – which we assume are wrong – it’s difficult to say what’s wrong with Thanos’ motivations for those of you who are aware of them. I think it’s fair to want interesting villains – the world is not black-and-white after all – but we’ve reached the point where in America’s culture at least, we’re literally rooting for the bad guy.

Case in point; at last night’s WWE’s Hell In A Cell Pay-per-View (I apologize for still keeping tabs on professional wrestling at my age), a character called The Fiend did not win the championship match and fans in the audience were audibly upset. This Fiend character is very popular among the internet wrestling community to the point that fans would rather see him crowned champion than have a face (good guy) retain the gold. I agree that the character is interesting and that the heel (bad guy) needs to win on occasion to maintain the delicate and eternal dance between good and evil alive for the sake of storytelling, but for a crowd to nearly riot when the heel doesn’t win indicates something is possibly wrong with either the Western psyche, the current rules of society, or perhaps a matter of definitions. (It is possibly all of these.) I can point to actual current events to make my case.

The election of Donald Trump to President of the United States in 2016 couldn’t make my point clearer, being of the opinion that Donald Trump is clearly a villain. Why; what has he done that is so wrong? I could name a number of things and not be nearly exhaustive: Asking foreign powers to interfere in U.S. elections, accepting the word of despots over his own intelligence community, cavorting with said same despots, backing out of treaties with traditional allies and treating them with contempt, rolling back environmental and civil protections, coddling white supremists and stoking xenophobia, ignoring the U.S. Constitution (this is perhaps because he’s clearly never read it), embezzling from his charities, doing nothing about gun violence, and generally acting like a third-grade schoolyard bully. While I understand the frustration of many modern American voters with the federal government, I was aghast to find out a large swath of the U.S. thought Donald Trump was the answer. In my opinion, I can’t say Donald Trump has never done any good as U.S. president – even a broken clock is right twice a day by accident – but does the good outweigh the bad? No, because all things considered, the person in question wouldn’t be a villain. Inevitably, then, we’re forced to think about what exactly makes someone a villain.

What is a villain? The definition of ‘villain’ is broad throughout various dictionaries, meaning anything from the antithesis of the protagonist in fiction to generally someone doing harm to others in reality. In either case, a villain is typically breaking the law. They are considered dangerous or have behaved heinously towards any given person or group of people. A villain is often considered immoral, and therein lies a problem.

To some people, Donald Trump is a hero, a freedom fighter even. He is a protagonist to all those who feel they’ve been ignored, stepped on, or otherwise aggrieved by the federal government. The current president of the U.S. doesn’t play by the established laws, traditions, or unwritten social contract. This makes him a terrorist to some (in that word’s broadest sense) and a hero to others who feel that the current laws, traditions, and unwritten social contract need to be revised or reset to reflect some unspecified glory somewhere in America’s history. (Possible interpretation: When they felt more entitled.) So if a villain can also be a hero, there must either be something wrong with our definition or perhaps there is no such thing as a villain, objectively speaking.

It’s easy to contend there is something wrong with the definition. Scores of English words are too broad in their definition to be of much use or are outright confusing; ask anyone studying the English language. I contend that in modern U.S. culture, the definition of ‘villain’ is so ambiguous as to be vague to the point that many people would not know when they are behaving as a villain. (I’m not sure which is worse, a villain who knows they’re a villain or one who doesn’t know they’re a villain.) It also seems wrong to label anyone who offends us or that we simply don’t like as a villain, but that does seem to be the manner in which many Americans now operate.

Do villains exist, objectively speaking? Not if all cultures are relative, something we have to assume if not all cultures can agree that murder is wrong. (There’s always a caveat.) Villains can exist within a given culture, certainly, as there is no doubt that people have existed that have flouted the laws of a society they are seemingly a part of. Again, though, this allows a villain to be a hero to society’s downtrodden or any one outside of a society that would like to see that society fail. So it’s hard to say villains actually exist anymore than we can now say heroes exist. Now we can see that heroes merely prop up the rules of society, and this would make them villains in someone’s eyes somewhere.

My original feelings towards the Joker movie have to be misgiven. After all, what does his nemesis Batman do but prop up the rules in Gotham City? Imagine Batman having grown up in 1930’s Germany; what would he have been but a Nazi superhero come WWII? Thank goodness he’s not, but Batman must be seen as a villain by some law enforcement agencies; there are procedures for catching and detaining criminals and subsequently putting them on trial. When this sense of fairness is broken can we agree this is something villainous? In the Joker movie, the central figure that is Arthur Fleck is driven insane by a thousand unfair psychological cuts, so can we blame him for the anarchy that ensues?  Can we blame a mass shooter who goes on a rampage because they think they’ve been treated unfairly?

Hopefully you are saying ‘yes’ because you agree that murdering innocent people, people who have not directly affected the shooter, are being murdered and we have to agree this is wrong no matter what society we belong to. Breaking two fairness rules – making two wrongs – does not result in a right, correct? Unfortunately, any given mass shooter or lawbreaker will have sympathizers. (To say nothing of laws that should be broken either because they are apparently unethical or quite ridiculous.) It would make more sense for a mass shooter to only kill the people that have affected them assuming the punishment fits the crime against them and we’ve never seen that.

If we invoke this rule of fairness which we, Western culture, seem to have forgotten as of late it might be easier to gauge who the villains are when the doctrine of fairness is broken. Given the current impeachment inquiry regarding Donald Trump, his proponents can argue for an investigation into the Bidens ad nauseum, and I’d be okay with that, but so should there just as well be an investigation into Trump as well. The fact that Donald trump obstructs justice in a manner that most of us cannot violates the fairness doctrine. I think it therefore reasonable to construe him as a villain. Then again, his proponents see this ‘unfair’ characterization as exactly what’s wrong with current American culture (despite these same people not wanting to do anything about solving the problem of mass shootings, which I view as villainous). I can’t imagine asking a Donald Trump supporter what they think made Obama such a villain because it seems like their definition is going to wind up being arbitrary. In fairness, though, I am willing to hear them out. Villains on the other hand hear no one out and simply assume they are entirely in the right.

How to Defeat Trump

It’s looking more and more like Donald Trump is going to win the next U.S. presidential election. Why? Mainly because the economy is doing well and that issue is the biggest issue of all. People are content as long as they are able to buy stuff. It doesn’t matter if income disparity is growing at an ever increasing rate or if tax cuts for the rich burden the middle class as long as people have enough money to buy stuff. After all, being an American means being a consumer, so the economy has to do well enough for people to at least have a job. (Or at least a better job than the ones they’re not willing to do which these same people accuse illegal immigrants of taking away. SMH.) If the economy is okay, the sitting president gets elected. That’s all there is to it.

Trump has added benefits, too, as far as his base is concerned. He appeals to evangelicals (despite every evidence to the contrary of being one himself) and white supremacists who still don’t know that white people didn’t invent agriculture, mathematics, clocks, or even the gunpowder and bombs they love so much. Jesus, not even their religion – Christianity – was invented by white people.

That being said, it looks like it’s going to be hard for Trump to lose to any one of the Democratic contenders, especially when all of the contenders’ platforms revolve around immigration. While the situation at the southern U.S. border is terrible, no amount of suffering by illegal immigrants is going to override the economy’s health. (Making any social issue the focus of their campaign is going to get the Democratic nominee defeated.) So not only do the Democrats need to shift their focus away from immigration – sorry, I know it’s really tough –  they need to target the only demographic Trump may not be able to secure: Independent voters. And the only way to sway those independent voters who may have voted for Trump in the previous election is to make Trump look like an ass in debates. Trump already always looks like an ass when he goes off-script but realize that most of the time he’s under control due to the pandering of sycophants such as when he’s talking with Fox News (which is always). While many of us already know Trump’s incapable of making logical rash decisions and sound judgments, this needs to be witnessed on a national stage by the casual independent voter. Independent voters need to be able to say to themselves, “Wow, this guy’s a maniac. And not in a good way.” Get Trump going off-script in debates and the Democratic contender will at least stand a chance.

Democrats, heed my following points well. You risk ignoring me at the country’s peril. The stakes are too high to lose again. Bite the bullet, take the low road for once, and do what needs to be done. Defeat Trump in the debates by following the suggestions I’ve laid out before you:

·        1-The one rule to rule them all (do it immediately and do not let up): Get under Trump’s skin – challenge his vanity, for example, by alleging that Trump wouldn’t have won the election without Russia’s help. Bring up Russian interference and all the people around him that have faced criminal charges. (So much for appointing the ‘best people’ who either leave because they were incompetent or have faced criminal charges. Heck, go so far as to imply Trump has partied with underage teenagers with Jeffery Epstein. The Trump administration can’t vet anyone properly, it seems. Of course, Trump never needs to because he is a great judge of character.) Bring up Russia and the Mueller Report a lot. Point out that Hillary won the popular election. Trump hates that. It doesn’t even matter if what you say about him is true – we live in a post-fact world anyway – say his golf swing sucks. The thing is, once Trump gets flustered, he wings it, and we all know how well that turns out.

·       2-In case you didn’t just hear me, keep bringing up Russia and how Putin is an enemy, not a friend. Ask Trump about election security since he has no plan whatsoever.

·       3-Oh, I forgot to mention that it’s really important that Trump faces a woman for the presidency. Trump has been very successful at challenging every man’s but Putin’s masculinity, so if the Democrats put up Biden or, God forbid, Bernie the Dems will need to get nasty and talk about what Stormy Daniels said about his genitalia. I know that’s wishful thinking but it’s the only defense. Again, it would fluster Trump. He’ll already be annoyed to be facing a woman.

·       4-Bring up all the times Trump has ignored the Constitution – challenge Trump’s knowledge on the Constitution since he has none.

·       5-Trump’s foreign policy has been a disaster and we all know why he wants desperately to be friends with Russia, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia – hotels. Make it known that the Democratic contender will rebuild confidence with our traditional allies and fight terrorism against journalists with sanctions. Accuse Trump of being played for a fool by North Korea.

·       6-The Trump administration’s environmental record is another (literal) disaster to harp on. A central issue of the Democratic nominee’s platform should be combatting climate change and cleaning up the environment. Bring facts about how environmental disaster is impacting areas Trump voters live in. This will have Trump frothing at the mouth about global warming being a hoax. Ask him which oil company told him that.

·       7-Ask Trump where his health care plan is after saying the GOP would become the party of healthcare. Healthcare should be another central issue for the Democratic nominee. And sorry, the Democratic nominee will need to back off of saying free healthcare for illegal immigrants. That annoys even me and I’m pretty liberal on most social issues. If you’re not going to take care of Americans first, you’ll lose the election in a landslide.

·       8-If Trump says he’s doing well and the economy proves it, bring up the tariffs and the farmer bailouts. This is how you’re going to combat accusations of socialism, which Trump is going to do often. Ask Trump if he even knows what socialism is. For that matter, ask him if he knows what fascism is and how it relates to how private companies like Twitter and Facebook do their business. He won’t know how to answer. Watch him talk out of his ass.

·       9-Take Trump to task for all his vacations at taxpayer expense, which Trump accused Obama of doing. Ask Trump why it is okay for him and why it wasn’t for Obama. Point out his never ending hypocrisy; if Obama was such an ineffectual president why has Trump spent so much time rolling back so many of Obama’s implemented policies?

·       10-Like Trump’s associates who face criminal charges, accuse Trump of pandering to ‘good people’ like racist white supremacists and fringe evangelicals who are curbing women’s rights. Attack Trump for attacking the four congresswomen who are supposed to ‘go back where they came from’ even though three of the four were born Americans. Bring up Trump’s racism which has now been fully realized. When Trump mention immigrants, outline the horrible things Trump’s base is doing. Statistically, you’re more likely to be shot by a white male than an immigrant and everyone knows it.

·       11-Bring up Trump’s nepotism and how he overruled the FBI to give his family members clearances. Ask him what makes his family more qualified for certain positions rather than people with actual qualifications.

·       12-Accuse Fox News of being state run TV and all their instances of fake news. Bring up Trump attacking journalists just because they’re not kind to him. Call Trump a snowflake who is so easily offended that he shouldn’t be running the country.

·       13-If for some reason Trump should talk about the Democratic nominee’s personal relationships, they’ll need to get nasty and talk about Donald’s affairs and how the women he sleeps with aren’t exactly the brightest. Sucks to have to insult the First Lady, but remember that she’s an immigrant and us Americans don’t like immigrants.

·       14-Bring up his taxes and investigations. Ask him what he’s hiding; if he’s not guilty of any wrongdoing, he should release his taxes.

·       15-Address his tax cut for the rich and the future consequences. For once, do some fearmongering. Except it’s not fearmongering. As always, it’s going to come down on the middle class and they make up the majority of voters.

·       You may have to go way off topic to point these things out and Trump might even recognize you’re off topic (doubt it) but it’s the same as trying to get Trump to stay on topic. The chances of Trump staying on topic are about the same as him staying on top of the same woman.

It’s going to be a longshot for the Democrats to pull off a presidential victory in the next election unless they get ballsy. You can’t fight insanity with sanity. You will lose every time. Are your principles really worth four more years of a complete shit-show? Please, Democrats, please grow a spine just this once. Asking for more than one-half of the United States.

On Not Having Children

A friend of mine recently complained, again, about someone remarking on her and her husband’s decision not to have children. It wasn’t a kind remark which makes me wonder what business is it of anyone’s what people do with their lives. Oh, that’s right, Nietzsche’s Will to Power. And that’s just one of the reasons my wife and I have similarly decided not to have children.

People don’t ask me if I have children very often; it’s almost as if they know better. When people do ask if I have children and I say ‘no’ it seems I’m let off the hook because I’m a man. Judging by how often they talk about it, though, women are under much more pressure to have children as if it were some sacred duty. With the planet’s population approaching nine billion, I call bullshit. There are many reasons not to have children, the least of being overpopulation, which I’ll address shortly. Here are some other reasons why I don’t think it’s a good idea to have children:

-       1-I refuse to bring children into a world that is in the midst of social and political upheaval. True, this has always been the case historically. But it will continue to be true. Authoritative regimes are on the rise around the world. Even in the U.S. the evangelical right continues to labor to turn women back into property. Why would I risk bringing a daughter into a world where too many men don’t understand that raping a woman or a little girl is immoral on every account? Why would I risk a child’s safety in a world where they can be assaulted just for being different from their peers? It must be a nightmare to care for a child’s safety in today’s world.

-        2-I refuse to bring a child into an increasingly poisonous environment. Countries like China and Indonesia think almost nothing of trashing their environment. In the U.S. the GOP is practically going out of their way to destroy the environment. The oceans are full of plastic waste. And no one is doing anything about climate change. It’s practically child abuse to make a newborn face the future environment now.

-        3-Back to overpopulation. Frankly, children annoy me, as does anyone under the age of 18. There are too many people everywhere as it is and we don’t value life as much as we should because of it. The world population is approaching nine billion – I don’t think there’s any danger in humans going extinct. Unfortunately. There are too many people and it shows both in overcrowding and pollution. There’s practically nowhere you can go anymore to enjoy by yourself or not find trash there. Well, unless you’re rich, of course.

-        4-On a more personal note, I have things I want to do; I enjoy my free time. When people say this is selfish they’re saying I have an obligation to have children. Says who, society? The dictates of society are for the weak and the easily controlled. And wanting kids is just as selfish, so why is the kettle calling the pot black?

-        5-Children are blackholes of money. I already work hard enough for myself and my wife for us to enjoy what we have. I don’t want to work endless hours a week because my kids have to be fed, have to have health care, and get a decent education. I want to be able to go on vacation without it being a hassle or to be more kind, without it being a challenge.

-        6-Oh, but it’s different when it’s your child, Breeders argue. So, what, I got my genes into the next generation? Big whoop. There’s no evidence that my genes/my child will be any better than I am. Oh, but I can give them a better life than I had? No, I can’t, because the rest of you are fucking the place up. And I would expect my child to grow up working as hard as I have. I would have no intentions of coddling my child and giving them everything they ever wanted because they wouldn’t stop misbehaving or crying. (Oh, but we can’t spank anymore because liberals.) Any fool without contraception can have a child. I’m content to leave it to the people who really want them and not say anything if those people will leave us non-breeders alone.

-        7-Breeders seem to value the idea that having a child forces you to love someone unconditionally. I don’t believe in unconditional love; it’s a ridiculous concept. If my wife and I had the next Hitler, I’d try to kill the child myself. Isn’t a love for humanity more important than anyone’s desire for their own crying sack of projected neuroses? If you think there’s nothing your child could do to make you surrender your love for them, I’d say your potential to be a danger to the human race is high.

-        8-Pregnancy usually changes a mother’s body for the worse. It doesn’t have to, of course, but 99% of women who get pregnant never get their old body back which for us men was probably one of the top reasons we wanted to have sex with our partners in the first place. I like my wife’s body the way it is. So does she. (Though of course we both have to face aging. But why screw things up ahead of schedule?)

In my opinion, most people aren’t sound enough on any number of accounts to be having children. There should be some kind of a test or license to have babies, but, oh, we can’t say that because that would be fascist. We’re just not allowed to say who should or should not have children even though it’s clear many people are unqualified or aren’t in a position to care properly for them. But what do I know? I don’t have children. And that’s how I sleep at night.

The Anti-Intellectual Vote

On November 8, 2016, Republican nominee Donald Trump was elected President of the United States. On November 8, 2016, the prophecy of Mike Judge’s 2006’s movie Idiocracy was fulfilled.

Many explanations have been offered to explain the election of a man who – if not actually any of the following things himself – ran a campaign that was racist, xenophobic and misogynistic, and whose vice presidential pick certainly is homophobic. And, both the president- and vice president-elect are climate change deniers. Nearly half of the people voting in the presidential election lapped up the rhetoric like dogs unafraid to eat their own feces.

Why did they eat it up? Why do voters, who by now should be incredibly used to political candidates who don’t fulfil their promises, fall for a candidate who pretends to be anti-establishment while at the same time has benefitted so much from it? Among other things, why would so many voters who are angry about taxes pick a candidate who gamed the system so that he didn’t have to pay taxes himself, that intends to cut taxes for the wealthy and continue to place the tax burden on the middle class? While I can certainly understand a voter’s dislike for Hillary Rodham Clinton given her history of politically and personally questionable judgements, RCH at least offered four more years of the status quo. While not the ideal situation, at least with HRC as president, no one could whine about their guns being taken away or the Second Amendment being repealed and be taken seriously. Why did so many people vote for Donald Trump, an unknown factor, instead of the status quo? Was the status quo really that terrible? Apparently it was…to stupid people.

Donald Trump’s campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again.” Besides never explaining when the U.S. was ever really that great for anyone who wasn’t or isn’t white (much less acknowledging that an American could mean anyone from North- or South America), Trump never vowed to make the U.S. number one in, say, math or science. How can the U.S. be great again if not in education and the resulting benefits? By rehabilitating U.S. manufacturing jobs? Ah, yes, there it is, by making stuff; low-skilled workers making stuff for as long as it is economically in the best interest of a business to do so, at least until robots take over those manufacturing jobs.* Oh, and also by getting unemployed coal workers mining and oil companies drilling again who will aid in flooding the atmosphere with fossil fuel waste because really, air quality is a small price to pay for people not interested in retraining for new jobs, even if it were free. Who refuses free training? Mostly older people who are stubborn and were never good in school, who instead of wanting to make America great again want themselves to be great again at their old job so they can buy a larger screen television from a foreign country.

[*Unsurprisingly, many of the jobs Trump ‘saved’ from going to Mexico at the Indiana-based company Carrier shortly after the election are going to be lost to automation anyway, according to the company itself.]

‘Mericans, as I like to call U.S. citizens, are generally not the most intellectual group. I submit as evidence the fact that the average Trump supporter (who is not the same as a highly paid business person who is a Trump supporter, which would stand to figure) subscribes to conspiracy theories and parrots everything Fox News and Breibart.com say – ‘news’ organizations that are not shy about their conservative skew – while telling you any other news organization that doesn’t validate conspiratorial beliefs is ‘fake news.’ Such people are incapable of analyzing their own biases. The fact that Trump supporters are largely uneducated was confirmed by Pewreasearch.org after the election, who wrote, “Trump’s margin among whites without a college degree is the largest among any candidate in exit polls since 1980. Two-thirds (67%) of non-college whites backed Trump, compared with just 28% who supported Clinton.” Articles in the journals Reasoning & Thinking and Applied Cognitive Psychology of studies done on intelligence and the conspiracy theorist mindset suggest a direct correlation between a lack of education and a vulnerability to the very wayward thinking modern Republicanism espouses. Summed up by Tania Bombrozo, “Among other things, studies find that people are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they feel alienated, powerless and disadvantaged, and if they are distrustful of others. Conspiratorial thinking is also associated with narcissism, rejection of climate science, and an individual's own willingness to participate in conspiracies. Additionally, a variety of demographic factors have been found to predict conspiratorial thinking, including low levels of education.” (Emphasis added.) It is also certainly a uniquely common human trait for people to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions, which also helps explain the denial of the human contribution to climate change and an aversion science in general. As either a cause or a symptom, the U.S. currently ranks 27^th in math and 20^th in science among developed nations, so I suppose no one should be too surprised Trump won. Being 27^th in math, one wonders if ‘Mericans can even count that high.

Clearly ‘Mericans cannot do math as Trump supporters fail to understand taxes and Trump’s proposed wall between Mexico and the U.S. for example. During his campaign, Trump vowed to build a wall between Mexico and the U.S. and make Mexico pay for it to boot, seeing how Mexico is ‘not sending their best.’* There is no doubt that Mexico is not going to pay for a wall between the two countries, so one is compelled to wonder where that money is going to come from. By Trump’s own estimate, he said that the wall would cost anywhere from $8-to$12 billion to construct and have Mexico at least help defer the cost by strong-arming them into paying $5 billion a year in order to help keep the estimated $24 billion going to Mexico from the U.S., remittance from supposed illegal aliens sending money back ‘home.’ So where else is the money going to come from? There’s no choice but to have it come from taxpayers. And who pays the lion’s share of taxes in ‘Merica? The middle class. So for any middle class person who voted for Trump to complain about what their taxes pay for (or would pay for), well, they shouldn’t – at all. Of course, in the ensuing analysis after Trump said this about a wall, Trump has proposed using money saved from enforcing the border – which means spending more tax money on enforcement – and/or by using money saved by not giving benefits to immigrants who are in ‘Merica illegally – which again comes out of taxpayer money. The president-elect has even proposed using assets seized from drug cartels to pay for a wall but there is no clear numbers in this regard and there is no indication that there’s enough money along that avenue to pay for such a build. In all likelihood, if a wall is built, it will surely not be a concrete structure such as Trump has proposed but something much more cheap, perhaps made in China, but most ‘Mericans are used to being cheap. In the end, though, Trump’s supporters don’t care about a wall actually being built; they just like that he proposed it. So goes the thinking of minds attuned to reality television, people who know what they’re watching isn’t real but want to see people come into conflict nonetheless.

[‘…not sending their best’? Meanwhile, the forthcoming First Lady is an immigrant so lazy she has to have Trump’s daughter assume several traditionally First Lady duties and plagiarized a Michelle Obama speech at the Republican National Convention. But, hey, at least she’s white.]

Speaking of China, the uneducated white middle class that elected Trump think their man can do no wrong in provoking a possible trade war with a country holding over a trillion dollars of U.S. debt. (China used to hold the most U.S. debt but now that country is Japan, whom Trump will nuclear bomb before they can ever call in their markers.) As everyone knows, or should know, the trade relation between China and the ‘Merica has been a love-hate affair. Damn those Chinese for making cheap crap but GOD do’ Mericans buy up that cheap crap (to include all those Trump “Make America Great Again” hats, not to mention his ties, suits, etc.*). Despite having wrote in 2005 that outsourcing overseas is not always a bad thing, Trump ran a campaign on promises to bring jobs ‘back to ‘Merica by imposing heavy tariffs on imported good. Of course, those tariffs will probably not apply to Trump’s goods manufactured overseas, but I digress. Imagine if you will the price of goods made in ‘Merica for ‘Mericans. Even if the costs didn’t skyrocket – which would be shocking since most of ‘Mericans beloved items like cars and smartphones require materials from outside the U.S. – ‘Merica would never be able to see their goods sold overseas because of tit-for-tat tariffs. Why would another country want to buy ‘Merican goods anyway? While China and Mexico are derided for making cheap goods, ‘Merica isn’t known for manufacturing the most reliable stuff. Sure, the U.S. does make good motorcycles (Harley Davidson), fun movies (thanks liberal Hollywood!), craft beer (thanks blue states!) and weapons (that figures), China surpassed U.S. manufacturing output back in 2010 and shows no signs of slowing down. For the U.S. to turn that around, ‘Mericans would need to make higher end crap that everyone wants which just might take better education, something Republicans surely do not want, at least not before a good dose of mindless theism is injected into the educational system.

(*For an incomplete and not even detailed list of all Trump’s products made overseas and not in the U.S, click here.)

Understanding of the U.S. Constitution was also one of the casualties of the largely Republican war on education. In order to protect their guns from being taken away no matter how many mass shootings occur and by whom (usually white people), gun lobbyists often call for a literal interpretation of the U.S. Constitution while never minded that most gun owners are not part of a well-regulated militia. Nevermind that President Obama never took anyone’s beloved guns away – he actually eased some key gun legislation, but whatever – Trump ideologues are quick to invoke the Second Amendment anytime someone proposes new gun legislation. (I, for one, don’t think it would help end mass shootings, but that’s beside the point here.) However, the same people are not so quick to invoke the Constitution when it comes to Trump and his overseas holdings, which the Constitution clearly states in Article I, Section 9 he cannot have if he’s to be president. Many Trump supporters would also like to see Christianity established as the official religion of the U.S., much to the chagrin of the very first amendment. Maybe Trump can start to make ‘Merica great again but having people understand the documents the country is founded upon.

One has to wonder who the people voting for Trump are who intend to make America great again, but do not intend to make America great again like it was during WWII when it helped defeat a hellbent, racist dictator. (History, another casualty in ‘Merican edumacation.) Trump’s vast numbers of white supporters are hellbent themselves to stand in the street or in a subway car to turn red in the face as they berate a minority. They refuse to understand the basis for the Black Lives Matters movement and decry it, but want to receive special attention themselves through the acknowledgement of, say, a Christian ruling class. One has to wonder who these people are that claim not to be racist, but remain silent on Trump’s KKK support while simultaneously demanding that Muslims be more outspoken against Islamic terrorism. One has to wonder who the people are that defend misogynistic talk as the locker room bantering of an immature 55 year old who has miraculously ‘matured’ over the past 15 years. Bill Clinton may have abused his power in having an affair with Monica Lewinski, but even ol’ horndog Bill was never so crass. One has to wonder who these Trump supporters are that bemoaned Obama’s lack of political experience who now suddenly cite a lack of experience as what they like about their candidate who appoints a brain surgeon to serve as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. One has to wonder who these voters were that saw Russia as an enemy before Trump rose to prominence but who have been heaping praise upon Putin ever since Trump’s victory. Who are these people that think so lazily they think they’re going to make ‘Merica great again?

To be fair, Trump supporters are not the only ones who are negligent when it comes to critical thinking; the Regressive Left is just as bad. Their constant and vehement anti-white rhetoric resulted in a backlash they didn’t see coming because of their own failure to consider consequences. With these two sides coming together within the boundaries of a single country, is it any wonder ‘Merica is so dysfunctional? No, no one who remotely thinks is surprised by the election of a business man by the grace of the lower classes he cares nothing about and has benefitted from stepping on. A thinker may be angry that this is the case, but it’s still the reality of the situation. And the reality of the situation is that the new administration will be coming for the thinkers first. Oh, wait, they already have; climate change denier Trump requested the names of 74 climate scientists from the energy Department and for the time being has been rebuked. ‘Merica should have expected nothing less in a country where education isn’t a priority, that heaps rewards upon people for their ability to manipulate or delude others, upon celebrities who have little or no talent, or on athletes for playing a game.

As usual, things will get worse before they get better, though really ‘Merica will have to wait and see what happens after Trump is sworn in. An intellectual can say that and mean it and be forgiven for hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Naturally, that’s not what happened before Obama was sworn in. It’s still not what’s happening even as Obama prepares to leave office; the President’s detractors would still see him lynched and his wife back in Africa living with apes. And that’s what is to be expected from small minds – horrible consequences – not a great country.

Sanders, Trump, and the Cult of Victimization

The year is 2016.

When people act like cavemen, in ‘unevolved’ sorts of ways, it is inevitable that someone is always there to ask “What year are we living in?” meaning, there is something allegedly shocking to a person of reason about how slowly large groups of people evolve socially over time. As Donald Trump grows closer to securing the Republican nomination, he continues to indirectly but not so subtly pander to the racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters who are not above rising to violence who happen to think Trump’s presidency will ‘change things.’ The question is, what is it Trump supporters hope to change? It’s not like a whole lot of racist, misogynistic (largely) uneducated white voters haven’t benefited from the status quo for, well, pretty much all of American history.

And that’s just it; for Trump supporters, what they are hoping to change is the direction in

which the country is changing. Trump’s overwhelmingly white supporters see the writing on the wall; for example, they’re currently under attack spiritually as the number of diverse religions grow within U.S. borders. Heaven forbid a Christian from Bala’ama be forced to share the street with a non-Christian! (For the sake of brevity, now replace ‘Christian’ and ‘non-Christian’ with ‘white folk’ and ‘people of color,’ ‘men’ and ‘women,’ ‘the uncultured and illiterate’ and ‘a gay from New York,’ etc.) Of course, least we forget that the Mexicans are stealing jobs Americans don’t want to do. Somehow, Trump supporters feel victimized by the growing number of people who don’t think conservative white men should be allowed to keep victimizing people the way they have for over 200 years now. Oddly, if there is anything Trump supporters should be fighting, it’s the narrative of victimization that seems to be the driving force in the lives of U.S. citizens these days.

The middling success of Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign is indicative of this narrative. People of Color, gays, Millennials, left-of-left leaning liberals and people who don’t want another Clinton in the White House are flocking to a socialist who sounds like a Sweathog from Welcome Back Kotter. While blacks more than any other group of minorities have suffered from institutionalized racism (Native American aren’t around much to persecute anymore), it is hard to see why they think a frazzle-haired Jewish president would suddenly make them equal in the eyes of conservative white men, seeing how Obama’s presidency hasn’t helped much. Really, though, blacks and gays are the only groups of people who have truly been victimized throughout U.S. history, though it is arguable the LGBT community has had a great deal more success in being accepted. Meanwhile, Millennials and left-of-left leaning liberals feel victimized by being born into a culture that is largely a meritocracy. People who don’t want another Clinton in the White House feel victimized by the lack of Whole Foods supermarkets in their neighborhood (that are owned by a Republican by-the-way).

What both sides have in common is that they feel victimized by the status quo. The difference is slight at best; Trump supporters want to stop the status quo from ceasing to be the status quo while Sanders supporters think the status quo can’t change fast enough. In the meantime, both groups of supporters (read: fanatics) are being forced to live in a world that is utterly horrible, one that doesn’t kowtow to their respective beliefs. This is, however, merely indicative of a larger problem insofar as it has become every American’s prerogative to perceive any transgression – no matter how slight – into being victimized. Politically, both sets of supporters want to sell everyone on the idea that their candidate is for freedom when in fact both candidates are diametrically opposed to freedom – one is out to curtail freedoms for certain people while the other is out to curtail the freedom of certain ideas. The U.S.’s currently culture of victimization is born directly out of having too much freedom: The fact is that in almost no other country do the citizens have so much freedom to protest that their freedoms are under attack. Keep in mind that this is despite the media in the U.S. almost entirely being under the control of a mere five corporations.

Moderate independent, liberal and conservative voters alike have long mocked the ‘special snowflake’ narrative of left-of-left liberals and Millennials when it appears all groups suffer from this delusion that they are special and deserve special or preferential treatment. Chances are, unless you’re an overweight, militant, gay Native African-American who wears glasses, you haven’t been victimized by anything other than your own ego. While both Trump and Sanders supporters would like to get rid of a culture that is a meritocracy (in theory, anyway) it is perhaps best if we actually employed a culture of meritocracy. Special or preferential treatment should be earned regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation or nepotism. I say this because employing a true meritocracy is the best way to ensure everyone is treated fairly and no one can be victimized except by themselves.

Trump and Sanders supporters will never admit they have anything in common which only further demonstrates their inability to recognize their own humanness and the flaws that accompany it. Both groups think their candidate can fix what ails the country, but it is highly unlikely that more poison is the cure. Common ground is the cure, not a sharp divide.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson and the GMO Debate

After seeing the alarmist yet withering documentary GMO OMG a few weeks ago and astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s remarks on GMO’s last week, I am compelled to write on a topic I admit I have not done enough research into until now. Initially I did not feel as though I did not need to do much research for my particular concerns about GMO’s since my beef with BigAg is focused more on the consequences of consuming GMO’s while many of those opposed to GMO’s oppose them on other grounds, such as the patenting of life forms and the business practices of BigAg. 

I want to address Tyson’s defense of GMO’s and how miserably it fails. In Tyson’s own words in which he lambastes the anti-GMO brigade, he says, “If your objection to GMOs is the morality of selling nonprerennial [sic] seed stocks, then focus on that. If your objection to GMOs is the monopolistic conduct of agribusiness, then focus on that. But to paint the entire

I beg your forgiveness!

concept of GMO with these particular issues is to blind yourself to the underlying truth of what humans have been doing—and will continue to do—to nature so that it best serves our survival. That's what all organisms do when they can, or would do, if they could. Those that didn't, have gone extinct extinct [sic].” Tyson’s defense of GMO’s seems ignore key issues and rests on the premise that we have a long history of manipulating plant and animal DNA in our favor. He’s correct until the point in history that we started splicing in segment of DNA from one plant or animal into another plant or animal; essentially crossbreeding organisms that we couldn’t possibly crossbreed before the advent of gene manipulation. In other words, there was a point in which agricultural science went beyond what were already possibilities in the natural world.

I have to grant that this alone does not make GMO’s dangerous to eat (they may be dangerous to eat, but not necessarily on this particular account). The problem comes in when it becomes obvious that the long term effects of gene manipulation on the eco-system go unstudied before the technology is implemented. (Granted, this happens all the time, with mixed results at best.) There are no studies – at least not that I can find – that go beyond three months in length that focus solely on the consumption of the GMO product itself (very important to note that) that indicates the GMO product is harmful to humans. Although, many of the three month studies I could find were conducted by the business creating the GMO product. Shades of Big Tobacco, no? However, when studies – even ones as short as three months in duration – focus on the chemicals used to fertilize GMO crops and control pests (insects and weeds), the results are clear; the GMO product is contaminated with these chemicals and they show up in the bloodstream of people who consume GMO crops. As alluded to a few moments ago, we now all know how the effects of the chemicals used in Big Tobacco products ultimately turned out. The presence of the toxins associated with growing GMO’s is my main reason for trying to avoid such crops. Not only are the chemicals toxic to humans, runoff of the chemicals into the eco-system at large appears to have dire consequences, such as the number of ‘dead-zones’ appearing in our oceans. [As reported on the major news outlets this morning, the dead-zone in the Gulf of Mexico,”…is formed by nutrients that wash into the Gulf's waters; largely agriculture fertilizer and wastewater coming down the Mississippi River. These boost algae blooms that suck up the oxygen in deep water, according to NOAA and the U.S. Geological Survey. Marine life struggles to find enough oxygen to survive within the zone. Fish and shrimp can migrate to areas with oxygen-rich water, but some life forms in the deep water and ocean floor, including those that serve as food for the fish and shrimp, can't get out of the zone and eventually die.” The article doesn’t point out what’s in the fertilizer and wastewater, but we can make an educated guess. My guess is that the chemicals entering the oceans are probably not good for our long term health. But, that’s just a hypothesis at this point.] 

My second reason for trying to avoid GMO’s goes back to the point I got away from at the start of my previous paragraph, namely, that we don’t know the long-term effects of GMO’s on our health or the eco-system and I’m rather stunned that a prominent scientist such as Tyson completely ignores this point. After all, I just pointed out one of the short-term problems on human health and the eco-system, but what happens if we ignore these short-term problems well into the future? Again, the implementation of science will always be advanced before being morally analyzed (think nuclear energy, surveillance technology, etc.), though I suppose that those of us with lesser influence should expect nothing less from those who operate according to a different morality altogether. But I digress; what are the long-term consequences of, say, engineering salmon to grow faster and larger? (Well, of course they’re under tight security, except when one escapes into the wild.) Or, what are the consequences of weeds quickly adapting and becoming resistant to Monsanto’s Round-Up herbicide? Or, what happens when a GMO doesn’t operate according to plan? No one knows. Few seem to care though in my world a scientist would. #NeilDeGrasseTysonFail

When we focus on the scientific issues surrounding GMO’s and ignore momentarily the social and political issues, we should be inclined to worry – at least a little bit – about GMO crops. Scientifically, we should be concerned that the toxic chemicals used to assist the growth of GMO’s are winding up inside of our bodies. Scientifically, we should be concerned about the long-term effects of GMO’s (Heck, and I haven’t even spoken about how vulnerable mono-cropping makes us. The great Irish potato famine anyone? Beuller?) We should also be a little concerned that scientific experimentation by the University of Wisconsin and Washington State University, among others, have shown GMO crop yields to be no better than organic farming. So, why are GMO’s so deeply entrenched in our food culture? Ah, but now we’re getting political… 

Neil DeGrasse Tyson gets credit for being clever most of the time, but hey, no one is perfect. Still, his defense of GMO's rested on a spurious argument. I expect more from America's Scientist Laureate. Better luck next time, Neil.