The Key to Being A Real Man

The hashtag #metoo trended across social media this past week in an attempt to make men understand how disgusting and rampant their sexual abuse of women is. This sparked an online conversation between a friend of mine and a male associate that went like this:

“Do you know how to hold these?”

Every female reading this knows exactly what I’m talking about. Someone who shall remain nameless IM’d me yesterday, asking what is “me too”. I explained to him that women were posting that to their FB pages if they had been sexually harassed or assaulted. He was skeptical that many women had “something like that” happen to them.

I asked: When you are walking around town by yourself, how do you hold your keys?
Him: What do you mean?
Me: Not a trick question. When you are walking around by yourself, how do you hold your keys?
Him: They are usually in my pocket.
Me: The next five women you see, ask them that question. They will know exactly what I’m talking about.

[I clarified that he needed to ask the next five women * he actually knows *, not just random women. Didn’t want him to creep anyone out. ]

Me: After they show you how to properly hold your keys, ask if they have ever been sexually harassed or assaulted.
Him: I’m NOT asking anyone that!
Me: Why not?
Him: Seems awfully personal.
Me: How do you expect to learn anything if you are not willing to have an uncomfortable conversation or two? Explain that you are trying to educate yourself on what women face in their lives. Explain that you don’t need details, you are just trying to understand the scope of how many women you know personally who have gone through something like that. It will be an uncomfortable conversation. And, yes, you’re right - maybe save that question only for women you REALLY know well. But if you don’t even believe that many women on FB have experienced these things, then you, sadly, are part of the problem. As women, we have all at some point in our lives experienced not being believed or listened to. That is specifically why some women don’t/won’t discuss it/come forward for YEARS. Some won’t ever talk about it. Every woman I have EVER met has experienced sexual harassment at the least. A staggering number of women I have ever met have experienced worse. It doesn’t matter what a woman looks like, her education, her economic status, her… anything. I have yet to meet a single woman who hasn’t experienced a moment of concern for her safety at some point in her life.
Him: I can’t even imagine.
Me: You’ve never had to.
Him: Well, men get harassed too.
Me [Oh for fuck’s sake. heeeere we go ]: And this is where we end the conversation because… No shit. No one is saying that. While it’s equally wrong, and should also be stopped, it happens in far less frequency than it happens to women. Hell, you don’t even need to know how to properly hold your keys.

Still Me: I’ve given you all the education I can stomach for now. Go educate yourself and get back to me. Go talk to your mom, your sister, your wife. Get back to me.

Men have enjoyed – and I use that word literally – a position of power over women for well over two thousand years now. While this statement doesn’t apply to every society on the face of the planet that ever was or exists now, it applies to enough societies to demonstrate the Patriarchy is real, that so many men have benefited from it and continue to do so (particularly religious zealots) that anyone who denies it is utterly clueless, like the man in the conversation above. The Patriarchy, as a societal concept, has even swept into U.S. government offices a score of men hellbent on controlling women, from denying them key elements of healthcare coverage especially as it relates to reproduction to ad hominin attacks against women like Senator Kamala Harris as being ‘hysterical’ when questioning a Trump cabinet appointee (men are never spoken of like this, not even Al Franken who clearly hates almost every Republicans) to ways of talking about women in a demeaning manner which has no bearing whatsoever on whether a man should be U.S. president or not. The whole point of the #metoo hashtag was to bring attention to this fact, that virtually every woman a man knows has experienced at least some sexual harassment, and that these same men – in being oblivious to it – are complicit to it. And this made me think; have I ever sexually harassed a women or treated a women as less than human because they were a woman?

The answer is, I don’t think so, at least not intentionally. I may have catcalled a woman in my youth, I’m not sure. If I did, I was wrong. Have I ever objectified a woman? Yes, and hopefully she was okay being objectified as I assume most Playboy centerfolds hopefully have. What I’ve certainly never done is badger a woman to date me or kowtow to my sexual advances. (Frankly, whenever a woman said ‘no’ from the start, I never pursued it further; I guess I’m either missing the ‘asshole’ gene or understand that a woman who isn’t interested at the moment isn’t likely to be interested later and I don’t have any right to assert my personal agenda on them – which I guess is what an asshole does.) I’ve certainly never approved of any legislation telling women what they can do with their bodies, and definitely not after what I may have done to their body, if you catch my drift. Jesus, can you imagine men being denied access to erectile dysfunction medicine? How fast do you think Congress would act? Faster than they would on gun control after 59 people were murdered and hundreds were injured in a mass shooting, that’s for sure.

Men, again like the one in the conversation above, have had the luxury of ignoring the problem because they are typically not the victim. Most men are so blind to the problem they don’t even think any form of sexual harassment has happened to any women they know. Well, men, imagine another man viewing and treating your mother, wife, sister or daughter as being less than human simply because they lack male genitalia, because that’s exactly what’s happening. Human beings love to exert power over each other and the Patriarchy makes it so easy for men. Why shouldn’t men be oblivious to the plight of women when they benefit so greatly from it? Because that’s what monsters do. Wait, what? Don’t like being characterized as something less than human, guys? Interesting.

To be clear, the power men have over women is not based on respect, it is based on fear. Power based on fear takes no mental effort. It takes no improvement of the self. It is weak power. This kind of power is not long-lasting; the oppressed will almost certainly seek a way out of their predicament if they are able. But to be respected – that lasts a long time. A gun in the face only lasts as long as the gun – or Bible or Koran or whatever – is around.

Certainly, there are women who do not mind being oppressed (maybe not raped, but repressed, sure). These are people who share a very human trait to not think too hard, to want to get by without having to do too much in life, who are content to let the whims of fate control them presumably because being the master of your own destiny takes effort. Far be it from me to insist any slave rise up and rebel, but it takes a certain simplemindedness not to see how accepting the role laid out for you by other people reinforces the system that enslaved them in the first place. Oh well, let the men deal with it; everything seems fine after all. Yes, a woman – if that’s their thing – is free to pursue this avenue of thinking. But they are not free to foist it on others and that is what their complicity in the Patriarchy is doing.

If it isn’t clear yet, it goes like this: Women do not exist for the sexual gratification of men*; they are not toys. They do not exist solely to bear men children; they are not property. They are conscious living beings who have rich experiences just like men. To say anything to the contrary begs for the man to justify his righteousness and SORRY, a book of mythical spouting isn’t going to cut it. ‘Cause if that’s the excuse, I’m sure I can find some sacred scripture that allows me to violate another man with a plunger and be totally justified.

[*Scores of men love to use women for this. I gather, though, that they do not like it when a women uses them for pleasure – men generally hate the idea of a woman having pleasure on their own terms – and then moves along. I’ve been there but there was the fact that the woman and I had an understanding before our ‘involvement.’ That aside, it’s also fun to imagine here what a world in which men forced themselves on each other and then claimed the victim was asking for it would look like. Okay, maybe not, but that’s the world women live in.]

It’s time for men to take responsibility for the power they wield. It is less then human to treat women as less than human. There’s no more being oblivious to what women deal with on a daily basis, not in the Information Age. Men need to start treating sexism as terrorism; if you see something, say something. You can’t take a backseat to this anymore. Own what is happening, what HAS been happening – that’s what a real man does. If you can’t handle the responsibility, well, what are you, a girl?

Me? I personally do not care about anyone’s gender or gender identity as it relates to daily life. I don’t care about anyone’s skin color. When it comes to people, all I care about are two things: That they are not an asshole and if a job is place in front of them, can they get the job done. I hesitate to call myself a Feminist not because I’m for the equal treatment of women but because I’m a human being with no special status in the cosmos* – in other words, mostly like everyone else – and this makes me understand that everyone deserves a fair chance. We, as humans, all on equal footing, should be lifting each other up, not preying on each other. Preying on each other – not some imaginary breakdown in a subjective, divine moral code – is to blame for the world such as it is. So enough already. Enough.

[* Don’t even think it, guys. Your god does not favor you. It’s a lie you tell yourselves to justify your actions.]

The Eleventh Cents

The Eleventh the Eleventh, remember the Eleventh…oh, god, just…STFU. I say that not because September 11, 2001 wasn’t a historical day for Western civilization or that I consider the deaths of civilians in New York and D.C. at the hands of terrorists to be trivial. I say STFU because my American brethren basically haven’t learned a single fucking thing since the most devastating attack on U.S. soil over a decade ago.

To wake up on September 11^th is to know there will be the obligatory changing of Facebook profile pictures to some patriotic nut-grabbing machismo fuckshit like “Never Forget!” Never forget what, that the American government, endorsed by the republic that voted it into office, did something to upset a bunch of undernourished, mal-televised Muslims? No, no, no; instead of ever asking, “What the hell did we (as Americans) do to piss off the Sand People so much?” Americans are content to recall nothing more than innocent civilians were killed on 9/11 by people with values completely alien to their own. Of course, that the values of terrorists are completely alien to a number of Americans – well, conservative Republicans at least – is horseshit. They attack us, we attack them, they attack us, we attack them…sounds like shared values to me. No, no; instead of asking what caused 9/11 and waging a war on the hearts of the enemy or trying to change the circumstances that lead to the enemy’s hatred, The United States simply retaliates with force and digs itself in deeper into the Middle East, physically as well as ideologically. This, of course, causes great surprise among Americans that an enemy who feels that they’ve nothing to live for but the rewards of martyrdom will attack them again and keep trying. Indeed, never forget how fucking stupid Americans are.

I am not saying the victims of September 11^th deserved what they got. Don’t be ridiculous; they were civilians and civilians are never legitimate targets, although I guess that depends upon your theory of warfare. (A theory of warfare that should apply to whatever tragedies U.S. foreign policy may have led to, no?) But being more patriotic about 9/11 is not going to cause the enemy to go away, it just makes them madder. Terrorists don’t see American patriotism as resolve and think, “Wow, they’re really motivated. Let’s stop trying to kill them.” Paying lip-service to one’s patriotism doesn’t do anything to solve anything on the geo-political stage. It just makes things worse. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Nationalism is a concept that has really fucked over everyone who isn’t rich or powerful. (And on so many levels; I’m not just talking about sending Joe Blow off to war, though that is the most fucked example).

If you really want to be patriotic and make the terrorists pay for what happened on 9/11, then by all means enlist and go get ‘em! I’m behind ya, really I am. Just don’t keep half-assing it. Either kill all them mother fuckers – I mean, like, the whole fucking Middle East – or STFU and build some bridges instead of burning them. Either take the gloves all the way off or send the Middle East a care package full of kittens. Stop being pussies and have some goddamn conviction on one side of the fence or the other. Just don’t tell me to, “Never Forget,” because every time you do it, I’m going to think – I mean, KNOW – you never gave those trivial words a second thought. And I hate thoughtless schmucks. They wind up being the kind of assholes who fly planes into building full of regular people.

[Want to play the "Never Forget" game? It's easy! Grab some friends and some shot glasses and every time someone comes up with something that shouldn't be forgotten in relation to 9/11, everyone has to do a shot. For example, Never Forget that since 9/11, it's okay for the NSA to monitor all your communications without any reason! Or, Never Forget that your precious freedom is the freedom to drink as much carcinogenic cola as you want just as long as you don't peacefully protest  corporate greed! Obviously, there is no object to the game, much like being 'patriotic' once a year.]

Update: 9/15/13

The Gentleman Tony responded to this entry but Blogger decided his post was too long to qualify as a comment. Before I post his reaction, I would just like to say that sometimes I post entries really to amuse just myself, though any given post will indicate – at least to a small degree – how I actually feel about some things. Sometimes, there is a lot of sarcasm with my words and I do realize that people cannot always or even most of the time know when I am being sincere and when I am not. With that in mind, The Gentleman Tony’s response is posted first, followed by my response to his response…

The Gentleman Tony: Before I comment on your blog, I wish to declare that you've been my best human friend for more than half of my life and will continue to be so. I also wish to acknowledge that, unlike myself, you have in your lifetime made the ultimate commitment to our country and, therefore, speak from a unique perspective that the majority of us Americans do not have. I can also tenuously relate to some of the emotions that led you to write what you did. However, I do have to dissent with the specifics of what you said.

In your first paragraph, you assert that Americans have not learned "a single (expletive) thing since the most devastating attack (ever) on U.S. soil." I have to disagree. Americans have learned something. They have learned that they are under imminent danger of a terrorist attack at any time. Obviously, 9-11 was not the first terrorist attack on U.S. soil and, indeed, not even the first terrorist attack at the World Trade Center. However, for those old enough to have recollections of it, the magnitude of the events of September 11, 2001 will forever remain in the DNA of every American, and will be involuntarily recalled during any future terrorist attack, whether involving a shoe bomber, an explosive device planted in the crowd of the most glorious of all marathon races, or even a failed bungled plot almost comical in its ineptitude.....if not for the perilous horror that would have occurred if it had succeeded.

You then discuss "the obligatory changing of Facebook profile pictures to some patriotic nut-grabbing machismo (B.S.) like 'Never Forget!'" If you had used the quote "These Colors Don't Run," I could have possibly bought the preceding characterization but, to me, "Never Forget" simply means that we should never forget the horrific events of that day, of the lives that were lost and the absolute heroism of so many on a day that represents a dividing line in our history. No macho posturing at all.

Now, the question is, what is appropriate behavior come September 11, 2014 and on September 11ths beyond and, to your point about being people "patriotic once a year," how should we conduct ourselves on days when the calendar does not read September 11? Is merely posting "Never Forget", or a variation on that theme, adequate? For some who post and change their profile pictures on that day, it truly is an honest reflection of the pain and poignancy that they feel on that anniversary. However, for some, posting a picture or a social media update telling us to "Never Forget" is just a clicheous thing to do, typing a two-word phrase inherent with meaning without thinking about the significance of it at all, and then amplifying this thoughtlessness later that day by posting a funny video or meme proving that they were able to persevere through the pain of the anniversary of 9/11 and get on with their lives, oh, about an hour later. After all, if we actually pause to remember the tragedy and attempt to understand its implications throughout the day, the terrorists win. It's not my place, however, to question the motives of each person who does this. I would encourage you, though, Theory, not to make broad, sweeping generalizations or speak in absolutes. Not EVERYONE posts "Never Forget" for the wrong reasons (nor everyone for the right reasons); your blog does not acknowledge this, and I'll wager more people do it for the right reasons.

It was once proposed to make 9/11 a Federal holiday, a sort of National Day of Mourning, and it would have been interesting to see how that would have played out were that to have been enacted into law. Would it truly be a Day of Mourning, or would it have been bastardized over the years? Imagine Walmart having a 9/11 Sale, the official 9/11 Federal holiday falling only on the second Friday of September (three-day weekend! yay!), regardless of the calendar day ala Martin Luther King Day, and family picnics. Memorial Day and Veterans Day (the latter originally called Armistice Day, to commemorate the end of World War I on the Western Front) were enacted to acknowledge the service and sacrifice our soldiers made, especially in wars where the casualties dwarfed the casualties of 9/11, and the majority of American people do not spend those days going to parades or watching documentaries of American history, and this I can confirm personally. When I attended a Memorial Day parade in which my future stepdaughter marched as a Girl Scout ON MEMORIAL DAY, I didn't exactly need to plop a chair somewhere hours before just to get a good vantage point of the festivities, and I will never forget the looks of appreciation veterans gave us just for clapping as we watched them march in a Memorial Day parade on Memorial Day, and there were few with us. I can do a better job of appreciating our veterans, we all can. We can do a better job making our voices heard in matters regarding conditions at V.A. hospitals, the quality of care for our veterans returning from the Middle East, and survivor benefits (not to be confused with demanding more funding for the military-industrial complex). For those who post "Never Forget" on 9/11, how many made their voices heard when First Responders or their surviving spouses had to go through all kinds of technical loopholes to get the payouts they deserve? As I said, we can all do a better job but, then again, my profile picture did not change during 9/11.

As far as what was the proper retaliation for the terrorist attacks of 9/11, yes, absolutely, we should have responded with force. Attempting to learn "What the hell did we (as Americans) do to piss off the Sand People so much?,” as you encourage, is all well-and-good (supporting Israel, which I believe is a moral obligation, is one logical answer), but we absolutely had to go into Afghanistan because you cannot let over 3,000 people die from a terrorist attack and become merely introspective. Getting involved in Iraq, a country without a role in the events of 9/11, is another matter (more anon).

Your concluding suggestion, perhaps somewhat facetiously, of enlistment for those who wish to be patriotic and make the terrorists pay for 9/11 (forget for the moment that we have, largely, made those responsible pay for it) betrays some logical flaws. For one, enlisting does not guarantee where your services will be allocated. You may wish to enlist with the desire to battle the Taliban, and find your ass in Iraq or Syria, fighting a battle you may not believe in. If you wish to fight the terrorists themselves, well, who are they, and where are they at? Compare this to the advent of United States involvement in World War II, when we declared war against a country who attacked Pearl Harbor, whereupon their Axis allies declared war on us. Clearly-defined enemies with clearly-defined boundaries, and a clear moral imperative for the United States to defeat them. Thankfully, we did not ask ourselves what we did to piss off the Japanese so much.

Theory Parker: The Gentleman Tony said that Americans have in fact learned something from 9/11, “They have learned that they are under imminent danger of a terrorist attack at any time.” Attacks are possible, certainly, but the dangers are quite exaggerated. The propaganda campaign by a media that understands that fear sells has been quite successful. There is a much greater chance that I am in danger of getting bit by a shark, struck by lightning, or attacked by a drunk neighbor than be caught up in a terrorist attack. Still, yes, as individuals and a nation we should remain vigilant and have greater situational awareness than is standard-operating-procedure, but let’s not forget that the two most recent spectacular tragedies, Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon bombing, were not perpetrated by rogue/sleeper cells of terrorists. (Everyone knows it was the Illuminati’s work…THAT’S a joke, btw). Furthermore, the belief that we are always in imminent danger does mean the terrorists have won (a matter of degrees, of course) but the belief has resulted in Americans giving away many of their Constitutional freedoms without so much as a dull roar. So, if indeed Americans did learn something from 9/11, what it really learned is that they do not deserve either security or liberty, to paraphrase a great man. So I concede that Americans may have learned something, but if they did, it wasn’t a lesson with any good result.

What lesson should have resulted then? I believe 9/11 should have caused Americans to think deeply, pause, and reconsider its foreign policies. (After we retaliated against those responsible, naturally. More on that in a bit.)  Unlike, WWII – in which Germany had already declared war on the U.S. and Japan surprised America by bombing Pearl Harbor because they were after our resources in SE Asia – 9/11 was the direct result of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy that props up Israel. Whether supporting Israel is the right or wrong thing to do is largely irrelevant; U.S. policy makers have long known what results from supporting a Jewish state. As I said on that very day, 9/11, “I’m surprised this didn’t happen sooner.” Instead of reconsidering a foreign policy (which is more than just about Israel, duh) that causes a great number of people in the Middle East to hate America, Americans go to the polls and continue to vote people into office who will maintain the status quo, thus perpetuating a fear of imminent attacks upon themselves. While there may be any number of reasons people don’t act in their own interest, this particular instance of turning a blind eye to what may potentially be one’s own destruction, to say nothing of willingly tossing aside liberties thanks to said elected representatives, is a head-shaker, at least to me.

I do agree with The Gentleman Tony that it was the correct move to attack Afghanistan in response to 9/11, certainly. But as always, America stopped short of getting the job done, so to speak. I personally come from the Sun Tzu school of war, not that I ever would want to go to war but if I did, which calls for crushing your enemies completely so you don’t have to worry about them in the future. Granted, such an approach is usually not practical (for example, the Allies considering invading Russia after WWII), but when you’ve got the means, you should literally eradicate your enemies. The current War on Terror is, in my opinion, pussyfooting around with terrorists for reasons I will not speculate here. At any rate, the current administrative modus operandi continues to put U.S. citizens at risk if, again, there really is such imminent danger from terrorists.

All that aside, do some people post “Never Forget” to sincerely commemorate the fallen on 9/11? Absolutely. But I contend that such people are in the minority. No, instead, the sense I get from people attempting to cry, “Never Forget,” is maliciousness, that they are never going to forget what them A-rabs did to us and some day they gonna lynch them a towel head if theys get the chance. Again, people learning no useful lesson from that fateful day, just “Strike back, and if they strike us back for striking them back, we’ll strike back again.” Meanwhile, said people have no real connection to anyone who was actually affected by the events of 9/11. Perhaps they consider themselves patriots, but as I’ve said, nationalism – responsible for killing SO many people – is one of the worst ideas humans have ever come up with.

Do I hope people aren’t as convoluted as I believe they are? Sure, but at the end of the day I do not buy the premise that people are basically good; I believe the opposite. That’s just my opinion, though. I could be wrong.

5 Suggestions for Terrorists

Is the word ‘terrorists’ just another word for ‘freedom fighter,’ a sort of revolutionary who is misguided in their use of force? I don’t know about being a revolutionary and all that, but the use of force by terrorists is indeed misguided. After all, what’s the point of terrorism? The point is to instill fear in the enemy, disrupt the lives of the enemy, and make the enemy take notice of the terrorists’ agenda/rightful place in the world. I guess one-out-of-three isn’t bad, if you’re a baseball player. I mean, sure, terrorists create fear but it isn’t enough to disrupt the lives of their enemies. The targets of terrorism, Joe Q Public, still goes to work, still shops for Christmas on Thanksgiving night, and still drowns themselves daily in a three-pump, two-shot Grande Venti Mocha Frappuccino Latte with whipped cream. Plus, Joe Q Public doesn’t care about a terrorist’s agenda because when terrorists have to blow stuff up to make a point, Joe Q Public cares more that people died than what the terrorists stand for. In this way, terrorists can safely be considered morons, but they are also morons for terrorizing in an oh-so-last-century fashion. If terrorists really want to change the world in their favor, if they really want the Western world to sit up and take notice of their agenda, terrorists need to bring their game into the 21^st century. To that end I offer terrorists some suggestions. And, since terrorists will never consider these suggestions because they go for spectacle over subtlety 99.9% of the time, I’m not really aiding any terrorists. (Did you get that NSA? I know you’re listening. Eric Snowden said so.)

5 – Help pass laws that allows gays to marry. Now, I know what you’re thinking, “Why in Allah’s name would I do that?” Hear me out. The fact that gays are being allowed to marry in several U.S. states really, really upsets a great many “patriots” (read: Bible thumpin’ Fox News watching homosexual men who make lots of money pretending to be straight). If you can help gays get married in all 50 U.S. states, imagine the lifelong suffering you would incur among the most primitive members of American society. If no one else, the Southern states will listen to your demands.

4 – Still want to kill, don’t you? Okay, fine, but how about killing only people who actually deserve it, like the people who appear as contestants on American Idol and The Voice? I don’t need to remind you Islamic terrorists in particular that your holy book is meant to be sung when recited…do you really want Taylor Swift to convert to Islam and sing the Koran? I sure as fuck don’t. She’d turn it into a story about some dude breaking up with her and that would be, like, exhausting, and I never ever everrrr want that to happen. Plus, killing all the wannabe singers would spare the world of those really deep insights that are the prerogative of the shows’ judges, especially those ham-fisted analogies about baby seals being clubbed.

3 – Need a little R&R after all that killing? (You did include everyone who showed up at auditions, right?) How about you travel abroad and attack the coffee supply. Ethiopia, South America, wherever; if you really want to demoralize The United States, rob them of their elixir of life – coffee. Slash, burn, poison crops; do whatever you’ve got to do to reduce American consumption of coffee and I assure you the U.S. economy will collapse beyond repair within three months. Nothing will ever get done in America again. (Bonus: A third of America’s workforce – baristas – will be unemployed and unable to pay for their godless liberal college education. Collateral damage is awesome! ) 

2 – Okay, so going after the coffee supply isn’t the immediate payoff y’all have come to love. You still want spectacle and the time-consuming, blood-soaked deaths of warblers didn’t grant immediate satisfaction. Okay, how about blowing up a Budweiser factory or two? Despite the fact that anyone who chooses Budweiser over any other beer is a step below moronic, and there are a LOT of those people, blowing up a macro-brew factory is sure to give even the most die-hard redneck a big, dry lump in their throat. But whatever you do, DO NOT kill the Budweiser Clydesdales. Everyone fucking loves those horses. 

1 – Look, I know you guys are financed by very wealthy people so I know you’ve got the money to pull this one off: Buy all the toilet paper. ALL OF IT. John Lennon wanted us to imagine there’s no heaven? Imagine Americans without toilet paper! Among very few other things, Americans pride themselves on not smelling like ass. That being the case, toilet paper is one of the MOST essential items of consumption in The U.S. seeing how bidets are too complicated and French to use. Best of all, buying all the toilet paper is perfectly legal. No Gitmo for you lot! The U.S. would cower in the face of this ingenious plan. Now say it with me…ha…ha ha…mwah ha ha…MWAH HA HA HA HA!

Still Full of Shit

So much for taking a month off to blog about nonsense like style and music. I think it's time to get serious about nonsense.  

I knew within moments of the Boston marathon bombing yesterday that the event would be another fist-pumping confirmation to conspiracy theorists of some nefarious New World Order plot to take over the world. Conspiracy theorists would rather confirm their own biases based on information they simply do not know than take a minute to sympathize with victims of an evil deed. Not only are conspiracy theorists full of shit, as I wrote in a previous blog, they're douchebags, too. I'd be sick of their nonsense if I weren't so fascinated by their delusional beliefs.  

I'm fascinated by conspiracy theorists for the same reason I am fascinated by religious zealots; their propensity to believe stupid shit. For example, conspiracy theorists believe that the misinformation that is often a result of the news outlets' rush to report is in fact intentional. What they don't understand is that news media is a business and the agency that leads with information wins. (Take for example the 2000 US presidential election, in which Fox News called the election for George W. Bush without justification.)  

And so conspiracy theorists like to play connect the dots where either connections or dots do not exist. They can't tell you the difference between a correlation and a cause. One conspiracy theorist I know well had the nerve to speculate that recent events with North Korea, Cyprus, the drop in value of gold and silver, and the Boston Marathon are all connected, a plan to part American citizens at least from their God given rights. It's all well and good to speculate, but how about proving such fucking absurd assertions? 

Nor do conspiracy loons ever search for other possible explanations for such events. For example, what's more likely, that the Boston Marathon was bombed by a fucking nutjob or terrorist group, or that it was the latest chess move by some global shadow government, a government that no one has been able to expose with hard evidence? There's hard evidence of government corruption alright, it's just not the evidence that points to a secret conspiracy. The fact that lobbyists from big businesses such as Monsanto wind up with government jobs is a matter of public record. The fact that US CEO's make approximately 285 times their average workers is something just about everyone knows. There doesn't need to be some Illuminati plan for world domination. The average person allows themselves to walked all over despite the great injustices of this world.  

It is my belief - as long as we're on the topic of erroneous beliefs -  that conspiracy theorists are simply upset that they have so little control over their own lives and are looking for a scapegoat, seeing how their shitty lives can't possibly be their own fault. That's where conspiracy theorists referring to themselves as "truthers" really becomes laughable; they're going to expose all the horrible truths about the world, all of them, except the truth that where they're at in life is their own fault. (Or not; it depends if you believe in free will.)

I also take issue with conspiracy theorists for their cowardice. They are simply not willing to do what it takes to overthrow the evil forces at work against them and everyone else. They could organize and lobby their representatives en masse or take up arms against their enemy, but they don't do that. No, they think it is enough to get their somehow reliable information to people from safely behind their computer screens, over the internet that the big, bad New World Order isn’t bothering to monitor. Supposing there really were a reptilian shadow government to expose, do you think they’d let “truthers” expose the truth on the internet? Nah, they’re content to allow conspiracy theorists to add to all the misinformation already out there. On a side note, conspiracy theorists, Youtube – that outlet for all your temper tantrums and misinformation dissemination – is as much a “Tell-A-Vision” as television you fucking dipshits. 

To be fair, difficult as that may be, I’m not going to say governments never do bad things. Yes, The US government has committed some pretty heinous acts in the past and will likely do them again at some point. But that particular monster is not lurking around every single corner. If that monster is, then I say: Fucking prove it. That is, prove it in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. I’m betting a gajillion dollars no conspiracy theorist can do it. (Why a gajillion dollars? Because that’s how much money the conspirators have.) 

In the meantime, conspiracy nuts, here’s a little gem from Patton Oswalt that reveals just how little the New World Order is controlling all of us, because if they were, no one would have run to help the victims of the bombing.

* * *

Boston. Fucking horrible.

I remember, when 9/11 went down, my reaction was, "Well, I've had it with humanity."

But I was wrong. I don't know what's going to be revealed to be behind all of this mayhem. One human insect or a poisonous mass of broken sociopaths.

But here's what I DO know. If it's one person or a HUNDRED people, that number is not even a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population on this planet. You watch the videos of the carnage and there are people running TOWARDS the destruction to help out. (Thanks FAKE Gallery founder and owner Paul Kozlowski for pointing this out to me). This is a giant planet and we're lucky to live on it but there are prices and penalties incurred for the daily miracle of existence. One of them is, every once in awhile, the wiring of a tiny sliver of the species gets snarled and they're pointed towards darkness.

But the vast majority stands against that darkness and, like white blood cells attacking a virus, they dilute and weaken and eventually wash away the evil doers and, more importantly, the damage they wreak. This is beyond religion or creed or nation. We would not be here if humanity were inherently evil. We'd have eaten ourselves alive long ago.

So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety misogyny, hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think, "The good outnumber you, and we always will." ~ Patton Oswald

George W. Bush: Terrorist? No, Idiot.

“George W. Bush: Terrorist.”

I’ve seen you, you pseudo-intellectual college students and aging hipsters of the “Free Love” generation, wearing one of those witty t-shirts in recent years. Those t-shirts are without doubt so clever they induce in your conservative Republican opponents a sort of quasi-introspective trace, don’t they? “George W. Bush is a terrorist? I never thought of it that way. Perhaps I should,” they’ll tell themselves.

I can understand why someone might want to think of President Bush as a terrorist. Let’s assume for a moment the culturally sensitive perspective of a foreigner whose country has been invaded by US forces and has seen fellow civilians killed or harmed by the US military. Why wouldn’t they think of the American Commander-In-Chief as a terrorist? After all, he is using force to achieve political or ideological objectives while he wears the “disguise” of a civilian. Though, I don’t know how much of a disguise a business suit is. Maybe it’s the inflammatory red ties he always wears.

While I am no fan of rednecks, ah, red neckties, calling George W. Bush a terrorist broadens what it means to be such a radical, perhaps to the point of even cheapening the word “terrorist” (at least they don’t try to avoid their duty). Perhaps such name-calling is to be expected though from people who merely wish to pray for world peace instead of taking action as means to achieve their visions of utopia. And while these same opponents of President Bush call for his impeachment (its all the rage these days for American presidents), they cannot do so on the grounds that George W. Bush is a terrorist. The President may be many things—and we can be unfriendly about that—but he is not a terrorist. Breath.

Now that any liberal rage you may have had has passed, let’s think about what defines a terrorist.

We’ll begin with the kind of actions that are to be reasonably expected from someone who is called a terrorist; in other words, they terrorize. Now, causing another person great harm can be either mental or physical in nature. However, a terrorist’s method-of-operation is specifically and primarily physical in nature, and typically targets civilians. If terrorist attacks were instead psychological in nature (instead of an expected result of the primary physical attack), then it would be reasonable to expect to find Catholic and Jewish grandmothers imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay.

The purpose of this physical violence against civilian populations is to install fear in a target populace as a method of coercing a population to meet the political or religious demands of the terrorist or the organization they represent. If the population does not give into the coercion, is expected that terrorist attacks will continue. In this way, the acts of terrorists follow a systematic pattern with which to weave a quilt of destruction.

Moreover, a terrorist characteristically masquerades as a member of the society in which they wish to attack. This tactic is designed to avoid capture by either military or civilian police opposition. This disguise technique causes a target population further concern, because they do not know who the enemy is, much less when and where the unknown assailant(s) will attack. Thus, in an attempt to gain security, a society might lobby their government to give into terrorist demands, such as was the case with the Madrid, Spain train bombings in March 2004. Who knows where they read it, but terrorists certainly make abuse of the phrase, “Better safe than sorry.”

So does President Bush fir the bill of a terrorist? In sending US troops to invade Iraq, the President did not call for specific civilian targets to be engaged. Though civilians might be killed as a matter of collateral damage, they are not the primary focus of any intended violence. In fact, the term “collateral damage” is applied to civilian casualties during military operations exactly because they would be spared any harm if it could be avoided, ideally speaking. If a government’s military intended to kill civilians, they would just go ahead and do it (though it would perhaps be wise to kill all the local reporters as well). Because the US military does not go out of it’s way to kill civilians, their Commander-In-Chief is spared the label of “terrorist.”

It is also exactly because George w. Bush is recognized worldwide as The United States’ Commander-In-Chief that he is not a terrorist. Regardless then of whether he is dressed in a suit and tie or a flight suit stuffed to the nines, he cannot be considered a terrorist because he has explicit ties to the military. Terrorists rarely if ever are connected to a country’s military or governing body, and even when they are, it is not known or disclosed who these people might be.

In order to clear President Bush of any further accusations of being a terrorist, allow me to paraphrase terrorism expert A.P. Schmid who in 1992 defined to the UN what terrorism is: “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by clandestine individuals/groups, for religious or political ideals, whereby… the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The victims of violence are chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (symbolic targets) to serve as a message generator.” If we use the Iraq War as an example, President Bush commanded the US military to engage non-random, practical military targets, not civilians. Furthermore, George W. Bush can hardly be considered a clandestine individual.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but George W. Bush is emphatically not a terrorist. He doesn’t fulfill any of the qualifications used to define what a terrorist is. Call him what you want (I prefer the term “Errorist”), but he is not a terrorist.

So yeah, about those t-shirts with The President’s picture on them, branding him a terrorist? Feel free to go ahead and put those unsightly little t-shirts away. You wouldn’t want to be accused of terrorizing the fashion industry, now would you?