So someone in my family once told me...

“Why don’t you have a girlfriend Joe? It’s just that you’re so cute…”

This is mostly an explanation for my family if they want to read it, and in part for anyone who cares to know why I wrote that old blog post about being frustrated and pissed off at the female gender…

To start this, I need to explain a few personality characteristics and mental aspects of myself.

I think too far down the road. – As I’m talking to a girl I’m even remotely interested in, flashing through my mind are abstractions and ideas of the future. As I’m learning about her, my mind is playing out a relationship all the way out to marriage and death. I’m analyzing the idea of a relationship based on personality characteristics in a person’s speech, mannerisms and history.  I ask questions like “Can I see this last?” “Will she disappear half way through?” “Does she seem like the kind of girl that would want to take everything I have if we got together and divorced?” “Does her personality lead me to think what she wants out of the relationship would put me at legal risk?”
So, rather than getting caught up in the moment and just having a good time with women I’m caught up in the next step and am too busy with critical analysis. These critical analyses mean I’m not even paying attention to enjoying my time with people anymore, because I’m constantly watching my back.

And I’m not kidding with some of those questions I just mentioned. So, a lot of it is just thinking too much about “what’s she thinking? Is this going somewhere?” I’m also wickedly dense, and given that I grew up without a female figure in the house, there are a lot of subtle queues that most women would expect a guy like me to get when…. I don’t.

But all that is something I could easily get over. The dilemma is really a bit more analytical than it is just “I’m dense and not thinking about having fun.” It’s about values and value judgments and decision – “Is it really worth it?”

So far, as you all know the answer has been a resounding “No.” Though I suppose I should explain what I mean by value judgments and decision. Part of that explanation of my own mind involves explaining how I think and the values I hold – I’m just going to touch on a few here to hopefully explain my perspective.

1.       Everything begins at the self. Love, to me, is one of the most supremely selfish emotions in existence. If you love someone, it’s because what you see in them is a reflection of your own values – We look up to those we love as a physical representation of everything we believe to be good. Without those values, without the definition of WHAT or WHO to love, one person does not love anything, strictly speaking. (As an aside, we brand those who physically love without discrimination with the word “Whore” while we carry a benevolent view of those who proclaim to love everyone emotionally, without discrimination.)

2.       A relationship that revolves around sacrifice and compromise isn’t a relationship. Every good relationship in my eyes, revolves around desire and want, not sacrifice and compromise. People always talk about any relationship as involving effort and sacrifices, and I simply do not understand why sacrifice and compromise would be valuable in a relationship.
Now, when I say sacrifice and compromise, I likely mean something other than what you may be thinking. Giving something of yourself, because you DESIRE to isn’t really a sacrifice.
For example: Selling your Pearl Black ’69 Camaro SS because you know your wife hates it and it’s not something important enough for you to keep is one thing. If you love that Camaro and would be loathe to sell it, but your wife pressures you to do it – That’s sacrifice. And that’s the point at which I grab my keys and drive off into the sunset, never to return again outside a courtroom.
But that’s the point of distinction that I look for….

3.       I look for someone who happens to be going the same way, and is looking to ride along side me. The previous example would be a change in directions and time to leave. My life comes first to me, and I look for someone who can take the same perspective. I don't want a dependent. I don't want another driver. Maybe Rally Racing is a good analogy - There's a driver and a navigator. I like to drive and happen to know where I'm going most of the time. I'd like to find someone that does the same, and doesn't mind being navigator sometimes, and driving sometimes.

Now those are some basic things I think most people could understand and probably agree with, but those are the platitudes and the emotional associations. Next is the hard logic.

1.       The Law. The legal risk in any relationship requires entirely too much vulnerability on my part. If I had any faith in our legal system, that would give me cause to think “Yeah, My rights would be protected and represented in court,” then I’d probably think twice about my perspective on relationships. I mean this in any context, whether it’s in a divorce court or in the face of other charges. I’m not violent, but that doesn’t mean I couldn’t get falsely accused of violence by some whack-job woman who held a grudge against me for something. (That whole thinking too far ahead part.) – Even if that kind of thing is rare or so rare it’s silly, I still have to leave myself vulnerable to it in this day and age. (There’s back story there, that involved a friend being wrongfully accused of beating up his girlfriend. Cost him a scholarship, cost his parents their house to legal fees, and he was acquitted after his accuser admitted she lied. He spent the whole time in jail, and killed himself shortly after he was released.)

2.       Statistics. The relationship will almost undoubtedly fail. Statistically speaking, I’d have a better chance at winning the lotto if I bought a ticket every week, than I would at finding a relationship that would last as long as the lotto annuity payments, if I talked to a different girl every week. To reiterate: Lotto annuity - 30 years. Likely hood of finding a relationship that would last 30 years is smaller than actually winning the lotto.

3.       It’s more expensive than the lotto, too! (Money) I like going out, but I intensely dislike paying for dinner, gas, etc for a girl who may say thank you, but can’t actually show appreciation. I’m not asking for a lay (maybe that’s the problem?), or even physical attention of any kind. I’m asking for actions that show genuine appreciation, and it’s pretty easy to see a false sense of gratitude, no matter your gender. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again… “in my experience, women have a limitless capacity to consume without any sense of guilt or appreciation.” (Please take note of the implications behind the words “In my experience.”)
I also have no desire to hitch myself to a woman that has the capacity to take everything I own and have worked for through the duration of a marriage. That doesn’t mean I desire to take the house, furniture, cars and everything I could. It just means that I wouldn’t want my earnings and what I worked for to be taken from me by force, via divorce court. To me the word “Alimony” reads as “Alley-Money” and the court is the back alley where the mugging occurs.

4.       Commitment. I laugh to myself when I see shows that talk about how unwilling to commit Men are. Most of what I’ve discovered as of late is the trend toward non-committed relationships, particularly in women. I posted something on Facebook a while back about the Gay community having to fight for marriage while straight folks are fighting to get out of it… The subtext was how common it is to find people in relationships where marriage is out of the question and even then, how many aren’t willing to label themselves as a “Couple.” I’m actually kind of envious at the desire so many gay couples have for such commitment. I wish I could find women my age that are so eager for the same thing.
But commitment has to mean something, and when divorce has become the legalized trivial ceremony it is today, it’s meaningless.
Yet still, I want and expect a commitment. Not a commitment to sacrifice for the relationship, but a vow that says “Should my heart travel down another road, you’ll be the first to know.” One that says I’m the object of the wants and desires of the woman making such a commitment.
I hope most of you know me well enough to realize that the traditional religious institution of marriage is not relevant here.

5.       The Cost-Benefit Analysis – To the right eye, I’ve just run the prospect of a relationship through a SWOT analysis. I suppose its just how I think. I’d love to have a girlfriend for the obvious reasons and for the less-than obvious reasons. My cat keeps me company in some ways, but will never be the same as an awesome girl. No one will ever give me the objective feedback a woman would. No one could drive me to excel, smack me when I step out of line or take care of me as well as a woman could.
I’d love to find a girlfriend, but right now the potential risks outweigh the possible benefits. I know what you’re thinking; “Dude, it’s not a matter of analysis man, this is just nuts! I think you missed the point somewhere!” No, no I didn’t. The opposing argument says that all this analysis is meaningless, than I should just follow my heart, fall in love and none of this analytical crap will matter – I get it, except… I grew beyond letting my heart make decisions about my life. Now a days, my mind leads and my heart follows. I put my heart on point once about 2 years ago and was let down as expected.

To my family: I’m not gay. But I’m not impressed with the current selection, either.
To those that read the blog post: It’s just a matter of finding someone that makes all this bullshit worth it. I haven’t found one yet, and after years of looking, one gets frustrated. But then again… some of those that read the previous blog post might still get offended by this post.

Occupy Nothing. The 99% Statistic and Why It's BS

For at least the last 12 years or more, I've heard this statistic thrown around that "99% of this country's wealth is held by 1% of the population." Originally, I was shocked and appalled. I thought to myself, "WOW That is SERIOUSLY messed up! Something should be done to fix this problem!" As I looked into the statistic and why our distribution of wealth was so skewed, I discovered a number of things that changed my perspective, initiated my current academic interest in economics and made me take a political U-Turn from 21st century Liberalism to a more Libertarian, 18th century Liberalism (a.k.a. Non-religious "Conservatism.")

At the beginning I sought to find out what this statistic was all about and where it came from. Honestly, I thought to myself - "There's no way less than 1 million people hold almost all the money in the US!" In looking for the source of the statistic and trying to find other data that supported it, I ran into my first dilemma; "How do I define wealth? How does the statistic define wealth? Is that 99% statistic based on GDP, or the total money held by people in bank accounts?" In asking this question, I realized that most people call "Wealth" the money in their pocket at the end of the day. It's what's in their savings account, what they can save or how quickly they can save it.

For a household of 4 after a mortgage, food, paying for extracurricular activities for the kids, taxes, transportation etc, that may not be much, considering median household income in the US is $46k. (I'm using 2009 data here) Yet, for a single person with no kids, $46k is a different story entirely. With modest living expenses, a person making $46k a year could save a lot of money. So, "wealth" in that regard becomes largely relative to one's circumstances and choices - Having kids costs money, so does buying a house. Assuming a 46k income, "Wealth" is relative to how much you spend/save. Or more correctly "Wealth" is defined by what's coming in vs. what's going out.

(To add some perspective on why I used that $46k figure here. I based this on US Census data (which can be found here) which shows that the median income in the US is $46k. Now, for the sake of comparison, the US Census also defines poverty based on household size. For a family of 4, that's any household below $22k. Only 14.7% of the people in the country make below that figure based on household size. My point here was to contrast the idea of income vs. expense. I realize many who read this blog don't make $46k, but understand that everyone who reads this blog is well above poverty level.)

Let's run with that for the time being. The concept of wealth in the context of "99% of the wealth is held by 1% of the population" is relative to incomes - Who makes the most money? This should mean then, that 99% of the gross income in the country went to only 1% of the population (which would be approximately 3 million people, for reference.) Bring in the IRS statistics of income (which can be found here.) According to this neat publication, the adjusted gross income across all tax returns filed in 2009 is...

$7,648,676,270,000 - Seven Trillion, Six hundred and forty eight billion, six hundred and seventy six million, two hundred and seventy thousand dollars. Approximately.

99% of which, is $7,572,189,507,300.

So, if the 99% statistic is accurate, that means that 3 million tax returns should show somewhere around that 7.5 trillion dollar mark, right? Well... this is where I got angry.

The number of tax returns that reported more than $250,000 in income for 2009, was 2,498,021. About 500,000 short of our 3 million people marker. The total gross income they reported was $1,621,416,514,000. Just about 20% of the total income in the country, and no where near 7.5 trillion.

Now, as I read through these statistics I found something else interesting... the vast majority of the income reported in 2009, came from tax returns that reported between $50k and $100k (about 2.1 trillion). - We call that the middle class, and they take about 24% of the total income in the country, making it impossible for 1% of the population to possess 99% of the income in the country.

The short version of all that number crunching is this - The majority of the income and purchasing power held by the country, is held by the people who make between $50k and 100k, even as recent as 2009, after the start of our economic dip.

The media, my peers, even the education that I was receiving all denied the numbers and data I was able to see with my own eyes. I couldn't see this 1% / 99% thing.

I looked harder. I thought it could be a GDP thing. The US GDP is about 14,526,550,000,000. Here again, the 99% statistic is impossible considering the purchasing power of the middle class at 2.1 trillion. Also consider that tangible assets held by business entities (not directly held by people) many of which are held and controlled by shareholders and business owners, much of which is part of that middle class group.

So... after spending a great deal of time researching these statistics, digging through numbers, trying to understand them, I've only been able to come to one conclusion - This 99% of wealth concept is completely and entirely wrong. Worse yet, it's not simply a lie, it has zero foundation in truth, what-so-ever. Most of those who would cite this figure are doing so to preach for some kind of economic change, and they're preaching goals that we have already reached. So, it's not even a willful or intentional misrepresentation of the truth, it's just ignorance of it.

I said before I started looking for this information over 12 years ago, and it's true. I'm using current numbers because they're easier to cite, but every year the IRS and US Census release their data, I check the numbers again to see if we're seeing a progression toward wealth accumulation in that small super-rich percentage of our population.... We're not.

This kind of statistical separation in Academia and the news is why I have a hard time taking either seriously.

The other funny part of this, is how much of the US GDP is wrapped up in tangible assets held by businesses, and how many people in this country hold stock in and work for those same companies. - Most of your IRA is corporate business investment.

In the end, Occupy Wall Street is...
An emotionally driven and largely unaware group of people upset about the current economic recession and disappointed by the fact that others are still living decently while they're either struggling or empathizing with those who are struggling. It is not, however, based on fact.

Now I ask for anyone to tell me... What did I miss?

A Priori and the Limitation of Human Knowledge

The beginning of this blog post requires prefacing a few things, as I often do. My goal here is to get to the origin of certain aspects of knowledge, and much of this is based on a statement made to me in the past that “Mathematics is an example of a priori knowledge.” I’m here to state, for the record, that such notion is BS. The first order of business is to define these terms “A Priori” and “A Posteriori.” “A Priori” is used in this context to refer to knowledge we possess independent of experience. “A Posteriori” is used to refer to knowledge that requires justification through empirical evidence. So, my point here is to say, all knowledge is A Posteriori, outside raw perceptual data provided by our senses. All human knowledge begins at sensory perception. The senses take in data in the form of light, sound, texture, taste, smell. Once the data is received by the brain, we can consciously interpret what that data means. For example, the reading process equates to perceiving light as it reflects off of a page then interpreting the data. This raw data is the simplest form of knowledge we can obtain. In the absence of input through our senses, our brains create false signals. With only 15 minutes of sensory deprivation, people will begin to experience hallucinations as real as those seen by someone on LSD. (Source: Wikipedia - Sensory Deprivation If you want more reliable data, you can search for the huge Kenyon study on Sensory Deprivation in PDF format, it’s hundreds of pages of technical data.) Once we possess that raw data provided by our senses, we can begin to analyze and extrapolate on our perceptions. We see a wood object that has a flat top, and four legs extending down, one from each corner. Is it a Chair? Is it a table? Abstraction is a process of separating the idea from the object. What separates the terms “Chair” and “Table” is the idea of their individual applications. The separation there is not implicit based on the raw data we have perceived. It is an abstraction we have developed based on the knowledge we already possess. So, this brings me to Math. Mathematics, strictly speaking is a PROCESS of defining things like space, quantity, change and structure. It is by definition, a process of abstraction based on experience (Read: A Posteriori.) Simple numbers that relate to quantity have nothing to do with mathematical process. “1+1 = 2” defines the process of adding one and one. It does not specifically define the perception of two of the same object. My general proof that mathematics is not A Priori is this: “2 – 3 = -1” A simple equation that demonstrates a core concept which is dependent upon data that is wholly abstract in nature. Subtracting three from two is, in reality, impossible. We cannot even lose three objects if all we possess is two, nor can we even fathom the concept outside theoretical boundaries. Proving that 2 – 3 = -1 can ONLY be done with what we educate as mathematics (which is actually called “pure mathematics”) wherein we teach math for the sake of math – As an abstraction; An idea separated from the object, and not A Priori. Perhaps my bigger purpose in writing about all of this is to convey an important point about the limitations of our knowledge. All knowledge begins at perception and the only knowledge that we possess that is A Priori is that sense data. (The A Priori / A Posteriori question is an epistemological one, not a metaphysical question.) “The sky is blue” is A Priori because we can determine such exclusively from sensory data alone. “All entomologists study bugs” is not A Priori. Even though “entomologist” specifically is defined as a person who studies insects, this distinction is literary, not epistemological. Ergo, statements such as “we don’t know” indicating that we do not know if there is another world beyond this, or that there is some order of existence we lack the faculty to perceive, are moot. Even information that isn’t directly provided by our senses (such as a frequency too high or low for the human ear to detect) can be measured through tools which still require sensory perception. We’re simply augmenting the means through which we perceive such data. Since our knowledge is ultimately limited to perceptual data in every context, theories about things we cannot perceive are not relevant to human existence. – If they affected our lives, we would be able to perceive them.

Animals have more integrity than Humans.

Henceforth known as a bus blog. Short, to the point, I’m on the bus when I think of these things.

I once had someone (who is on my FB page) say “Joe, the thing that separates humans from animals is that we stop to care for our injured and sick.” What he failed to mention was that we’re also the only animals the commit homicide and enslave others as a matter of perceived social status. I sit and think on my ride home today, what exactly motivates things like homicide, and slavery. Currently in my job, I work for a manager who is seriously power-hungry. I try to understand what motivates her hunger, what emotions she feels or what inspires her to feel powerful in some situations. I can see moments, based on her facial expression and little body language that tells me she feels good when she feels like she accomplished a sense dominance over me. It’s sad, but also makes me realize the fundamental nature of what people need to accomplish things like homicide, slavery and the like.

The perceived imbalances created by a free market, or by natural ability – The haves vs. the have-nots. We seek to take from one to give to another under the banner of social justice, or “right and wrong.” My manager feels as though she’s accomplished some greater good by oppressing me and my attempts to rise in my job, because she and others feel intimidated by my ability. I’m not saying I’m an amazing employee, just that I’m generally more adept at my job than most. She feels like she’s exacted her notion of right and wrong and brought about her perception of “justice.” As a matter of etymology, this leads us to the notion of “being justified” in such an action. She likely felt “justified” in keeping me from promotion opportunities because of her idea that I need to spend more time in my job before I DESERVE any promotion.

What I’m saying is that without the notion of injustice, or inequity, we have nothing to inspire us to kill or hate. Some of the most proclaimed “open-minded” people I’ve ever spoken with were the most bigoted. They proclaimed their desire for social justice and equity by demoralizing those who make a large amount of money because of their perception of inequity.

“Violence” is defined as “rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: The violence of his hatred.” And as I think of things like the supposed “non-violent” sit-in strikes I think to myself… Wait, someone should look up this word for once, because they were very explicitly VIOLENT. Okay so no one got shot, but they still sought to destroy what was created by another as a matter of “We believe this is unjust, we hate you and seek to force your hand.”

Historically, people have committed genocide and murder all over a desire to impose their sense of justice on another group of people… The details and goal is always the same. The normal reaction of people who are starving, is to hate the person who has food if they aren’t sharing, and they feel as though it is unjust for one person to have food while they starve.

I guess this is what separates us from Animals – The depth of our society. It drives us to want to save, love and care for others and in the same emotion it also drives us to kill, hate, tax, enslave, and destroy others for the same reason.
My point and solution in all of this is to say – “Let go.” I don’t want your ideology imposed on me in as much as I imagine you don’t want mine imposed on you. So perhaps this is where we should separate. You think something different than I do. Live it, so long as doing so doesn’t mean forcing me to live your ideology too. I’ll do the same.

Think it can’t be done? Animals do it every day. That might be a bit simplified, but in truth, the Animal Kingdom has a great advantage on us. They don’t pine over simple aspects of survival like we do. In that, I might proffer the argument that animals are in fact, more noble than humans. But perhaps I’m just a bit of an idealist. IDK, my BFF Jill.

Freedom and the 4th, being buried under the law.

I meant to make this post quite some time ago, but never really had the motive to sit down and type until now.

I've realized of late that my ability to inject emotionally compelling prose into writing has become diminished, largely because I frown on it anymore. "Just the facts, ma'am" has become a thing of the past, and every statement, news story, conversation or tweet must now be written with the intent of getting the viewer to feel SOMETHING. Be it hatred, pity, compassion, guilt. Some things are written with this in mind - Fiction, political debates; And those things I understand. At this point however, we now inject it into EVERYTHING. Your dealings with co-workers, friends, even family. We create our facebook pages, not with the true statements of our lives, but with the beautiful facade of what we want everyone to think, as though the perception of our own lives by others should be our ultimate value.

And that's supposed to be normal. I make concerted efforts to avoid it.

I suppose it is normal though. The one thing I've taken from Christianity is the notion that most people are sinners. - When I was younger I don't think I really understood that. I thought most people were good folks, but now as I look at the world with a few more years, I realize most really aren't. As far as the numbers go, yes the amoral out number the moral. (By whatever measure of morality you want to use, religious or otherwise.)

I wouldn't call them sinners, however. Even with the disdain for falsifying ones life as often happens, I still can't wish an eternity of torture on anyone. I guess that's what people call compassion. Nonetheless, I avoid people like them as much as I can.

Where am I going with this? How many understand what freedom really was about, other than some buzz word that gets plugged into our facebook pages on the 4th every year, or spouted as some brainless platitude when feeling patriotic?

We plug a bullet in some terrorists head and say "YAY WE WON! GO AMERICA." - Not realizing that being "Proud to be an American" is a terrible misnomer. Then again, maybe the Chileans were as happy about it as we were. I guess "Go United States!" doesn't have quite the ring to it. It's all about putting on the facade... or maybe just an excuse to drink in excess and shoot fire... wait, fireworks are illegal now (in CO anyway.) Isn't that kind of a drag? We shout about how great our freedoms are, all the while we're told "sorry, you can't do that."

So, land of the free, home of the brave, but here's about 100,000 pages (on bible paper in 6pt font) worth of regulations and shit you can't do. "Joe, freedom in that context is absurd dude..." well right, and I'm not advocating for a completely lawless society, but I really do think we missed the point somewhere along the way.

Let's look at the history and subtext behind the 4th as a holiday. Simply, this was the day we seceded from England and told an oppressive government to "bugger off." I'll restate that: On the 4th of July, 1776, we told our government we weren't following their rules anymore. We overthrew the government, and now we celebrate having shrugged off the weight of the government (used with purpose!)

I hope my point is clear here - What we now celebrate is some text on a calendar that means we can get an extra day off. It has nothing to do with any elements of the document signed on the 4th of July, 1776.

...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

Read: YOUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS. SETTING UP NEW RULES. PS: THE KING SUCKS TOO.

So, the whole point being, we celebrated not just succession, but the fact of having overthrown the government, and the fact that we as people are independent.

Guess things changed. Now it's just another day to drink a little too much.

Some say freedom is different now than what it was then. That "Freedom" means an inconsequential outcome... that your choices should be mitigated to ensure you have the same out come the rest of us do. That's the socialist answer.

Some say that the government and law expanded out of necessity. Changes in the human condition necessitated revision upon revision of law. That's the worst answer.

The freedom and independence of this country was defined (not just on a documentary basis) by the context of the time. Freedom, meant the ability to make choices and be the only bearer of the consequences. Not that there would be no consequences. The ability to make choices without fear of oppression or legal repercussion from the government, so long as your choices affected only your life, and not another.

I had someone tell me recently, that the law expanded due to necessity, and that the notion of personal sovereignty was "welcome to nuzzle his coin purse." It took me the better part of a day to stop reeling from that statement.

To set the backdrop - Law in the US is a beast that spawned a set of professions, from tax accountants, to attorneys and government employees. Title 26 (the tax code) is so immense it spans over 9,500 pages... IN ONE TITLE.

My thought of late, given that I may lose my job soon, on account of this same type of situation...

Look at the implications of expanding law. This country was founded on a principle of personal representation. Our entire court system was devised with that in mind. Now, due to massively expanded state and federal law (and the ability to set precedent with court cases) a lawyer is practically necessary in order to properly represent a case or defend yourself, much less win.

Can't afford a lawyer? TOO BAD, you lose. You may have legal rights, but unless you can afford to pay someone to untangle the code sections that apply, you can't exercise them. Simply put - Our legal system has become Jim Crow on an economic basis as opposed to race, and a professional monopoly.

Why don't we have a flat tax? Because removal of the current tax code would destroy the entire tax preparation industry and create a huge amount of unemployment. - The entire Green initiative is in the same boat. Right or wrong, these laws create jobs. Destroying them would be political suicide.


Anywho, that's my tirade for the night. Independence day my ass. Now it's better represented by Will Smith punching aliens than it is by any virtue, moral or philosophy.

I blame the Sophists, Michael Moore, and the Smurfs.

A beautiful quote. Any eisegesis will get scoffed at.

To preface - This was written by a woman, not me.

"For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship - the desire to look up to man. "To look up" does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value judgments. A "clinging vine" type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, NOT any human virtue she might lack.

This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such - which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother or leader."

- Alisa Rosenbaum, A.k.a. Ayn Rand, 1971

A Lesson in Crony Capitalism

Recently, the FTC announced that it had laid the groundwork for an investigation into supposed Anti-Trust violations made by Google, Inc. The FTC announced on June 24, 2011 that it would be issuing subpoenas to begin the investigation.

Here’s the WSJ Story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339904576403603764717680.html

Allegedly, Google’s dominance of internet search engines is being abused to skew search results in favor of Google owned products and/or to bury competitor’s products deep in the search results. In addition, apparently Google’s sponsored results also place Google’s own services at the top…

Um, isn’t that what they’re SUPPOSED to do?

This whole idea is ludicrous. Correct me if I’m wrong here but, is the FTC and FairSearch.org REALLY insinuating that a company (such as Google) has the responsibility to advertise products for its competitors?

No, it doesn’t. The issue resides in the notion that, since Google is the most widely used search engine in the US and Europe, if it restricts or alters the search results in favor of its own products, it would then limit or restrict competition through a lack of disclosure.

Now, not only is Google NOT the only search engine in existence, it’s also not the only gateway to the internet, and is NOT violating anyone’s rights by promoting its own products (if it is in the first place.) Google is not the only medium through which internet users can find products and other websites. Google is therefore; not a monopoly and is not impeding or controlling which companies are “winners or losers” as FairSearch.org put it. Google is not affecting competition in anyway, in part because they can’t, and in part because the people who choose the “winners and losers” is YOU the consumer. An advertising or search medium like Google has NO control over the choices you make or even the scope of your choices – If I don’t like one catalog, I’ll find another.

That aside, most analysts say that no suit will actually result, but my bigger issue with this is the precedent that would be set.
This is a perfect example of “Crony Capitalism.” In the US, a Monopoly is not illegal by its self. It’s the “misuse or abuse” of monopolistic control over a market that is illegal, but those same laws do not define “misuse or abuse” or even very clearly define what makes a monopoly beyond establishing that the product is the most used in the market. – Yet the very idea of a monopoly requires that it be the ONLY option available in the market, which it is not. So, the ambiguity of the law allows complaints to be issued by competitors and subsequent investigations by the legal authorities since the law would allow.

It’s a means of either eliminating or reducing the effect of a competitor in a given market. Alcohol producers have been doing it for nearly a century under the 3 Tier System. Phillip Morris and RJ Reynolds have done it through the Tobacco Master Settlement.

This isn’t a matter of secret agreements between major companies and the government, or even something as expected as significant stock shareholders who work for the government being upset. It’s simply an avenue for any business to explore, much like advertising, product differentiation or any other way they try to increase market share.

Competition cannot be maintained by the government, it can only be usurped. – As long as a significant means to influence the success or failure of business exists within the powers of government, competing companies will seek to use the government as a means of attacking a competitor’s market share. Given the circumstances associated with this FTC investigation, I can’t help but think this is anything more than that, and the precedent established by cases like this is what we should all be concerned about.

A few quotes on my mind.

"The most vindictive resentment may be expected from the pedagogic profession for any suggestion that they should be dislodged from their dictatorial position; it will be expressed mainly in epithets, such as "reactionary," at the mildest. Nevertheless, the question to put to any teacher moved to such indignation is: Do you think nobody would willingly entrust their children to you and pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?"

- Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine 1963
On Public Education and the belief that we must have a public education system.


"How can we get greater loyalty from the individual to the union? All the things we fought for, the corporation is now giving the workers. What we have to find are other things that the workers want which the employer is not willing to give him, and we have to develop our program around these things as reasons for belonging to the union."

- An Unnamed UAW Executive in an article titled "10 U.A.W. Leaders Find Unions Are Losing Members' Loyalty" from the New York Times, September 8, 1963 (or 1964.)
I'm not sure I need to comment on this. The implication should be obvious. Unions seeking survival in an age where they are dying.

"In the issue of monopolies, as in so many other issues, capitalism is commonly blamed for the evils perpetrated by it's destroyers: it is not free trade on a free market that creates coercive monopolies, but government legislation, government action and government controls."

- Nathaniel Branden, "Common Fallacies about Capitalism" June 1962
Truly coercive monopolies are government instituted.

"The United States - history's magnificent example of a country created by political theorists - has abandoned it's own philosophy and is falling apart. As a nation, we are splintering into warring tribes which - only by the fading momentum of a civilized tradition - are called "economic pressure groups," at present. As opposition to our growing statism, we have nothing but the futile "willayas" of the so-called "conservatives," who are fighting, not for any political principles but only against the "liberals."

- Ayn Rand, the Los Angeles Times 1962

"Each activity and each need of the individual will thereby be regulated by the party as the representative of the general good. There will be no license, no free space, in which the individual belongs to himself. This is Socialism - not such trifles as the private possession of the means of production. Of what importance is that if I range men firmly within a discipline from which they cannot escape? Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the party, is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers. All that, you see, is unessential. Our Socialism goes far deeper...
The people about us are unaware of what is really happening to them. They gaze fascinated at one or two familiar superficialities, such as possessions and income and rank and other outworn conceptions. As long as these are kept in tact, they are quite satisfied. But in the meantime they have entered into a new relation; a powerful social force has caught them up. They themselves are changed. What are ownership and income to that? Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."

- Adolf Hitler, to Hermann Rauschning in "Hitler Speaks."
The concepts of Fascism and Communism are on the same side of the spectrum, not opposite. - Also what separated Hitler from other Mass Murderers in history. Most believed their actions were pure, their motives correct (even if they weren't.) Hitler was wrong, and he knew it.

"Explain to me the difference between the a King's Rule and the People's Rule. Both are tyrants, both are rulers, and both possess the same power, both can force their ideologies on people. The philosophical foundation of this country was the idea of Personal Rule. You are your OWN ruler, and you have rights that no government, collective or otherwise can take from you. In modern day, law after law is passed that progressively strips the right to rule your own life. This is not "progress" it is "regress." No matter the ruler be it the people or a king, both are tyrants and the motive is always power over your life."

- Me, Just now.

Subjective:Objective - A quick note on knowledge.

I'm going to try and keep this short. I also do not mean this pejoratively, it's simply my own stream of thought.

The idea that reality is subjective is dependent on objective knowledge - Arguing that reality is subjective is dependent on the use of knowledge (which is supposedly subjective) and thought processes that require identification.

To say "Reality IS subjective" is to define reality. In making such a statement, we are defining our terms - We are characterizing reality as such. - We are making the notion "reality is subjective" an objective term. - Something with definition and definition (by it's own... definition) cannot vary or it is not defined. Understanding such definition is knowledge.

"Reality is Subjective" is a contradiction in terms.

Seventeen Years Ago...

September, 1993 Not sure what day, but it was about 2:30pm, as school let out.

I was in the 5th grade I think. I remember running across the dirt field where they held field day in May each year. I was excited for it next year - I always thought myself a runner and often took first or second place in years before, and wanted another chance to race. I ran up the hill toward the path that lead into the neighborhood, to get home. This was the first year Chris was in middle school, and no matter how much we fought, I always felt comfortable with him walking home - He's my big brother and as long as we're together we'll be safe. Without him, I had been scared walking home and really didn't like it.

As I got to the top of the hill, I saw mom's car along side the road and my heart swelled up. I figured mom was home early and this was another of her surprises I always loved. I ran to the car and opened the door to an even better one - Grandpa. I had always called him "my buddy" though in retrospect, I don't think he was much one for kids in a lot of ways, or at least kids at my age. Regardless, he smiled at me and said hello. I had asked him why he was here; In the past Dad brought me out to see the family and outside of special events, Grandma and Grandpa never came out to Colorado. The one thing about Clyde I always had a great deal of respect for was something, to this day, I never got out of many people - He was honest in the truest sense of the word. He told me "Your mother is in the hospital, and has a tumor on her lung, but it may be benign and not malignant, we're not sure." I had understood the words, even malignant and benign (Dad always used more complex vocabulary with my brother and I, something I am STILL thankful for) but I didn't truly grasp their meaning. I couldn't have really told you the difference between malignant and benign, except that they were opposite each other in some fashion. All I had known was Mom was sick, but I got the sense she would be ok.

What had seemed like two years, but was really a matter of months had gone by. I never had a doubt in my mind that Mom would be ok. I had never heard (or at least not remembered) that they confirmed the tumor was malignant. I was upset because the big couch that I loved got moved out of the house and replaced with a hospital bed. This meant that the TV was mostly off limits which meant no video games, but Grandpa had bought Chris a personal TV and he had bought a Super Nintendo with money he saved from a summer job. I was really jealous. That was the foremost thing on my mind - I didn't think much about Mom and her being bed-ridden in the living room. I figured it was just part of what she had to do to get better, so Grandma and Grandpa could leave and we could go back to the way we lived before. I figured it was a matter of time.
We still went to see Dad who seemed disconnected from my life since Mom and Dad's divorce - I hadn't really connected with him much at that point. It took time for us to do so... as it turned out, it took us a lot longer than it was probably "supposed" to.

At home, I was still waiting for Mom to get better. I was confused, I wanted to do something but knew there was nothing I could. Mom would smile at me and had told me that she was eating buttered crackers instead of smoking - Something she had a hard time with even though she was sick. I later found out; She quit cold-turkey when she knew she was pregnant with my brother and I.

I had watched her hair fall out a few months earlier, though she wore some bandana kind of thing. She was always very thin on account of her diet, but now was almost skeletal. She had become jaundice because of the chemotherapy and her eyes were a tinge of yellow. I didn't know what to say, or think. I just wanted her to be Mom again but physically, she couldn't. I had heard something about "it" spreading to her colon and her bone marrow. - Again I knew the words but translating them into something I understood was beyond me at that point.

In early April I was called out of school I was kind of excited I got away from class, but when I saw my Grandma, I wasn't sure what to think. I was to go see Mom in the hospital. I had wondered why she was there and Grandma told me that there was a problem at home and Mom had to be rushed to the hospital - I still don't know what exactly happened. We went and saw Mom, I gave her a hug and told her I loved her, then was taken out of the room.

Chris and I were at home some nights later and Grandma and Grandpa were told they had to go to the hospital. I wanted to go with and see Mom. I was told I couldn't. Chris and I stayed home and played video games, and after a few minutes, I stopped and looked at him. "I think she's about to die." "No dude, it'll be okay. Let's just keep playing, she'll be fine."

That morning my Grandparents told me I shouldn't go to school, and should stay home. I wanted to be excited I got to skip school but I knew something was wrong - Later that afternoon, my Grandma told me and my brother, that mom had died the night before. I was off by a matter of minutes.

Sucker Punch and My View of Art. (Spoiler Alert)

I had a pretty obvious emotional reaction to this movie - I was utterly and completely appalled. They may as well just televise the explicit rape and exploitation of women then illustrate their ultimate solace as a lobotomy. - OH WAIT THEY DID.

Seriously folks. If you haven't seen it, and clicked the link I'm sure you have already seen the movie, don't care or won't see the movie, and so you should know - This movie conveyed images of explicit human depravity, followed by an altruistic sacrifice that ended in a fantasized conveyance of the story whose entire expression was that there is freedom in a lobotomy. Literally. Lobotomy. "Turn off your brain, and you will find peace."

Now, I feel I should explain my perspective on Art.

Being a Romantic, (not in the sense of romantic love, but in the sense of art) I tend to focus on powerful, compelling emotions that inspire and motivate, as well as the bigger message conveyed, or the bigger goal of the art. - "What are you trying to say? What emotions are you trying to inspire or spark?" The conveyance in art is an emotional association implicitly, but is explicitly intended.

If art is to be expression, then I would ask if the goal is to simply interpret whatever you want from it, or if the goal is to interpret what the artist is expressing? "Modern Art" of the 1980's-2000+'s brought about the notion that art is what you interpret, not what is conveyed. Now, I realize most people will interpret art a little differently from person to person. I get that. I get inspired and driven when I hear metal, others think it cacophony or just angry. Our emotional reactions are based largely on learned and automated value judgments we make as soon as we see art. The problem I have however is that there MUST be some commonality between us, logically, biologically, and emotionally. - This is after all, what makes us Human. Perhaps not our hearts. Perhaps not our values. But...

I want to know who finds rampant exploitation of women, explicit murder, mental institutions and the idea that there is some freedom in lobotomization and archaic human sacrifice, to be an emotional association worthy of art. I don't see the artistic value of human depravity, in film or anywhere else, and I don't see how pain and tragedy is art.

I watched the Hangover recently and saw a scene about one of the characters having been restricted from being within 100 feet of a school and thought - This isn't funny, it's really fucked up. There's no humor in that.

To me, what we look for in art is a desire to feel one way or another - an inspiration, and perhaps there's a depressive association in this "art" yet it makes me wonder - Is this what you WANT to feel? Perhaps this is my problem with Trent Reznor and Radiohead as well - It INSPIRES depressive and painful emotions, and I can't help but ask...

"WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO FEEL THIS WAY?"

I understand very well that it may be HOW you feel, but my question again is - do you WANT to feel that way? This is my perspective on art; How do I want to feel, and does this inspire me to those emotions? Does this represent the goal, or the good? If it doesn't - Does it tell a story about reality? Does it display something that should be changed or convey a message of value?

Sucker Punch did NOTHING of the sort, and was the polar opposite of everything I hold to be good. It conveyed;
A. Wanton Exploitation of Women and treatment of them as sex-toys.
B. The only solace in existence is to evade reality in a dream.
C. There is value in self-immolation and personal destruction for the sake of another.
D. The ultimate happiness is not the end of depravity, but to lobotomize your mind and disconnect, because such depravity is the core of the story (existence.)
E. Tragedy for the sake of invoking sadness.

I realize there are many who find artistic value in tragedies, and sadness. I ask the same question from before - Do you WANT to feel sad? Or is life so cush, that watching a tragedy is the only way to experience it? I've often marveled at those who find art in depravity and sadness, and wonder what their emotional reaction is - Whether it's association or comfort, or perhaps both. I also wonder - Is it a reflection of our affluence; Without real, significant pain in life, do we seek it in art as a psychological balance? Art is one of the many ways in which I think my perspective on reality vastly differs from most, potentially as a result of my mothers death when I was young, and other factors. That's just a theory though.

In the end, I would have walked out on this movie within fifteen minutes, had I not wanted to keep being with the friends I accompanied. I stayed and my explicit emotional reaction occasionally brought me to a tear, had me feeling terrible, and ultimately left me asking - "What is left to call good?" This movie was simply cruel and tragic. I would have been overjoyed if they ended it with some sort of Perfect Blue caliber reality swap up. But no. It was just sad.

Maybe the mission was accomplished?

"They think I'm giving them hell. I'm just telling the truth, and they think it's hell." - President Truman

Someone said recently (not to me, just in general) "I'd rather you be honest, once and for all... if not, I'm out."

I half-chuckled at the statement. I don't mean that pejoratively but what made me smile was the interesting truth dichotomy in the statement, and it got me thinking about truth relative to human interaction, social interaction that is.

Rule #1 of Human Interaction is... "Don't ever tell the truth, unless you are CERTAIN the situation is of extreme polarity." I.e. it's either really important, or really useless.

Now, this sounds pretty shitty when I put it like that, but think about it for a moment. The classic and easy example is "Do I look fat in these jeans?" - I'm not trying to target anyone by implication here, I'm just using the most obvious example (to me.)

The correct answer to that question, requires NO evaluation of facts and is some variety of "Not at all!"

Now, I've used this example many a time before, and the truth element of it will vary. It's possible the jeans don't make you look fat, or it's possible that you may look fat in ANYTHING you wear. But being truthful will almost always yield less than positive results, so we lie through our teeth to make someone else happy.

Moreover, the whole purpose of asking a question like that is to solicit for positive answer. The question isn't being asked for the sake of the truth, the question is being asked because the person asking it wants someone to make them feel good.

How fucked up is that? Take the same concept and apply it else where - We lie to make others feel better, never mind what the reality of the situation is. People lie to us in fear of making us upset or to try and obtain a positive reaction. Don't forget, the origin of the term "Being conned" comes from the word "Convince." (Also note, our entire political structure is, at this point, based on conning people into marking a box.) Can you ever tell if someone is being honest or just trying to make you feel better?

Now, more than ever, we're concerned with how we feel, with what makes us feel good instead of what really is.

Many talk about being individual, yet all the while they cater to the pack by trying to seek positive social responses from others, instead of actually saying what they think. We even misrepresent our lives through the mass of social media like Facebook and Twitter. There's a separate blog post on that I edited out of here. Suffice it to say - Everyone wants to tell the world how perpetually awesome their life is, when the truth of the situation is, we all have our ups and downs.

Most people don't genuinely want to hear the truth. They want to hear what makes them feel good. Every failed relationship is a result of dishonesty, generally on the part of both human beings, not just one or the other. In the end, I chuckled because the question that always strikes my mind when I hear something like that is, "Is that REALLY what you want?" For 99.999% of people the answer is, "No, I really don't."

I think this may be why I went from a glib socialite that could work a crowd and woo the ladies, to a hardened dick seems socially awkward and can't find a girlfriend to save my life. I got tired of bullshitting people and more importantly, myself.

The downside, is that I'm now typing this knowing full and well that I have "recently" started bullshitting the world again and it's because loneliness struck about two years ago. I think it's time for a change of direction.


Edit,and P.S.: I'm not saying I've been bullshitting friends and family about me. Just that I've left many parts of me at home when I venture out. I've decided to start bringing them with me.

The Contradiction of Cultural Identity

This is one of those little rants that's been wedged in the back of my mind for about a year. A few years back I was told that (I'm not quoting exactly here) "I am a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP), and the way I think and operate as such is guided by my culture." Or, "My drive for rational and logical thought is because I'm white." Now, all racial implications aside, I started analyzing this argument.

Before I dive in however, I feel I should explain Cultural Identity. What was said, is based on a theory that much of a person's identity is made up of a multitude of cultural identifiers, such as place, race, history, nationality, language, religious beliefs, etc. These identifiers guide how you're raised and as such, how you think and what you see as right and wrong.

So, to bring the points together, because I was raised with a northwestern European background both religiously and historically, I try to be rational and logical in my thinking. (There was another few elements that this debate was derived from, that would start a long tangent. Perhaps another post.)

To halt any beating of bushes, I have two simple statements I hope will demonstrate my point.

Cultural Identity is Bullshit.
First. Let's presume that Cultural Identity is correct, and see if the dots connect.
If my mode of thought and persona are guided by my culture, and I have obviously recognized that such is driving my thought processes and identity, and so we have then said - You cannot change it. If my identity is driven by my culture then I have no capacity to alter my mode of thought, because it's learned from a set of circumstances beyond my control well before I was even born. (Also indirectly saying that people are not born Tabula Rasa.)

Second. Let's presume as we did before, that Cultural Identity is correct, but in recognizing it I can change it (The free will thing.) It no longer becomes a necessary condition, and is no longer "Identity" - The ability to alter your mode of thought and persona invalidate it as an aspect of Identity, because you have the capacity to recognize what you're doing, and change. You have the ability to change, which means the essence of your character isn't cultural, it's just... what you want it to be.

In the first scenario, the notion of Cultural Identity is like looking at a man and saying "You are a man." - Thank you Captain Obvious, now what are we DOING about it? Hating a group for being who they are amounts to cultural bigotry while trying to change the circumstances yields a whole new question. The second scenario supposes we CAN do something about it, which turns the whole idea of Cultural Identity into a glaring contradiction.

Now, perhaps there's some concept that I'm not recognizing, or am just ignorant of, and I would ask - Please, comment. If I've overlooked something, I'd like to know what it is.

Identity deals with "Is" and "Are." The content of a person's mind and WHO they ARE, is guided by their conscious choices about what to believe and accept, and what not to. Many are not conscious of who they are, or what compels them to action, or simply can't handle the notion that each person is an individual capable of acting and behaving of their OWN accord. The capacity to recognize what drives us to certain actions gives us the ability to change our behavior. We can be driven biologically or emotionally to a specific action, but in recognizing what those drives are, we have the ability (unlike most of the animal kingdom) to follow or deny those drives based on the outcome we want to achieve. That ability is what defines our Identity - The values that guide our choices, in the face of whatever would drive us to act, and the capacity to define those values independently, in the face of all other influences.

Social Media and Curiosity

Enroute to class, I was checking twitter on my phone, nurturing my Four Square addiction and noticed many friends checking in at the Rackhouse. Curious about what was going on, I snoop my way through talkthirtytome.com and discover "Oh hey, there's some sort of shindig for something called "12 questions." Who new? Well apparently EVERYONE except me. Moreover, WTF is "12 questions?"

So, after my snooping and discovery, (and some time spent marveling at my ineptitude) I realized there's actually a sort of social media subculture that developed somewhere along the way. I also realized - I'm somewhere on the order of YEARS behind in such a recognition. That got me thinking about my total lack of awareness (I'm not slow, I swear) of such and it occurred to me (as most of you already know) - I am the only person in my world. Not really, of course, I'm simply stating I have a very self-centered view of existence.

Having just recently started this blog, I realized that the ONLY reason I did so, was to write my head down in case someone actually cared to read it - But in my self-centered universe, I didn't imagine anyone else would be there to do so.

Turns out - PEOPLE ACTUALLY READ THIS SHIT... well at least some folks do, primarily those new-found friends that are well entrenched into social media stuffs, and a few others. I'm absolutely shocked... and also re-evaluating what I put on this blog. Moreover, I'm a bit fascinated that there are people so interested in the goings on of another's life and mind that they would spend time reading the blog of someone they hardly know. - Not a criticism mind you, simply a strange way of thinking, coming from my perspective.

All things start at self. We cannot love without first knowing what to love - Something we have to define within ourselves before we can ever know what (or who) to love. I realize there's MANY degrees of separation between "Love" and "Morbid Curiosity" I'm simply using a bit of directed hyperbole to identify interest and value.

I guess this is my round-about way of saying "Thank You." I realized recently that while values and love begin with the self, a world in which I am the only person that matters, is not only lonely but just generally shitty. I also confirmed what I've said for years, empirically - The most awesome thing anyone can do for me, is prove me wrong. To quote Penn Jilette, "it's that powerful, awe inspiring "uh-huh" moment where you realize the truth of the situation... and there's nothing better."

/Rant On Trent Reznor and Why I Really Don't Like Him

I think I'm going to break this out into sections, to explain my general disdain of Trent Reznor (A.k.a. Nine Inch Nails.)

Now, if you like his music... great. Prior to reading this, please understand that I'm not criticizing your taste in music or "YOU" specifically or that you like his music. I'm bashing Trent Reznor and his following for the reasons I shall state.

Let's start with the musical content.
Trent Reznor is a beat thief. For those unawares, "My Sharona" by The Knack is the beat line to "Beginning of the End" and "Capital G" was taken from Michael Jackson's "The Way You Make Me Feel." Why no suit? Because there's just enough difference to make it considered "unique" according to the law. Regardless, I'd challenge anyone to tell me the difference. And for reference, Closer was another hi-jack from an old New Order song back in the 1980's.

NIN is not unique. Industrial music was pioneered by a band called Ministry back when Trent Reznor was still playing keyboards with the Exotic Birds, circa 1985ish. For some reason, many feel the need to associate Reznor with the rise of Industrial Music. On a popular basis, it could be attributed to him, but he certainly didn't "pioneer" anything.

Music is made of of 5 elements; Melody, Harmony, Pitch, Tamber and Rhythm. Altering Pitch and Melody, yet keeping with the other 5 elements makes for a different, perhaps effective change, but it's still only part of the equation. Basically what I'm saying here is that what goes into Reznor's music is still the same as everyone else - a variation of those five elements. It's what EVERY musician does. Deifying him in anyway is silly. Like everyone else, he simply makes music that some people enjoy.

Where Jackson Pollock threw paint at a canvas, Trent Reznor throws sound at a magnetic hard disk. It looks interesting, it sounds neat and it's even worth a sound track deal or two, but it doesn't constitute "amazing" any more than any other artist.

Part of what I will criticize about Reznor's musical ability is that he has NEVER ONCE used a real drum set. It's all synthesized drum sequences with very little variation from the start.

Trent Reznor as a composer.
"Reznor is a COMPOSER, not just an artist." I've heard this multiple times from many people, and it's simply incorrect. Reznor is not a composer. Composition deals with written, intentional music creation and involves multiple constituent elements. I.e. Musical Notation, Instrumentation, Orchestration etc.
Now, I will admit, I may be a bit biased in my analysis of him being a "composer" in that I grew up on composers like Aaron Copeland, Gustav Holst, Bach and Beethoven. Beethoven stands out with the idea of the word "composer" in mind, if for no other reason than the fact that he was deaf when he wrote his 9th symphony. I bring this up to say - Reznor doesn't start the process by writing. He starts it by performing, then finishes with arrangement and structure.

So, while he may physically write music, he may play instruments and decide what sounds he wants where similar to a composer, can we really call him that? Perhaps, but by that measure almost every artist is a composer, even Ke$ha.

Trent Reznor really excels at is a process called "Sampling." He takes previously recorded sounds, then processes and alters them to get the sound he wants. I think many may call Reznor a "composer" because he generally records those initial sounds himself prior to the sampling process. There again - not really all that spectacular in the music world.

"The Social Network" Soundtrack
I need to clarify this. Trent Reznor was only ONE part of that soundtrack, the other part is a guy named Atticus Ross, that most may not even know. After spending the last few days listening to Atticus's solo stuff, then coming back to the soundtrack, I can certainly hear Reznor, but I can't credit him with creation of it all. He and Atticus have worked on a number of albums in the past, and many of the songs on the soundtrack were reworked items from Ghost I - IV. I will say, from a personal perspective, Atticus Ross seems to add some depth than what I've heard in the past, and it's VERY clear how the music has changed.

Also, please note: I'm not impressed that awards were won for the soundtrack. Popular and good are two different terms, not correlated in any way. Even the Nobel Prize is a joke.

"Steal it, steal it and steal it some more." - The Philosophy of Reznor
Those that don't know what Reznor had been saying during his performances a few years back can youtube it. Just search for "Trent Reznor Steal it" and you'll find it.

Radiohead, back in 2008 or 2009 released an album without a record label called "In Rainbows." They asked for a simple donation for the album, and made buckets of money, but the album mostly passed into Obscurity. Why? No promotion for the album release outside the novelty value of "oh hey, they're selling their music without a label."

Now let's look at Reznor's approach - Sign a label, produce an album, then advocate theft. Look how fast his music spread. Trent Reznor has become more and more popular ever since he's started this "fight the labels" stance. I don't disagree with him in his stance and actually support it, but the thing is - He doesn't do it simply for ideological purposes. It sells records and spreads his music, plus he ends up with a bigger take from album sales.

Again... has my support functionally, except that he's selling a contradiction. "Record Labels are greedy. Give the money to me instead." Pot, meet Kettle. I agree with him, in that I'd rather my money go directly to the artist and support his greed, but if the label serves a function, the details about who gets what money are fungible - The band has something to gain from the label.

Prices STILL haven't gone down, despite Reznor's advocation of theft and that record labels are quickly losing their foothold in the music industry, yet many artists still WANT a record label because it's hugely influential in spreading their music to a wide audience. So Reznor and Radiohead don't. Many still do.

I'll defend his right to free speech, but I find the overall message appalling. Stealing is not a solution to a problem, it's a problem in and of it's self, with no possible positive outcome. He advocates the idea as a matter of appealing to a crowd that loves the notion that big-bad greedy Corporate America is out to get them (same thing we're taught in school), and ought to be fought and destroyed and that YOU TOO can help take down the man, by stealing his music, which he advocates.

There's other ideological problems I have with him too, but that's another post.

Next up - He's popular because he's good at making music for the demographic he targets. - Hence his selection (with Atticus Ross) for the Social Network. The demographic it targeted is the same (or similar) demographic his music does. These demographics are often created by the similarities in personalities among people within that demographic - They all share enjoy the same "sense" or "feel" they get from the music, and message in the music. This isn't a criticism, it's simply a statement about the reason he was asked to do the soundtrack and that there is a similarly shared response within the group that likes his music, and that creates the demographic.

But that's why we like the music we do. We each respond differently to the musical and lyrical content of music and like what we do because we share some sort of emotional response to that music (understanding that it may not be what was intended by the artist.) I'm not criticizing anyone's taste in music, including his. I'm simply saying...

He makes music you like. That doesn't necessarily make him more or less of an artist than ANY other musician. Personally, I find the fact that he uses synthesized drum machines (kind of like what you hear on those starter keyboards) pretty cheesy, and in my view, takes away from the musicianship (and definitely detracts from his credibility as a "composer.") I can see holding musicians in high regard if you enjoy an artist's music, but it doesn't make the artist objectively skilled or able. Reznor isn't really a very astounding musician on any level, but he knows what sells and what works in the ears of a wide audience. With that, objectively skilled and able doesn't mean it's music everyone will consider "good." It might not even be marketable music. Joe Satriani and Eric Johnson are incredibly skilled guitarists, vastly better than Reznor by comparison, but Reznor out sells them by leaps and bounds. Music is one of the many places where "best" and "popular" do not go hand in hand.

To end with a quote from a guy I hate that demonstrates this so well...
"I really don't know how to play the guitar." - Kurt Cobain

/endrant

A true thirst for knowledge.

I wish I could live more lives than my own.

Really. I want to know what it's like to be conditioned as a child to race go-karts, then champ cars, then formula 1. Who wouldn't right? But I mean that even to an extreme. I wish I could be a jet pilot (and have the eyes and age to do it.) Again, who wouldn't? But I'd even like to live life as a woman, to see ALL of the different facets of life from that perspective, good and bad - never mind that I'd probably STILL like women. I want knowledge. I want to know what life would be like from all of these different perspectives and I know that it is completely impossible for me to do so within the limitation of my own life.

And that seriously sucks.

I'd like to see life as a gay man or gay woman. As a politician. As a high school football player, as a drug addict that lives on the streets. As a stripper, as a coke dealer. As a car sales man. As a regular guy with a regular job, a wife and 2 kids. As a rebellion leader, fighting government. As a soldier supporting the government he believes in. As a republican. As a democrat. As a combination of any of the above.

I simply want to know what people think. I want to know how they react, how they feel, think and breathe and more importantly, what emotions, thoughts and reactions course through their mind when an event occurs. I want to know how they react emotionally, psychologically, functionally. Yet I cannot do that within the scope of one life.

:(