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?