On cultural change

To first clarify my position, I am a feminist in that I support women's rights and advocate for equal rights between both men and women.

I am taking a women's studies class this semester, and while going over plenty in only three hour per week class session, something has occurred to me. Not that Micheal Bay is a blight upon the cinema going public, but that the United States needs to undergo a culture shift, comparable to the use of seat belts.
Bear with me this analogy will make a lot more sense after I explain it. When seat belts were first introduced, not many people wore them as it was taken as an insult to the driver. As it was explained in the book Superfreakonomics, "And so was it with the seat belt. Congress began setting federal safety standards in the mid 1960s, but even 15 years later seat belt use was laughably low: just 11 percent. Over time, the number crept upward, thanks to a variety of nudges: the threat of a traffic ticket; expansive public-awareness campaigns; annoying beeps and flashing dashboard lights if the belt wasn't buckled; and, eventually, a societal acceptance that wearing a seat belt wasn't an insult to anyone's driving ability."
the bold face is mine, and this would be the end result that anyone who is for equal rights between men and women, social acceptance of all genders and sexes being equal. A society where the comment about a woman being equal to a man is something that is taken for granted, ideally to the point where the comment would be met with a sarcastic remark about the color of the sky (It's still blue for those unsure). The next part of this is how to go about doing so. Those who advocate for political correctness and equality have done well in changing the language of most official organizations to be more inclusive, and at this point more accurate. This might seem silly to say chairperson instead of chairman, particularly to earlier generations, but it is important to send the implicit message that anyone can be the head of a company. I personally tend towards the gender specific chairman or chairwoman when appropriate, and when I don't know will use chairperson, or chair of the company, another term that works but often leads to the mental image of a physical chair that is owned by a company. Moving on from the office furniture, there are still issues for the women's rights movement, first of all the negative connotation of the word feminism. Pat Robertson, who is about as mainstream as I am, has argued that feminism causes lesbianism in an argument so irrational and impossible it caused by brain to hit full stop and contemplate what insane troll logic it took to reach that conclusion. I still can't fathom that level of delusional thinking for those concerned. This is less important on its own merits, but is more important in showing the cultural stereotypes, particularly of feminists. This stereotype should be familiar to anyone either from a particularly conservative area, like me, or anyone who listens to certain talk radio stations. The stereotype is probably best summed up by this tvtropes page on straw feminists here. There is almost nothing that can really change this beyond what is already being done. However if there was any feasible way to reinforce the idea that feminists are for equality to the whole mass of humanity, I'll take any suggestions. Seriously, any suggestions would be welcome.

On the Reaction to the "Tragedy in Tuscon"

To start out the only reason I used quotations is that someone else has already created the alliterative headline and to not put it in quotations would be plagiarism.

To say that there is a lot of news coverage on the events from last Saturday, is like referring to a rose as red, the white house as white, and the sea as blue. There is enough information out there and to talk about the shooting itself would be pretty much useless, but there is something I can talk about that might help. There is quite a bit about toning down rhetoric, which on paper is nice, but as Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation reminds us, paper is a flimsy thing. There is one thing we can do that will help. There is a psychological concept known as deindividuation, where when Identities are concealed or obscured, violence is increased. This was first proved in one experiment by Phillip Zimbardo in which he had subjects wear large pillowcase and referred only by number whereas the control group was referred to by name. The results indicated that when an individuals identity is known, that individual is less violent. This effect works in both directions, whenever an demagogue wants to rally people, only very rarely to the rail against individuals, and then only when those individuals are guilty of something, maybe criminally, more often not. More often than not, they railed against a group. There are many examples, one such would be Huey Long of Louisiana who used corporations as his proverbial punching bag. A more contemporary example could be Keith Olbermann who uses demeaning nicknames such as "Bill'o the Clown" for Bill O'Reilly, and "Lonesome Rhodes Beck" for Glenn Beck. Since he has apologized for a statement that implied violence, maybe he could keep a commitment to avoid dehumanizing nicknames. And then maybe Fox News commentators would stop referring to those in the country illegally as "Illegals", reducing them to a subhuman category. And maybe I could find an elegant woman who hangs onto my every word for a nice dinner date. For those uncertain the last statement was meant sarcastically. To put this in perspective I have a lot of respect for Keith Olbermann and find him entertaining or enlightening, but only very rarely both. I don't watch Fox News except for the clips shown on other news outlets to mock Fox News and the film Outfoxed which I recommend to anyone with an interest in the media.



Citation for the study: "The Human Choice" by Phillip Zimbardo

On socialism, managerialism, and why politicians are always using poorly defined terms.

To avoid a long rambling essay, the reason politicians are vague has already been spelled out in far better terms by George Orwell. In his essay “Politics and the English Language” he explained why using polysyllabic babble, too many big words, in place of what the writer or speaker feels is true blunts not only their argument, but political debating as a whole. Go read that essay instead of this, but for the chronically lazy: “Political language-and with variations this is true of all political parties, from conservatives to anarchists-is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidarity to pure wind.” Now ignoring that politicians are little more than pure wind to begin with, political language has changed in that there are few politicians who try to hide their misdeeds through a long sheet of Latin based words that would require a dictionary to unravel, at least in the United States. The political vice in our case is using emotional language to make our point, even when the breakdown of terms leads to two groups arguing past each other. My example of this would be in the debate over border security. I recently did a research paper and when trawling through websites I could tell just by the language used what side of the debate, and how far on that side the writer was. Liberal sources which favor a reform of the naturalization process instead of protecting the border whereas more conservative sources favor border building, each of these had their own language. Liberal sources tended to refer to those in the country illegally as “undocumented workers” whereas conservative sources called the same people “illegal immigrants” with the fringe right shortening it to just “Illegals” which might explain the lack of progress in that area. Namely, if we cannot define our terms how can we debate the issue? I will admit that the converse might also be true in that our unwillingness to debate the issue manifests itself as an inability to define the terms, but given how eagerly most politically savvy people debate the issues, myself included, that is a bit unlikely. This leads back to the other two words in the title socialism and managerialism. The word socialism and it's adjective, socialist have acquired a negative connotation. This is a problem because many progressive people in history such as George Orwell, Charles Fourier, and arguably Thomas Paine either identified themselves as socialist or espoused ideas similar to socialism. To be clear there cannot be a definition of socialism that is as precise as any concrete object. Anything that is intangible cannot be defined, but socialism is a good example of one intangible with a fairly consistent definition. Historically it was the label of the very liberal that was often a straw man for conservatives, even though by today's standards some of their platform planks, particular in 1917 when they advocated for woman's suffrage, are noncontroversial. At the time it was controversial but I guess the political shift caused by the great depression was that powerful. Socialism was always considered a bad idea, but during the cold war the focus was more on communism and socialism was seen as the half way marker between communism and capitalism, and was therefore a-okay. this is in contrast to today where everything President Obama has done is considered socialist, even when it does nothing in regards to socialism or is in direct contrast to socialist ideas. In one sense it might have been preferable if he had taken the route of socialism, for example by putting the money from the stimulus in the hands of every citizen instead of the banks, but that was never his bill and politically speaking, vetoing the stimulus would have been disastrous.

The common thread in many objections to socialism are objections to something else entirely. James Burnham wrote several essays on Managerialism, a concept that has largely fallen out of the political consciousness. This is for a very good reason, Managerialism is a sophisticated cover for power worship and a desire for a meritocracy wherein the intellectual would be given the power. To put it in the words of Orwell himself, "when one examines the predictions which Burnham has based on his general theory, one finds that in so far as they are verifiable, they have been falsified." The crux of this theory is that all societies follow the iron law of oligarchy and that ultimately people form neat little hierarchies, and thus we should just drop the pretence. This is what I and many other people, from reactionaries(far right) to radicals(far left), object to with a socialist or communist style of government is the potential for corruption, a la Stalin's takeover of the soviet system creating a party elite that created an oligarchy in all but name only. The final point of this blog post is to be careful of what you call what. Socialism is a spectrum of economic policies. Managerialism is a philosophy of power worship. Do not mix them up.

He also pointed out how all social issues are political issues and there is no keeping out of politics, but that's another essay for another time.

Some Holiday Cheer

My first semester was interesting and now that I have some time off, I thought I'd draw attention to an essay that really helped me through finals and afterwards. In the essay, "I write as I please" by Eric Blair better known by his pen name George Orwell. There are many misconceptions about Geogre Orwell that I will hopefully clear up in later posts, but for now, my favorite excerpt from "I Write As I please"*
"At any rate, Spring is here, even in London N.1, and they can't stop you enjoying it. This is a satisfying reflection. How many a time haveI stood watching the toads mating, or a pair of hares having a boxing match in the young corn, and thought of all the important persons who would stop me enjoying this if they could . But luckly they can't. So long as you are not actually ill, hungry, frightened or immured in a prison or a holiday camp, spring is still spring. the atom bombs are piling up in the factories,the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun, and neither the dictators nor the bureaucrats, deeply as they disapprove of the process are able to prevent it."

Hopefully this cheers you up.




*I am re-writing this from my copy of The Orwell Reader with the latest copyright (1956) being Harcourt Brace Jonanvich, INC.

an update

I would like to continue this blog despite the fact that no class currently requires me to. As I have started college the posts, which ceased during the summer will resume, but will broaden in scope and will be less frequent. Given that I have been "Crown(ed) and miter(ed) you lord of yourself" (Dante, purgatory, Canto XXVII), I think some degree of introduction and explanation might be a good idea. I am as mentioned a college freshman, my major is political science, and there is absolutely no reason for you to continue to read this blog. No, not even that.

More to follow

Valediction VS Conjoined

"It is better to live in a desert land than with a contentious and vexing woman (Proverbs 21:19)" Love is never simple and has been the subject of poems since language was invented. Two such poems, "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" and "Conjoined" are very different. The differences in the figurative language, imagery, and tone are an example of conflicting styles of literature, in this case the difference between romantic and realistic styles and through that the difference in the beliefs of the times, namely the dramatic love and connection of the romantic period, such as in the John Donne poem "Valediction" contrasted against the feeling of suffocation that Judith Minty experiences, in the poem "Conjoined".

John Donne's poem "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" is a romantic poem, not only in its time frame, IE the romantic period, but also in the content. The subtitle "Forbidding Mourning" is the important theme of the poem, love and loss. There are two extended metaphors supported my many smaller comparisons. The first is the comparison of love, both in general and the love of the speaker, to earthquakes and the "trepidation of the spheres" respectively. With this metaphor the speaker implies that he and his beloved have a stronger relationship that "Dull sublunary lovers...Whose soul is sense." And later separates them saying, "But we by a love so refined... Care less, eyes, lips, and hands to miss." This states that their love is a romance of the souls and is beyond mortal understanding. The second extended metaphor, which lasts three stanzas, compares the souls of the two lovers to twin points of a geometric compass saying, "If they be two they are two so/As stiff twin compasses are two;/Thy soul, the fixt foot, makes no show/To move..." this metaphor expounds on their love, and shows the attitudes of the romantic period towards love, that it was a deep metaphysical experience that had no direct comparison, and of course if you messed that up, you were condemned to the spinster's life, but that's another essay. Another aspect of the poem is its tone, the use of "trepidation of the spheres" "sublunary" "profanation of our joys" and "laity" all hold a metaphysical connotation, implying that their love has somehow profound theological implications. In reality it gives the poem a grand, almost universal feel. An idea that the romantics felt very strongly about,

The poem "Conjoined" by Judith Minty is also about love but it shows a different set of beliefs. her poem uses several short metaphors and doth not share in the epic length of John Donne's poem, but instead focuses on the relationship. The poem compares their relationship to, "An accident, like the two headed calf rooted in one body," and to "The onion in my cupboard, A monster, actually two joined under one transparent skin:" finally concluding with the line, "We cannot escape each other." This relationship is a step or two beyond unhealthy. This obsessive love sharply contrasts John Donne's ideas of love. While the romantic idea of love was dramatic, emotional and ultimately freeing, Minty's Poem describes a suffocating, all consuming love. Also adding to the feeling of oppressiveness is the line, "Ah, but men/don't slice onions in the kitchen, seldom see what is invisible." She is only able to write it in a poem, not explain it to her significant other. This modernist love is not dramatic love, but a debilitating love, as exemplified by the phrases, "An accedent" "other freaks" "flat and deformed" and "joined at the chest by skin and muscle" create a disgusting and biological tone were things go against the supposed "natural order." This tone conveys how their "love" has either "evolved" into something freakish, or was "born" that way.

These two poems share a common theme but are worlds apart in beliefs and ideas. The first is a romantic poem about the joys and strength of love whereas the second is a realist notion of what love often is in its crushing destructive bent. These differences in attitudes in turn affect the word choice, metaphors, and the total length. Valediction has nine quatrains creating an orderly thirty six lines, whereas the poem Conjoined has three free verses that total fifteen lines. the difference is not just a formating issue, but one that holds as much significance as one word over another. Additionally while they are both free verse, Valediction has more order in it reflecting the romantic idea of a rational universe something the modernist disagreed with completely, as they found the universe cold and uncaring. The best examples of these contradictory theories or philosophies would be the difference between Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" and Hemingways "The Sun Also Rises." In the former like "A Valediction" the love is universal powerful emotion best compared to a hurricane whereas the latter like "Conjoined" is not romantic or optimistic but rather a negative outlook towards interpersonal relationships, seeing love as nothing more than socially approved lust.

The difference in the poems orginates in their respective philosphies, while the romantic belief in the power of emotion, the realist belief shows how those same emotions can hold a person down in this case, love or at the very least attachment. These changes are the only constant in language.

the Elite and Class can kiss my...

scrawny pale backside.


From what I am able to glean from the criticism, it is simply this, while O'Brian's The Things They Carried is an excellent example of postmodernism and literary art, that postmodern and aesthetic bent weakens the need to re-write Vietnam's history. The issue with re-writing the history is that the current historical interpretation is, according to Jim Neilson, that it is too favorable to the United States. There's a lot of truth in how we do not recognize Vietnam as it was. This Link explains certain limits placed on the troops in Vietnam. Even with those limits 1,100,000-1,900,000 Vietnamese "casualties" occurred during the war. This was the direct result of the pentagon's policy of established quotas. In one sense we attempted what was a WWI strategy of "bleeding the enemy white" And that is not only morally wrong but tactically unsuitable for a country like the united states which was able to defeat Germany and the central Powers, Nazi Germany and the axis, and North Korea, more or less in the same amount of years as the whole of the Vietnamese conflict from the perspective of the Vietnamese. here's a Link to a website about twentieth century conflicts that I used to confirm death tolls, combat years, ETC. However I do not think that all of the direct politics of the historiography