Californication is Funny

Californication is funny. The acting is incredible and it's perfectly childish. It's classier than fart-funny, but close to that description. Boobs and farts. Snorting coke off a girls backside and teen perversion. It's pretty much my kind of show. And David Duchovny is hot. It's awesome having a sex addict play a sex addict. It really works. I have a friend that reminds me of Moody, but I dare not say his name. It would flatter him too much. I love horribly innapropriate things. I wonder if people ever look at me and think I look normal or conservative.  Haha.

I heart skateboarding

I was just watching a video about a skateboard company named Roger. I was excited to watch it, because I am friends with Michael Sieben, one of the owners. I met Michael Sieben in Austin in about 2000 and always loved the zines he made and his art. He is now very well known as desrvedly so, in that he is incredibly talented and funny and hard working. Now he has graduated to movies produced by Thrasher, and I fricken love seeing him in films. The movies are always hilarious, and the quality of direction and cinematography totally match the high quality of his humor. And this video about Roger is also so well done and interesting and professional, and I absolutely loved watching it. Inlaid with some beautiful music, one of the characters (real or fake owner I don't know) says:

"There is something that's inside skateboarders that constantly drives them to do new things and to overcome things: this like its me against them attitude that you get. You are not making a bunch of compromises to fulfill another's idea of what you need be. The motivation is something different. The motivation is being something that you do to being something that you are."

It's a laughably cheezy thing to say and said completely tongue-in-cheek and said to make fun of skaters and their followers, but it made me think.  My brain began wandering around like it does, neurons firing away through memories, visions, insecurities, and ideas. I had to stop watching the movie, so that I could explore where my thoughts were going. Something clicked at that moment and I had to start writing. At some point I just realized that skateboarding fits me like nothing else. It just clicked like a piece of broken china that seamlessly fits together with a tiny dot of super glue.Why do I love skateboarding so much? How is it that I am 40 years old and still love it so much? I may be a masochist and a loser, but it is so much more than that. It's as if nothing else even comes close to itching the insides of my brain.  Riding that stupid little board with four wheels has been a life long commitment.  Kind of nuts.   

The Constitution and Interpretation

I feel that adapting to modernity while reading The Constitution is important for everyone.  The 2nd Amendment was not originally about individuals, but I can honor that it can be considered that today.  But we also need to realize that these guys were talking about muskets, not hand guns, grenades, uzies, etc.  Owning guns for individual protection is one thing, but stockpiling is dangerous for the security of the state and other individuals.  Modernity is what really makes the Amendment seem the most ambiguous, because so much has changed. 

I still wonder how many people realize that the 2nd Amendment has the words "well-regulated" in it.  These words can never successfully be explained away.  Furthermore, few people understand that The Constitution, all the writings around The Constitution, and The Constitutional Convention were mostly about State vs. Federal rights.  Reading the original authors words in The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist Papers is extremely eye opening when it comes to the concept that Government equals Liberty.  People today have such a deep seeded fear of government that is entirely unconstitutional in itself.  I understand all the emotions for why people fear the US government, but just laws do exist: laws that encourage a healthy republic based on democratic principles, and laws that deal with public safety and the general welfare.  The authors of the AFPs wrote that tyranny can never come in the form of public safety.  Public safety is the most benevolent thing your government can do for you, so regulation of gun laws may be more liberating than people realize.  Something to think about.  Especially when we compare ourselves to other safer countries who have strong regulations and high gun ownership.  With that in mind, our 2nd Amendment can still be relevant, although ambiguous, because it seems to match well with countries who have strict gun laws that either have militias in the traditional sense or do not.

It is very obvious to me that the 2nd Amendment is not really about a healthy debate any longer, but mostly about corporate gains, the power of the NRA, and manufactured consent.  Propaganda is a powerful and oppressive tool, and it's power today is unfortunate for all of us. 

Ayn Rand Suck Pt 2

It shouldn't be surprising that one of Rand's heroic characters was based on a serial killer.  There are sociopathic and narcissistic elements in her protagonists and in her total obsession with selfishness.  Her heroes have no remorse, and she creates falsehood on top of falsehood to explains why no one should care why some people do not have equal access to resources.  How people can drink that kool-aid is beyond me, mostly because her theories are unthoughtful and undemocratic in every way.      
    

What does it say about humans that they change their entire belief system because they read a FICTION NOVEL?  It's baffling to me.  It is no different than Scientology or any cult or pseudo-religion that uses literary fiction to sway the mind.  Fiction novels do not generally show empirical evidence, encourage critical thinking, or offer any comparative analysis.  So if Rand could convince people to wholeheartedly follow her thinking, using fictional characters, she must have been highly persuasive.

Ayn Rand constantly wrote about good and evil, right and wrong, black and white, and wrote that the "middle" is even evil.  (Her words, not mine)  Ayn Rand never lets you question her.  And Objectivists seem to see things only through the lens of Objectivism and have a hard time discussing the possibility that their may be differing opinions-or they say that non-believers just do not understand her. (a very cultish reply) 

At some point in my education I realized that the "middle" is probably where true knowledge lives: collecting evidence, reading more, questioning, talking, re-questioning, comparing, etc.  Right and wrong, in an absolute way, probably does not exist entirely and never will, and it might be prudent to distrust people who say they know the true definitions of right and wrong.  Avowing right and wrong in a new passionate way is often how cults are formed.  And perhaps the "middle" actually creates the purest kind of individuality.  Extremism, such as objectivism, will always be too cultish to create an individual honesty of heart and mind.  I think people should read Rand's works for sure, but they should keep reading and compare her ideas with real life, before they get too stuck in a lonely, left-brained, fixed mentality.  Her concepts likely wont jive with reality, because they are not created in reality.  Furthermore, many of her beliefs go against so much known science: neurology, anthropology, sociology, poli-sci, philosophy, economics, etc etc.  It does not make her entirely wrong, but it certainly means her "absolutism" is in question.  

But, really, how is it that people are perfectly comfortable changing their entire relationships with morality after they read FICTION, and then become entirely different political entities??  It's shocking how gullible people are.  But we have seen this kind of mental and emotional brain washing of humans time and time again.

Sorry, I have to run- I have to take my spaceship back to my mother planet and try to help Xenu and my fellow Thetans.   

Ayn Rand sucks

So I have been very opinionated about how much I do not like Ron Paul or Libertarians. I understand that people are happy to have something "different" in their political world, yet Ron Paul is getting a lot of positive attention he does not deserve. Libertarians irritate me to no end, mostly because they quote the Declaration of Independence and call it The Constitution. Argh. They also focus entirely on Individual Liberty and consistently ignore much of how The Constitution actually reads.

One of my best friends told me the other day that her favorite author is Ayn Rand. I was shocked and kept my mouth shut. I just made a funny face. Because we did not have time to discuss this statement further, I do not know if she simply loves her fiction writing or whether she had bought into Rands entire Objectivist philosophy. I can not make assumptions, but I can see that my friend has changed quite a lot in the last year or so. She seems much more isolated and concerned with the end of the world. Her paranoia and distrust of humanity is a concern to me, because I care about her. She used to be much happier, and I am now thinking that she has become less connected to her social group and less compassionate in general. I have come to the conclusion that people who are Objectivists could become quite lonely and unemotional, so I want to explain to people a little bit about why I disagree wholeheartedly against seeing life through the very dark, bland, and lonely lens of Objectivism.

Ayn Rand writes that altruism is evil and selfishness is good. She explains all this using fictional characters in a pseudo-philosophical format. She proclaims that capitalism is perfect and laissez-faire capitalism is perfect. She avows that any one or culture who does not believe this are savages, and that people who get any social benefits are parasites and do not deserve love. She also states that greed is good, and that business people will do the moral thing if given no regulations. If she weren't such a powerful influence on modern society in the US, it would all be very laughable and absurd. Even Alan Greenspan, a longtime student of Rand, now states that Rand's philosophy has a fatal flaw: deregulation does not guarantee morality from financial people and only causes greed, which caused our latest economic disaster. There are no John Galts, so to speak, but certainly Bernie Maddofs and other people who destroyed Americans hard working retirement and investments with hideously unethical derivatives. But people still continue to believe in laissez-faire capitalism. Without going further into detail about my political beliefs, I am going to discuss my deep distrust in Rand and Libertarians core nature using biology and history.

Through literary manipulation, Ayn Rand forces people to drop any right brain thinking. Yet, it is biologically impossible for healthy people to live life without using the right side of our brains. If we assume that altruism is bad, then we longer are using 50% of our brains that took all of our evolution to acquire. The right side of the brain is our emotions, art, creativity, humanity, culture, a desire for knowledge, compassion, and even democratic ideals. (We the people, in order to form a more perfect union...) In a wonderful book called Social Evolution, Bob Trivers (a biology professor of mine at UCSC) details the parental investment and reproductive success of many species on Earth. It is fascinating to really understand that our reproductive success depends on our parental investment. It is likely that our brains have developed perfectly to match the essential needs for our offspring to survive. One of the obvious necessities for caring for our young is compassion. We simply can not deny that we are here to care for other people, and out brains are massively developed for nurturing our young. To pretend that we are not altruistic creatures is denying our human biology. Furthermore, biologists and psychologists now know that making decisions requires that both sides of our brain are working: the logic side and the emotional side. Critical decisions will always be bounced between the left and the ride side of our brains. Any decision that ancient or modern man, from where to hunt to who to marry, requires both sides of the brain working together. So if a philosopher (or cult leader) asks you to turn off the entire right side of your brain and tells you to turn off your compassion, morality, and altruistic nature, it should be a HUGE red flag. If you are no longer allowed to check in with your emotions or your moral compass, then you can imagine that the author (or cult leader) is about to ask you to do something that you would normally not do. For example, they might ask you to give absolute power to a small select group of people (the rich business man), give them power that does not have term limits, does not require an election, and has no system of checks and balances or regulations. Sounds like a fucking bad idea, totally undemocratic, and totally against The Constitution. If giving absolute power to anyone is not a very dangerous recipe for tyranny, I can not imagine what is. One could even argue we are currently being dominated by a tyranny of greed today thanks entirely to Ayn Randists.

On a side note, I would also like to say that I believe that The Constitution is the most mutually and reciprocating altruistic documents I have ever read. How this gets ignored by Randists, I have no idea.

What also concerns me is that very few people understand where in our history the obsession with individual liberty and big government comes from. Back when slavery was a hot topic, southerners did not want the "big bad government" to take away their private property (slaves), and the "big bad government" wanted to liberate black slaves. OK, so who's fucking liberty do you care about- the white guy who owns slaves or the black slave? I am 100% happy that the government came in and ended slavery. I am also 100% in support of President Johnson and the "big bad government" sending in the National Guard to protect young black children from being violently assaulted as they went into white schools for the first time. Oh the poor states, they must have felt so oppressed by the government (sarcasm). If we are going to accurately define "liberty" we absolutely must talk about slavery. In my opinion, Liberty that does not benefit the "general welfare" is not liberty at all. The Constitution mentions "general welfare" 2 times-in the preamble and in the 10Th amendment. We must consider that the white private property owner is not the only one who's liberty is important. I believe that this historical context is why people consider Libertarians and Objectivists racist, because history dictates that black people's liberty was not important to them. Which brings me to an unfortunate point. Philosophies and political systems that are only interested in benefiting white people are by definition White Supremacist groups. No one in The Tea Party, Libertarian Party, or Objectivists will say that they actually are into White Supremacy, but these groups are always fighting to maintain wealth in the hands of the historically established elite. (and our historical elite is white) I know it's a hard one to swallow, people. Perhaps you have no intentions of being racist as you support Ron Paul and others like him, but you are DEFINITELY rubbing elbows with the white supremacy groups in the USA. Do you really want to affiliate yourself with such a small unemotional group of white people, or do you find that the multicultural working class represents more of your ideals and needs as a people? Are there any liberty issues that you all have in common? Perhaps Environmentalism is a big concern of yours, and objectivism is not compatible with this interest. Perhaps you are concerned with Veterans benefits, but Rand forced you to forget about this interest. Think about these critical issues as you turn on your emotions and the right side of your brain. There is no reason to ever shut down your own emotions or invalidate other people's emotions. We have evolved into humans with large compassionate and logical brains and shutting that off would be denying your humanity. Denying humanity seems to be a very lonely lifestyle and political choice. Being able to appreciate Native American art and culture and/or the rich black history that we have in our country makes for a happy brain. Otherwise, we may as well be robots: "I have no empathy for humanity and I only find perfection in successful entrepreneurs." Yikes.