Respected presidents served during turbulent times in history. The men we tend to place on the top of the president's list, like FDR, Lincoln, and Washington, all served during a time when the future of the country itself was really uncertain, and no one would have been nutty to predict a bleak future. The Great Depression, the Civil War, the founding of the freaking country itself. Yet, they, their aides, congress, and the citizens all teamed up and reasserted the strength of the nation, and they are considered great, even though few people would love to visit 1931, 1862, or 1790. The great presidents served at times when life in the nation was rough.
Yes, Bill Clinton seems to have been a pretty good president. Sure, he left office with a surplus in the budget. But he didn't save the country from dissolution. All the military actions committed during his presidency had to due with locations and interests with no direct effect on most citizens. Yeah, he helped improve the economy, but he didn't have to deal with a complete, utter and unprecidented failure in the system, where even the federal government doesn't seem to have the money to fund it's own programs, the credit markets seem to be drying up, and the ultimate damage on most people has yet to occur. That's why Bill only gets a gold star and a handshake, even if he had the ability to confront a calamity.
Dow dropping below 8,500. Nobody can buy their own home. Gas sucks. Debt sucks. A 10 trillion dollar national debt. Hell, I am more worried about the health of the national government than I am about what's happening on 'Main Street.' People are robust, and can watch their own backs; governments are transitory entities held together by enough consent from the governed, and enough power from the governors. And the governors are running out of cash. Ron Paul would probably pop a vein to see my analysis of this, but a successful president would get a lot of credit should he implent and support a variety of policies that turn around this financial failure.
Whoever wins the presidency will go down in history as one of the greats (FDR, Lincoln, Washington) or as one of the greatest asshats (Buchanan, Hoover, George Walker Bush). It doesn't matter how hard he tries, how many hours he puts into the job, how hard he sweats; the results are what matters. If he is unable to have a prominent hand in turning things around, historians will be likely to plant a big 'dunce' cap on him.
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Habeas Corpus, Federalism, and Human Societies (incomplete)
I. Habeas Corpus, and other procedural matters
Habeas corpus exists for the sake of the wrongly accused. The idea behind the writ: the defendant, once imprisoned, can challenge the imprisonment. And from this, the backbone of criminal law, other procedures take shape. The prisoner can get a trial, (s)he can get a lawyer, (s)he can abstain, (s)he can post bail, etc.
How this plays out, and what gets people so disgusted with this situation is that Charles Manson gets to appeal his imprisonment every several years. How this plays out is that, on paper, it is a very structured system. For example, evidence needs to be introduced into trial in a certain way. That's one thing judges do: they make sure procedure is followed, and see what evidence is permissible, depending on procedure. For example, evidence that could convict a robber could be denied access in court because it failed to fit certain guidelines. The problem with law, however, is that any amount of text can fail to anticipate all of the possibilities that reality can become. Remember that those lawyers who came forward with proof that their late client had committed a murder that another man was convicted for? The convicted man lost almost three decades in prison. And why did those lawyer stay back for so long? Apparently, if they came forward while their client was alive, they would have violated attorney-client privilege. Their information would have been inadmissible in a court room, and therefore, the innocent man would still be in jail, all other things being equal. Procedures like these can the sinew of habeas corpus.
Make sure that only the guilty are convicted. Alan Dershowitz, the other side of the coin on which Antonin Scalia lives, supports the idea that many human legal system, including that of the USA, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Better to free the guilty than punish the innocent. The opposite of this chaotic mess of law is just chaos.
For example, just as easily, physically speaking, as those lawyers could have came out with the truth before their client died, another person, Person A, could say he saw the convicted man commit the killing, and Person A lying. Without procedures to make sure the legal system is fair, the alternative is pretty crappy. Instead of just getting murder, murderers can get away with accusing other people of murder.
And the accused gets arrested, and he stays in jail. Without a trial, or at least a fair trail. Because habeas corpus is dead.
II. Federalism
Let's pretend you disbelieve that corporations and the rich run everything. So, looking at the general structure of our government, we find that it is built so that the power of government is divided amongst the rulers. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the decision of Congress; the President's vetoes can be overridden by a semi-unified Congress, and his Orders can be nullified by the Court; Congress can be vetoed by the President, and its laws can be nullified by the Court. And the People choose Congress and the President, and therefore indirectly choose the Court. Power is divided so that no one is King.
This nation, the United States of America, was founded on the truth that men feast on one another, and that in order to create a stable society, power needs to be reasonably divided. Not the truth "that all men are created equal," at least in the idealistic sense. The equality thing is what the PR department during the Revolution said, but what the nation is really founded on is that these men, the Founding Fathers, realized that people take advantage of one another. Geniuses, they were. The first people in millennia thrifty enough to both get power, and also realize that power can be abused and that they could be the abusers. After the war ended, they didn't trust one another. They made the first central gov't, the Confederation, and it was weak. They only replaced it with the current structure of government because the confederation was too weak to succeed. But they knew that anyone with too much power could abuse it. It was like a reality show.
And a lot of people still believed that the constitution was imperfectly formed. New York State accepted the document by 3 votes. 3 votes!
And George Washington. Let's just clap the man. A landmark moment, when he chose to abstain from a third term. Perhaps the first time in History that a powerful ruler stepped down from power without having to die, or get pulled out.
Robert Mugabe is 100 years old, and he can't not be President.
III. Human Societies
Stable human societies rely on compromise.
Habeas corpus exists for the sake of the wrongly accused. The idea behind the writ: the defendant, once imprisoned, can challenge the imprisonment. And from this, the backbone of criminal law, other procedures take shape. The prisoner can get a trial, (s)he can get a lawyer, (s)he can abstain, (s)he can post bail, etc.
How this plays out, and what gets people so disgusted with this situation is that Charles Manson gets to appeal his imprisonment every several years. How this plays out is that, on paper, it is a very structured system. For example, evidence needs to be introduced into trial in a certain way. That's one thing judges do: they make sure procedure is followed, and see what evidence is permissible, depending on procedure. For example, evidence that could convict a robber could be denied access in court because it failed to fit certain guidelines. The problem with law, however, is that any amount of text can fail to anticipate all of the possibilities that reality can become. Remember that those lawyers who came forward with proof that their late client had committed a murder that another man was convicted for? The convicted man lost almost three decades in prison. And why did those lawyer stay back for so long? Apparently, if they came forward while their client was alive, they would have violated attorney-client privilege. Their information would have been inadmissible in a court room, and therefore, the innocent man would still be in jail, all other things being equal. Procedures like these can the sinew of habeas corpus.
Make sure that only the guilty are convicted. Alan Dershowitz, the other side of the coin on which Antonin Scalia lives, supports the idea that many human legal system, including that of the USA, give the benefit of the doubt to the accused person. Better to free the guilty than punish the innocent. The opposite of this chaotic mess of law is just chaos.
For example, just as easily, physically speaking, as those lawyers could have came out with the truth before their client died, another person, Person A, could say he saw the convicted man commit the killing, and Person A lying. Without procedures to make sure the legal system is fair, the alternative is pretty crappy. Instead of just getting murder, murderers can get away with accusing other people of murder.
And the accused gets arrested, and he stays in jail. Without a trial, or at least a fair trail. Because habeas corpus is dead.
II. Federalism
Let's pretend you disbelieve that corporations and the rich run everything. So, looking at the general structure of our government, we find that it is built so that the power of government is divided amongst the rulers. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President with the decision of Congress; the President's vetoes can be overridden by a semi-unified Congress, and his Orders can be nullified by the Court; Congress can be vetoed by the President, and its laws can be nullified by the Court. And the People choose Congress and the President, and therefore indirectly choose the Court. Power is divided so that no one is King.
This nation, the United States of America, was founded on the truth that men feast on one another, and that in order to create a stable society, power needs to be reasonably divided. Not the truth "that all men are created equal," at least in the idealistic sense. The equality thing is what the PR department during the Revolution said, but what the nation is really founded on is that these men, the Founding Fathers, realized that people take advantage of one another. Geniuses, they were. The first people in millennia thrifty enough to both get power, and also realize that power can be abused and that they could be the abusers. After the war ended, they didn't trust one another. They made the first central gov't, the Confederation, and it was weak. They only replaced it with the current structure of government because the confederation was too weak to succeed. But they knew that anyone with too much power could abuse it. It was like a reality show.
And a lot of people still believed that the constitution was imperfectly formed. New York State accepted the document by 3 votes. 3 votes!
And George Washington. Let's just clap the man. A landmark moment, when he chose to abstain from a third term. Perhaps the first time in History that a powerful ruler stepped down from power without having to die, or get pulled out.
Robert Mugabe is 100 years old, and he can't not be President.
III. Human Societies
Stable human societies rely on compromise.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bill Regulates Rape Accusations
By Alberto Luperon, Dissociated Press Writer
July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).
"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."
FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.
"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."
Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.
Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.
Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."
July 12, 2008--Weeks ago, New York Assemblyman Mark Catheter of New York introduced a bill that would regulate rape accusations. Now, he is receiving the backing of a not-for-profit organization, FRAT (the Federation of Rangers Against Tattletaling).
"Rape will still be a crime," the Assemblyman says about his new bill. "We just want to cut down on false accusations. Only a real victim would go to jail to catch the badguys. I mean, after an experience like rape, a night in jail will be no problem."
FRAT is an organization which, since 1901, has lobbied state legislatures and congress for laws that eliminate accusations. Members are called "Rangers," and Assemblyman Catheter has been a ranger since 1982, after he was sued for peeing on a neighbor's porch.
"I don't remember the urinating, per se, but then here I am stumbling down the driveway, getting called a drunk and a bum by Mrs. Finster."
Yesterday, FRAT protesters stormed the steps of the New York Legislature in Albany, New York, calling for whores to shut their mouths. Catheter expressed pride that FRAT was using its first amendment rights.
Anti-accusation proposals date back to 1796, when then-state senator Rufus Burr sponsored a bill that would eliminate insults any and all communication in New York. If the bill had been passed, then a violator would be forced to walk public with the word, "Basterd" tattooed on his forehead.
Catheter believes that by pushing for the passage of the "QYET BILL," he and the other Rangers are protecting the accused from accusations, and upholding the legal tradition that the accused are innocent until proven guilty.
He says, in addition: "It's the constitutional right for citizens to do with their bodies as they please."
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Disagreements and Free Speech
I. DISCOURSE
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.
This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.
Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.
Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.
These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.
Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.
Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.
M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.
Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.
II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."
Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.
Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.
III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.
Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47
In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.
It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php
Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.
A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)
In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.
America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.
Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.
So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?
The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.
Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.
The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.
In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.
I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.
And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.
This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.
IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.
Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."
As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?
We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.
The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."
So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.
To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.
(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)
For a minute, let’s dance around the more grotesque flaws of governments in the Global Tyranny Hall of Fame. Nazi Germany, Communist Cuba, Mao-ist China, etc. These flaws being mass murder, slave labor, and poverty. These flaws tend to spark intense emotional responses that sit on abstract, idealized notions of how life must be lived, rather than the elements on how life actually is lived, and unfolded. We can agree on the greatness of 'life,' 'liberty,' 'equality.' and 'free speech.' People can agree that mass murder and slave labor is wrong.
This is the stumbling block: People disagree when these abstractions are put into practice. They disagree on the cosmetics of life, liberty, equality, and free speech. The problem, then, rests on reality. The more we speak in abstractions, the less of reality that is exposed in communication.
Reality is shaped by what people do. The importance of words and abstract notions, then, rest on what those words and abstract notions encourage people to do. Ideas are nonexistent unless acted out. A desire to ask a woman out is executed by asking her out, a desire to win a football game is executed by playing better than the other team, and a desire to grow strawberries is executed by treating those strawberries in such a way as to promote growth.
Reality gets complicated, then, by opinion. We tend to disagree about the necessity of those very actions. We disagree about the tastefulness of approaching dates, about which team deserves the win, and that our time is better spent growing strawberries rather than blueberries.
These divisions of opinion rest on a fractured kind of reality.
Frederick Douglass' opinion on a right to property will differ from the slave master's opinion on the right to property. One will disfavor ownership of human being, the other will support that ownership.
Let's look at more benign disagreements. 'Free Market' supporters will differ about how 'free' those markets should be. Some will believe that corporations need minimal oversight so as to prevent corporate crimes and abuses. Others will believe that corporations can mind themselves, since their search for personal gain will, in turn, happen to help society. The opinions of these free market men will usually be shaped by personal experience and agenda, in the same way that Douglass' life as a slave will mold his opinions of slavery, and the slave master's gain from slavery will mod his support of slavery.
Then, let's consider two men who love car. One loves Ferraris. The other loves Lamborghinis. Why? It depends on the men. They made both agree that a car should be fast, and 'good looking.' But their definition of 'good looking' will vary.
M&Ms versus snickers, milk versus orange juice, BDSM versus missionary. Two lovers will break up because one wants to get married, and the other desires life as a single person, though both lovers agree that a 'passionate life' is the only life worth living.
Dissent is unavoidable when abstractions are put into practice.
II. POLITICAL REGULATION
In Castro's Cuba, legal political expression is shoved into a very narrow box.
Article 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cuba 1992 reads [translated into English]:
"Citizens have freedom of speech and of the press in keeping with the objectives of socialist society. Material conditions for the exercise of that right are provided by the fact that the press, radio, television, cinema, and other mass media are state or social property and can never be private property. This assures their use at exclusive service of the working people and in the interests of society."
http://www.cubanet.org/ref/dis/const_92_e.htm
Article 62 further reinforces that speech can only fit within the philosophy of a socialist state, and "violations of this principle can be punished by law."
Notice the abstract word 'interest' and the vague noun, 'objective' in Article 53. This can mean anything, depending on how the writers of the constitution write it to mean in law.
Therefore, should speech fall out of line with those definitions of 'interest' and 'objective,' then the violator of articles 53 and 62 can be prosecuted.
Therefore, even though an expressed idea, when applied, can help people more an any idea within the boundaries of acceptable speech, if that idea violates articles 53 and 62, then the speaker of that idea gets punished. The idea is squashed and shut into a prison. Many ideas that can benefit the society is null and void for as long as its implementation if prohibited in a physical fashion.
III. BOUNDARIES
The reason governments--or other organizations of people--cut down on certain speech: that speech is perceived as having negative consequences. A man stalking through the supermarket, shrieking, "9/11 was an inside job!" will be promptly exhorted out the building by either security or police, because he is disturbing the old ladies down the aisle who are deciding between Jiff and Peter Pan peanut butter. He is hurting business. Well, this is an easy scenario to agree with.
Screaming tends to disturb people. It doesn't matter if the screaming was about 9/11, black people, or peanut butter.
Now, let's get dicier. In 1919, the Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., decided in the Schenck v. United States case that speech should only be cut down if it creates "a clear and present danger" that the US Congress "has a right to prevent." He further contextualized this claim by stating that while a nation remains at war, some speech that is acceptable at peacetime can possibly end up hindering the war effort. The man on trial, Charles Schenck, had been prosecuted of violating the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917 because he had led the effort to print, and distribute leaflets to thousands of men eligible for the draft. The leaflets called for the draft-age men to oppose the draft. Schenck was found guilty because his effort was seen as causing a harm of the USA.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=249&page=47
In America, especially online, a lot of speech is anti-establishment. Just go to YouTube, comments on a video or news article, whatever. Just walk a street in a city with a diverse about of people. Friday, at the subway at Union Square, I saw a man with a cardboard sign hung from his neck that read, "Reinvestigate 9-11" Etc. He was handing out leaflets.
It continues to be legal for groups such as the American Nazi Party to write stuff like, "Only by degrees did the Hebes belatedly psych themselves up to sufficient hysteria. In a convulsive, screaming lunge they fell on Commander Rockwell. But he had the psychological advantage of a larger-than life personal courage. In an utterly one-sided battle too incredible for anyone who has not actually witnessed or fought through such a moment, he bashed and throttled his way into the shrieking crowd. The grasping, spitting devils fell on all sides, as the lone hero of the White race cut a path of blood and broken bones across New York City. They never knocked him off his feet and he never tired of splitting enemy jaws." And claim this to be the truth. http://www.americannaziparty.com/rockwell/index.php
Book stores sell calendars that mark the days George W. Bush has left in office as the President of the USA.
A Columbia University professor, Nicholas DeGenova, said, in regard to the US-led Iraq War, "I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." The Military Veterans of Columbia University called for the University to officially reprimand DeGenova. Dozens of Republican politicians called for University President Lee C. Bollinger to fire him. He still works for the University, and teaches several research courses in the anthropology department.
(The following are letters he wrote explaining himself. http://hnn.us/articles/1396.html)
In nations like Cuba, speech that criticized the establishment in such a way would be punished. Such webmasters, calendar-makers, and professors all shoved into prisons. The speech need not opposing the policies of the current government. It can merely fail to coincide with those explicit policies. Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas was arrested in his home country for 'ideological deviation' and sent to the prison. He was openly homosexual, and published abroad without official permission from the government.
America is a free country for as long as citizens are allowed to say and do such things.
Yet, certain speech does hint at shades of chaos and violence. Such speech can possibly lead to creating a "clear and present danger." So why continue to allow it? A man who wishes for "a million Mogadishus" has the potential to begin a riot, even if that was beside his intention.
So why defend inflammatory speech? Why be too free rather than too safe?
The problem is not simply that speech is suppressed, but that those with the power to suppress speech will abuse that power. The line between safe speech and unsafe speech fluctuates due to the actions and opinions of people.
Fidel Castro and his 26th of July Movement, which overthrew the dictator Fulgencio Batista (who had also come to power using force), promised equality and fairness to the average people of Cuba. And after two decades in power--and heavily restricting international travel and communications--this is how much the movement succeeded: In 1980, several Cubans burst through Cuban guards guarding the entrance to the Peruvian Embassy. This event increased an already tense national disgust with the economy. To deal with this tension, Castro removed guards from the Peruvian embassy, and soon after, loads of citizens were pleading for asylum. He claimed to be, at best, indifferent toward the exodus (remember the very beginning of Scarface?) In this event, the Mariel Boatlift of 1980, at least 120,000 Cubans embarked from the Port of Mariel to Southern Florida. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mariel-boatlift.htm) This freedom of transportation was only temporary, and only occurred because of various economic tensions within the nation.
The Cuban economy got so bad that in the 1990s, they had to begin using the US dollar.
In this nation, which shuts down on anti-establishment speech, the quality of life is far less than many believe it could be.
Yet, any speech is illegal that aims to improve quality of life but also goes against the policies of the government. In this environment, some good ideas flourish, and others are squashed.
I remember being in a high school weight training course, and a friend and I noticed another classmate struggling with the lat pull down machine, swerving back and forth in absurd angles, when you are supposed to leave your body stationary while working the machine. On retrospect, I believe she was goofing off, but at the time, we were certain she was just doing it wrong, and my friend walked up to her very kindly, and suggested she doing it the correct way. She snapped at him. He left her alone.
And we were hardly being snobs. When a person is using a weight lifting machine, it is important to use correct form, because incorrect form can easily lead to serious, lifelong injuries such as back problems.
This situation is pretty analogous to authoritarian societies where criticism is punished. Except those societies go further in punishing critics. Now, when that society goes forth in its dealings, those dealings with be undermined by a narrow point of view. The society screws itself. It is stagnant, and oppressive. Those who aimed to create a better world in that manner fail by becoming those they overthrew. This is the problem is restricting speech in a coercive manner. Good ideas get squashed in the name of fighting bad ideas.
IV. DETAILS, COMPREMISE
If a friend has a booger in his nostril, you tell him about it. If you think the person (s)he goes out with is wholly unsuitable, you will be inclined to say why. If you think the president's war policy is unwise, then you are inclined to say why. If they dislike the idea, they will disregard it. As simple as that.
Those with differing viewpoints can educate one another for the better by, communicating their views in an open manner. They only need to listen, and go back and forth, point for point.
Though I fail to consider myself a practicing Christian, I find parts of the Gospel to list wise ideas. Though I consider myself a free market capitalist, certain elements of socialism seem beautiful and worth considering. "Elements of making cake A can improve the making of cake B, and vice versa."
As the philosopher Christopher Julius Rock, III, once said, "Anyone who makes up their mind before they hear the issue is a fucking fool." Because issues are more difficult and grey than the ideological boxes they are shut in. You can talk about welfare, and war, etc. But how are these supposed to be implemented? Under what events do you give the money out? When do you fight? When do you back down? Who exactly do you give money to? What weapons do you use in a fight?
We should work to free ourselves from abstractions, and dive into the details. Trotsky is not Stalin, though they are both communists. And Abe Lincoln differs from George Bush, and Ron Paul, though they are all Republicans. The Devil is in the details, and to beat him we must fight him there.
The primary roadblock to this kind of open talk is pride. When people talk, generally, they like to come out on top. As if winning the argument settles the issue once and for all. "I beat that Republican in the war debate; that settles everything."
So what happens when people focus on winning arguments with each other? At worst, they will attempt to shut each other up. The element of pride needs to be considered in every decision to cut down on speech. Because when pride pollutes the issue, we, the witnesses of the issue, focus on the abstractions, and then we trip on the ignored details.
To preserve freedom of speech--truly preserve it--requires self-restraint and patience for speech that disgusts us. Because speech that is venomous, inflammatory--That is the ulcer-inducing price of living in a free world. A safe risk. The alternative is a world just a little worse.
(And now I am speaking in abstractions. Hmph.)
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Liberia
Liberia: colonized in 1822 by freed African American slaves; founded in 1847 with the support of the US government. It's larger than Cuba, and Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, and even bigger than Israel.
The nation is basically sibling to the United States. And yet we rarely hear of it, even in the history books.
Hm.
The nation is basically sibling to the United States. And yet we rarely hear of it, even in the history books.
Hm.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Resolved: Seize the day, for tomorrow, we may die
Written April 2007
Fear. It's really fear that keeps alot of people. You ever notice in a seminar how someone will put their hand
It isn't my failures that bother it. It is the things I remember not doing that bothers me. The squandered opportunities.
9th grade of high school, I ran for the track and field team. The 1-mile and 2-mile races. Mid-season, for several weeks, I had a case tendonitis in my knees. At first, not debilitating. I always went to practice, and I went to a meet. But during this meet, it got worse. First, I ran the one-mile, and I did it okay, but the knees felt more stressed than ever before. A little while later, I got in line for the 2-mile race. The only other guy on my team running the race was a guy who did the long jump. He had no delusion as to succeeding or doing well. Coach just put him in there to have another guy from our school run the race. So it was him and me running. And the race started, and right there, the moment I began to run, my knees just screamed. Absolutely painful. After the first curve of the track, I was in the rear of the pack, and my teammate said,
"Are you okay?"
It was as bad as the tendonitis got. Because of the pain, I considered dropping out of the race; now, see, the 2-mile race is 8 laps long if you're running on a 400meter track. For most high schoolers, that race will go over ten minutes. For me, that race would go over ten minute. But, still, I didn't want look bad. I didn't want to look back at that moment and figure, "I pussed out." So I decided to run as hard as I could, for a long as I could, until, physically, I gave out. Until I couldn't possibly run anymore. I decided that if I was going to lose, I was going to lose as a man.
So I sprinted. And after the next curve of the track, I found myself. And, if you have ever been first place in a race, you know how mentally liberating it is. Being behind somebody creates this sense of being boxed in. But when you're in front of everyone, you feel like you have the entire track to yourself. In a race, there is nothing more amazing than the feeling that you receive from being in first place. And, oh my god, now, I cannot possibly give up. It would be very bad to drop from first to last in a race. So, I thought now I've got to finish this well.
And me and three guys from another school, we competed for the top three positions that whole race. One of them ran out far ahead of us all, so it basically and the other two fighting for 2nd and 3rd. So they passed me. And I passed them. And they passed me. And I passed them. The entire race, we practically leap frogged each other.
And my didn't knees even hurt anymore. I don't remember any pain at that point. I finished that race in 3rd place, and it was a personal record.
The way I ran that race is the way I would like to everything in my live. Certainly, considering an amount of moderation, but setting out to do what I need to set to do, and as doing as well I can. Even if I fail, I would like to go out in a blaze of glory. A blaze of glory is much, much better than sitting at home, promising myself I will be adventurous tomorrow.
Fear. It's really fear that keeps alot of people. You ever notice in a seminar how someone will put their hand
It isn't my failures that bother it. It is the things I remember not doing that bothers me. The squandered opportunities.
9th grade of high school, I ran for the track and field team. The 1-mile and 2-mile races. Mid-season, for several weeks, I had a case tendonitis in my knees. At first, not debilitating. I always went to practice, and I went to a meet. But during this meet, it got worse. First, I ran the one-mile, and I did it okay, but the knees felt more stressed than ever before. A little while later, I got in line for the 2-mile race. The only other guy on my team running the race was a guy who did the long jump. He had no delusion as to succeeding or doing well. Coach just put him in there to have another guy from our school run the race. So it was him and me running. And the race started, and right there, the moment I began to run, my knees just screamed. Absolutely painful. After the first curve of the track, I was in the rear of the pack, and my teammate said,
"Are you okay?"
It was as bad as the tendonitis got. Because of the pain, I considered dropping out of the race; now, see, the 2-mile race is 8 laps long if you're running on a 400meter track. For most high schoolers, that race will go over ten minutes. For me, that race would go over ten minute. But, still, I didn't want look bad. I didn't want to look back at that moment and figure, "I pussed out." So I decided to run as hard as I could, for a long as I could, until, physically, I gave out. Until I couldn't possibly run anymore. I decided that if I was going to lose, I was going to lose as a man.
So I sprinted. And after the next curve of the track, I found myself. And, if you have ever been first place in a race, you know how mentally liberating it is. Being behind somebody creates this sense of being boxed in. But when you're in front of everyone, you feel like you have the entire track to yourself. In a race, there is nothing more amazing than the feeling that you receive from being in first place. And, oh my god, now, I cannot possibly give up. It would be very bad to drop from first to last in a race. So, I thought now I've got to finish this well.
And me and three guys from another school, we competed for the top three positions that whole race. One of them ran out far ahead of us all, so it basically and the other two fighting for 2nd and 3rd. So they passed me. And I passed them. And they passed me. And I passed them. The entire race, we practically leap frogged each other.
And my didn't knees even hurt anymore. I don't remember any pain at that point. I finished that race in 3rd place, and it was a personal record.
The way I ran that race is the way I would like to everything in my live. Certainly, considering an amount of moderation, but setting out to do what I need to set to do, and as doing as well I can. Even if I fail, I would like to go out in a blaze of glory. A blaze of glory is much, much better than sitting at home, promising myself I will be adventurous tomorrow.
Resolved: Organized Sports are More Dangerous Than Organized Religion
Written December 2006
Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.
On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.
Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.
But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.
You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.
And he’s a convicted rapist.
You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.
You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.
Beer, beer, beer, beer,
And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems
The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying
"TAZER"
"TAZER""TAZER"
Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.
So let me review.
You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.
You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.
You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.
And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."
Is there really any need for comparison? Really? Isn’t the main point we must consider is that people are crazy?
On the part of religion you’ve got
people blowing themselves up,
killing pretty much every person in Jerusalem during the crusades,
murdering no less 6 million in Europe,
and much death.
On the part of religion, you’ve got Fred Phelps and his congregation protesting the funerals of soldiers because the United States government doesn’t take a tougher stance on homosexuality.
Yes, yes, religion is more dangerous than sports on a sociological standpoint because God has been used for justification of mass slaughter. Not so with sports--at least not so often.
But look at organized sports. I once met a guy who played for the NFL who said that basically everybody there was a rapist.
You’ve got Mike Tyson—I don’t know if all the stories are true, but you’ve guy a million peoples saying that punches old women in the mouth, has bipolar disorder, threatened to murder his first wife.
And he’s a convicted rapist.
You’ve got Don King, who still, in the most sympathetic portrayal of him, comes off as really shady.
You’ve soccer riots, drunken fights. During the 1960s, in a boxing match, Bernardo Paret got tangled in the ropes, and his opponent, during the next 3 to 4 seconds, hit him 18 times before the referee pull him off. Paret died before he hit the canvas.
Beer, beer, beer, beer,
And traffic jams after a game, people just take your fucking time, if you take your time, then no one is going to crach, why don’t you understand that trying to squeeze through a small opening with cause problems
The only good thing that sports has done for us is that during a tampa bay buccaneers home game, two men got into a fight, and the security arrived, pulled out a tazer, and everyone in the surrounding seats crying
"TAZER"
"TAZER""TAZER"
Look, everyone, before you say sports are the downfall of civilization,
or religion is the cause of all of societies problems, just consider humanity by itself. People will kill you just to watch the blood pour out.
People rob from each other. They are untrustworthy, fake, selfish, domineering, abusive. If you give them the chance, they will rob you. If you give them the chance, and it serves their interests, they will do whatever they want to you. Even if it’s just for fun.
So let me review.
You’ve got Neo-Nazis in Europe hanging out at soccer matches and maliciously booing the non-white players.
You’ve got Ultraconversative Jews getting into fights with the participants in a gay-pride parade.
You’ve got The Tampa Bay Devils Rays, and they haven’t had a winning season in history.
And you’ve priests, from the Roman Catholic Church, my church, diddling little boys.
Obviously when they were weighing eternal damnation with their immediate urges, they decided "To Hell with Jesus."
Resolved: Everyone is an asshole once you get to know them
Written April, 2007
Ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian society, arguing against this resolution feels futile, but I’m doing it anyway. And I will ask you to be patient because at first it’s going to sound like I am arguing in the affirmative.
In a stand-up performance of his called Bigger and Blacker, Chris Rock said that when you get into a relationship with somebody, you’re not really meeting the person; you’re meeting a quote-unquote, "representative." You’re meeting a preconceived image of that person, which he or she shows the world. That image is how the person would like to be seen. And that, at lot of times, is true. When we meet a person and we get a first impression, but that first impression is always in a precarious position. This is because the image tends to be an act, and, there will be moments when the act shuts down.
If you want to know a person—for real—observe them in a war zone. See how they handle abject poverty. Have them make Sophie’s choice. Or, better yet, see them in an opportunity to gain personally from hurting other people. And that’s what being an asshole is about—personal benefit at the expense of others. So if you want to see if someone is an asshole or not, you give them an opportunity to hurt others when something can be gained. And many people, you put them the opportunity and they’ll show you textbook definition of asshole.
I’ve heard of people killing each other simply out of anger, out of petty pride. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, he made reference to two prisoners at a concentration camp—A father and son. And the son stole the father’s food rations. No remorse. It was every man for himself. And in my life I have seen that sort of thing in many places. Not the same situation or arrangement, but events that included one person betraying another. Even between family members. Consider the case of Susan Smith, who, in 1994, drowned her two sons, and tried to cover it up by saying that a black guy had kidnapped them. According the lawyers who prosecuted her, she got rid of her children in other to seem more attractive an ex-lover. The fact she had already had kids was a reason for him breaking up with her.
And that’s the kind of thing that can happen. A family will live together for years, eat together, go on vacations together—knowing each other for decades—and then one day, something happens the whole relationship is changed. One person does something absolutely disgusting, absolutely vitriolic and unforgivable. And no one would have been able to predict it. But, from them on, the relationship between those family members becomes all about the single moment that reveals the truth. So I concede that a large number of people are assholes.
It’s really safe to say that if the balance of power in history were reversed, we’d still have the same kinds of things happening. If it were convenient for Jews to massacre Christians, they’d have done it. If it were convenient for Africans to enslave Europeans, they’d have done it. The way these incidences played out in reality were all about convenience.
But is there is still something I can’t let go of, and that is the evidence of sincere goodness. To return to examples of families, there are people who stick together during terrible circumstances. They are young fathers who stick by the mothers during an unexpected pregnancy. I met a mother, 50 years old, who, in order to support her sons, worked two jobs. Monday through Friday, she went to sleep from 1 to 2am, and woke up at 6am. And she cleaned the house. The only thing she expected from her kids were good grades. She had no regrets.
And remember the Subway Superman? Wesley Autrey. The most amazing thing is that he did it for a stranger. And the money he received from rich people because of his good deed, he deserved it, he’s got kids to feed. The President mentioned him during a State of the Union address. Hey, huess what, assholes of the world, learn to be good people, and maybe you, too, will get a shout-out during the State of the Union address. Fucking A.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Philolexian society, arguing against this resolution feels futile, but I’m doing it anyway. And I will ask you to be patient because at first it’s going to sound like I am arguing in the affirmative.
In a stand-up performance of his called Bigger and Blacker, Chris Rock said that when you get into a relationship with somebody, you’re not really meeting the person; you’re meeting a quote-unquote, "representative." You’re meeting a preconceived image of that person, which he or she shows the world. That image is how the person would like to be seen. And that, at lot of times, is true. When we meet a person and we get a first impression, but that first impression is always in a precarious position. This is because the image tends to be an act, and, there will be moments when the act shuts down.
If you want to know a person—for real—observe them in a war zone. See how they handle abject poverty. Have them make Sophie’s choice. Or, better yet, see them in an opportunity to gain personally from hurting other people. And that’s what being an asshole is about—personal benefit at the expense of others. So if you want to see if someone is an asshole or not, you give them an opportunity to hurt others when something can be gained. And many people, you put them the opportunity and they’ll show you textbook definition of asshole.
I’ve heard of people killing each other simply out of anger, out of petty pride. In Elie Wiesel’s memoir Night, he made reference to two prisoners at a concentration camp—A father and son. And the son stole the father’s food rations. No remorse. It was every man for himself. And in my life I have seen that sort of thing in many places. Not the same situation or arrangement, but events that included one person betraying another. Even between family members. Consider the case of Susan Smith, who, in 1994, drowned her two sons, and tried to cover it up by saying that a black guy had kidnapped them. According the lawyers who prosecuted her, she got rid of her children in other to seem more attractive an ex-lover. The fact she had already had kids was a reason for him breaking up with her.
And that’s the kind of thing that can happen. A family will live together for years, eat together, go on vacations together—knowing each other for decades—and then one day, something happens the whole relationship is changed. One person does something absolutely disgusting, absolutely vitriolic and unforgivable. And no one would have been able to predict it. But, from them on, the relationship between those family members becomes all about the single moment that reveals the truth. So I concede that a large number of people are assholes.
It’s really safe to say that if the balance of power in history were reversed, we’d still have the same kinds of things happening. If it were convenient for Jews to massacre Christians, they’d have done it. If it were convenient for Africans to enslave Europeans, they’d have done it. The way these incidences played out in reality were all about convenience.
But is there is still something I can’t let go of, and that is the evidence of sincere goodness. To return to examples of families, there are people who stick together during terrible circumstances. They are young fathers who stick by the mothers during an unexpected pregnancy. I met a mother, 50 years old, who, in order to support her sons, worked two jobs. Monday through Friday, she went to sleep from 1 to 2am, and woke up at 6am. And she cleaned the house. The only thing she expected from her kids were good grades. She had no regrets.
And remember the Subway Superman? Wesley Autrey. The most amazing thing is that he did it for a stranger. And the money he received from rich people because of his good deed, he deserved it, he’s got kids to feed. The President mentioned him during a State of the Union address. Hey, huess what, assholes of the world, learn to be good people, and maybe you, too, will get a shout-out during the State of the Union address. Fucking A.
Stories
The following is an e-mail I sent last November to the people in my “Acting Improvisation” class. It’s taught by an actress named Rita Pietropinto. (Most of her experience is from plays, but she was Aunt Amy on Daria, and appeared in the seventh episode of the first season of Chappelle’s Show. It's always funny to see a real teacher ask questions about “Jedi Boy-Touching.”)
****
Hello classmates and teacher,I feel like writing something. And since it’s relevant to you all, I figured you should have the chance to read it. (I was able to get your e-mails because I happened to still have the ‘Class Cancelled Wednesday’ e-mail Rita sent a while ago.) After the end of today’s class, during Rita’s recount of her unfortunate encounter with the “Waterbottle Man,” I blurted out, “Was he Asian?”
Rita’s story had reminded me of another subway story - - a high school teacher of mine, and some classmates made the literary magazine at our school, and they won an award from Columbia University for their efforts. They went to New York to receive the prize, and they happened to get on the subway car with this one man. This man was Asian, and wore a business suit. He rode the subway standing up. After a couple of stops, he unzipped his pants, pulled out his “water bottle,” and held onto the rail with his thing hanging out.
My own personal subway/bus story is not full of as much action, though it made an impression on me. In high school, I lived in Tampa, Florida, and due to volunteering at the library, I had to take the city bus home. It was an hour-long ride, and one evening, a man stepped onto the bus. He was the man on whom I based my “crazy” character in the beginning of the semester. He was the physical embodiment of potential violence.He wore a sleeveless black shirt, and black jeans, and black socks. He was over 6ft, and long limbed, and had flaring nostrils. One of his middle fingers was wrapped in a band-aid, and wore headphones. He was muscular, but not as a bodybuilder is.
He wasn’t sculpted with intent to produce form--he was sculpted for function. He was wiry, and it seemed as if he got his from pushing boulders up a hill.In my performance, I attempted to recapture exactly how he moved. From when he strode down the aisle, and fell back into the seat almost in front of me, and flicked the wall of the bus with his fingertip, he twitched at this schizophrenic rhythm. I could not tell if he was real, or faking it, because he was so extreme. So, of course, I stared at him.
As you all know, NYC is different from the rest of the world. Here, if you notice something weird/threatening, you play dumb, and give them the threat wide berth. But, in smaller/quieter places, there is a tendency to want to say, “Hey, that’s interesting.” *poke poke*
So I stared. And there was this part of me that wondered, “If I could beat this guy in a fight, that’d be so cool.” It was not sadism, or sociopathy. This urge was more in the Hemingway-ish vein. This was more like a daredevil before a jump, or a man before he proposes to his Love. He thinks, “Oh man, I could seriously screw things up, but if I succeed, it would be so cool.” Here was a man who seemed like he could destroy me easily, and so there was this part of me that wanted to prove itself.Well, of course, he caught me staring. He winked at me. And I stopped looking at him for the rest of the ride, though I had to fight the urge to look at him again. Out of sheer curiosity. *poke poke*
He exited the bus two stops before mine.
More than anything else, by the time I have grandkids, I would like to have lots of stories to tell. Just endless endless amounts. Like the high school teacher I had who taught English to the Eskimos, met his future-wife when he was a scuba instructor, and had a rather vicious run-in with the Mexican police (he wrote a novel based on the years he lived in Mexico). Yes, this teacher would break into a story about once a day while we did our in-class work.
I am writer, and I like writing, and my urge to have a lot of experiences may very well be influenced by my hobby/life’s-work.I’ve gathered a nice little collection of stories myself. For instance:My little brother and I worked at a sandwich shop last summer. A man once called 911 on us because the bread of his sandwich was harder than he liked it.
I will not elaborate much further, for time runs short, and writing takes time. But I knew he was a potential problem when he leaned over to ask his daughter what sandwich she wanted, and she wouldn’t look him in the eye. She flinched at every word he said.
Now, I will say that you women must have great stories. All the weirdoes approaching you on the street. Sometimes when I’m talking to a woman, and she brings up how some guy was bothering her, I realize, “Oh, yes, I forget. People tend to bother other people with forward requests or inappropriate actions. Well, they approach anyone but me.”
You see, people have thought I was scary since at least 10th grade. Seriously - - once, I was in the hallway of my school, and this one woman asked me, serious, “Oh my God. Are you going to kill somebody?” Even when I was in an okay mood, I always looked angry. And then, one day after school, I was looking in the locker room for my little brother because he was not picking up his cell phone. I asked this one guy, some stoner-looking soccer player, if he had seen a dude with a large afro (my little brother used to sport the world’s greatest afro-hair).
The stoner-looking dude said, “Are you going to fight him?” He thought, by the way I had asked the question, that I was very very angry, when, really, I was only mildly frustrated. Only people who know me, people who don't care, and people who are stoned approach me freely (listen about the time, during my first serious acting experience, when I was backstage and one of the other actors pretended to almost whip out his penis at my mouth. Never before had 10-days of out-of-school suspension been worth punching somebody in the face).
Yes, ladies, it must be annoying to have all those dudes try to do things with you. It must get tiring to have strangers say to you,
“Oh, you’re pretty. Let’s go out and eat some dinner sometime.”
Or“Can I put my finger in your butt?”
But at least you’re exposed to so many different people. You meet the cute charming guy in the Yankees pinstripe shirt, and you meet the pervert guy in the business suit. You meet the construction worker, the convenience store cashier, the lawyer, the doctor, the pimp, the drug dealer, the psychotic genius, the sweet mentally challenged guy, the psychotic mentally challenged guy, the polite genius.
By all means, men are as involved in people as much as you all are. But you have the luxury of being able to do nothing, and someone to bother you. Life approaches you in a faster pace this way. I mean, when I sit on a park bench, the only people who bother me is the guy asking for change, and the really lonely dude walking his Toto-type dog. When YOU are on a park bench, the whole dynamic of the situation changes. I won’t care to elaborate, because I’ve never been a woman, and I’ll probably be talking out-of-my-ass on some/most points. And, yes, though you may disagree with my positive tone regarding weirdoes approaching you, I do believe that you should agree with this following idea: no one can get enough practice in dealing with conflict. In dealing with conflicts among friends, family, and strangers. Through conflict, we can better learn fearlessness, tact, morality, and discipline and humility and humor.
By all means, avoid all conflict, but when conflict hunts you down (and it hunts us all), take stock of what’s happening so that the event turns you into a stronger person. Darwin said that the most successful mammals thrive by adapting. So adapt fast. Because one day could be sitting backstage during a play, and one of the other actors could walk toward you, and while walking, unzip his pants.
Life is beautiful and wonderful and awkward.Life is like unrequited love.
Life is like the world’s best one night stand. Life is like the serial killer living in your neighborhood, unbeknownst to you.
Life is like a bag of chips (not chocolates) because it stains your fingers and is hard to wash off.
Life is like the moon before we landed on it. For all we know, it’s made of cheese.
Happy Thanksgiving,
****
Hello classmates and teacher,I feel like writing something. And since it’s relevant to you all, I figured you should have the chance to read it. (I was able to get your e-mails because I happened to still have the ‘Class Cancelled Wednesday’ e-mail Rita sent a while ago.) After the end of today’s class, during Rita’s recount of her unfortunate encounter with the “Waterbottle Man,” I blurted out, “Was he Asian?”
Rita’s story had reminded me of another subway story - - a high school teacher of mine, and some classmates made the literary magazine at our school, and they won an award from Columbia University for their efforts. They went to New York to receive the prize, and they happened to get on the subway car with this one man. This man was Asian, and wore a business suit. He rode the subway standing up. After a couple of stops, he unzipped his pants, pulled out his “water bottle,” and held onto the rail with his thing hanging out.
My own personal subway/bus story is not full of as much action, though it made an impression on me. In high school, I lived in Tampa, Florida, and due to volunteering at the library, I had to take the city bus home. It was an hour-long ride, and one evening, a man stepped onto the bus. He was the man on whom I based my “crazy” character in the beginning of the semester. He was the physical embodiment of potential violence.He wore a sleeveless black shirt, and black jeans, and black socks. He was over 6ft, and long limbed, and had flaring nostrils. One of his middle fingers was wrapped in a band-aid, and wore headphones. He was muscular, but not as a bodybuilder is.
He wasn’t sculpted with intent to produce form--he was sculpted for function. He was wiry, and it seemed as if he got his from pushing boulders up a hill.In my performance, I attempted to recapture exactly how he moved. From when he strode down the aisle, and fell back into the seat almost in front of me, and flicked the wall of the bus with his fingertip, he twitched at this schizophrenic rhythm. I could not tell if he was real, or faking it, because he was so extreme. So, of course, I stared at him.
As you all know, NYC is different from the rest of the world. Here, if you notice something weird/threatening, you play dumb, and give them the threat wide berth. But, in smaller/quieter places, there is a tendency to want to say, “Hey, that’s interesting.” *poke poke*
So I stared. And there was this part of me that wondered, “If I could beat this guy in a fight, that’d be so cool.” It was not sadism, or sociopathy. This urge was more in the Hemingway-ish vein. This was more like a daredevil before a jump, or a man before he proposes to his Love. He thinks, “Oh man, I could seriously screw things up, but if I succeed, it would be so cool.” Here was a man who seemed like he could destroy me easily, and so there was this part of me that wanted to prove itself.Well, of course, he caught me staring. He winked at me. And I stopped looking at him for the rest of the ride, though I had to fight the urge to look at him again. Out of sheer curiosity. *poke poke*
He exited the bus two stops before mine.
More than anything else, by the time I have grandkids, I would like to have lots of stories to tell. Just endless endless amounts. Like the high school teacher I had who taught English to the Eskimos, met his future-wife when he was a scuba instructor, and had a rather vicious run-in with the Mexican police (he wrote a novel based on the years he lived in Mexico). Yes, this teacher would break into a story about once a day while we did our in-class work.
I am writer, and I like writing, and my urge to have a lot of experiences may very well be influenced by my hobby/life’s-work.I’ve gathered a nice little collection of stories myself. For instance:My little brother and I worked at a sandwich shop last summer. A man once called 911 on us because the bread of his sandwich was harder than he liked it.
I will not elaborate much further, for time runs short, and writing takes time. But I knew he was a potential problem when he leaned over to ask his daughter what sandwich she wanted, and she wouldn’t look him in the eye. She flinched at every word he said.
Now, I will say that you women must have great stories. All the weirdoes approaching you on the street. Sometimes when I’m talking to a woman, and she brings up how some guy was bothering her, I realize, “Oh, yes, I forget. People tend to bother other people with forward requests or inappropriate actions. Well, they approach anyone but me.”
You see, people have thought I was scary since at least 10th grade. Seriously - - once, I was in the hallway of my school, and this one woman asked me, serious, “Oh my God. Are you going to kill somebody?” Even when I was in an okay mood, I always looked angry. And then, one day after school, I was looking in the locker room for my little brother because he was not picking up his cell phone. I asked this one guy, some stoner-looking soccer player, if he had seen a dude with a large afro (my little brother used to sport the world’s greatest afro-hair).
The stoner-looking dude said, “Are you going to fight him?” He thought, by the way I had asked the question, that I was very very angry, when, really, I was only mildly frustrated. Only people who know me, people who don't care, and people who are stoned approach me freely (listen about the time, during my first serious acting experience, when I was backstage and one of the other actors pretended to almost whip out his penis at my mouth. Never before had 10-days of out-of-school suspension been worth punching somebody in the face).
Yes, ladies, it must be annoying to have all those dudes try to do things with you. It must get tiring to have strangers say to you,
“Oh, you’re pretty. Let’s go out and eat some dinner sometime.”
Or“Can I put my finger in your butt?”
But at least you’re exposed to so many different people. You meet the cute charming guy in the Yankees pinstripe shirt, and you meet the pervert guy in the business suit. You meet the construction worker, the convenience store cashier, the lawyer, the doctor, the pimp, the drug dealer, the psychotic genius, the sweet mentally challenged guy, the psychotic mentally challenged guy, the polite genius.
By all means, men are as involved in people as much as you all are. But you have the luxury of being able to do nothing, and someone to bother you. Life approaches you in a faster pace this way. I mean, when I sit on a park bench, the only people who bother me is the guy asking for change, and the really lonely dude walking his Toto-type dog. When YOU are on a park bench, the whole dynamic of the situation changes. I won’t care to elaborate, because I’ve never been a woman, and I’ll probably be talking out-of-my-ass on some/most points. And, yes, though you may disagree with my positive tone regarding weirdoes approaching you, I do believe that you should agree with this following idea: no one can get enough practice in dealing with conflict. In dealing with conflicts among friends, family, and strangers. Through conflict, we can better learn fearlessness, tact, morality, and discipline and humility and humor.
By all means, avoid all conflict, but when conflict hunts you down (and it hunts us all), take stock of what’s happening so that the event turns you into a stronger person. Darwin said that the most successful mammals thrive by adapting. So adapt fast. Because one day could be sitting backstage during a play, and one of the other actors could walk toward you, and while walking, unzip his pants.
Life is beautiful and wonderful and awkward.Life is like unrequited love.
Life is like the world’s best one night stand. Life is like the serial killer living in your neighborhood, unbeknownst to you.
Life is like a bag of chips (not chocolates) because it stains your fingers and is hard to wash off.
Life is like the moon before we landed on it. For all we know, it’s made of cheese.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Links to news articles
Life sucks in Kenya
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_af/kenya_on_the_brink
Life sucks out west
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm
The most interesting thing about Staten Island: The Ninja Bandit
http://wcbstv.com/local/staten.island.ninja.2.624099.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_af/kenya_on_the_brink
Life sucks out west
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080106/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm
The most interesting thing about Staten Island: The Ninja Bandit
http://wcbstv.com/local/staten.island.ninja.2.624099.html
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Two Hypotheses
1) Immoral acts by “religious” people stem from aspects of the person, not of the religious text. From what I’ve heard, most criticism against organized religion roughly states that religion (the Abrahamic religions in particular) justify immoral acts such as genocide. For instance, certain statements made in the Qur’an calling for a defense of the faith, and stories in the Tenakh (Old Testament) about the Israelites eliminating entire tribes seem to prove these critics right. The passages can be interpreted as calling for mass murder.
I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.
2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.
I believe, instead, that elements in the environment and the personal thoughts of person cause these immoral acts (which are immoral by a conventional 21st century American viewpoint). For example, if Europeans with guns come to Africa, and their economy can be boosted by the use of slaves, they will be tempted to use the Africans for this purpose. Yes, Europeans and Americans used the idea that Africans could be enslaved because they were thought to be descended from Ham, but this use of the idea was stimulated by greed. While religion certainly has an effect (which is difficult to quantify), the opportunities in the environment play a stronger role than the religious text. Religion is secondary, though its presence is constant.
People, not their words, are the direct cause of evil.
2) If black people had the opportunity, they would have enslaved whites.
The way it actually occurred was all a matter of opportunity, and chance. People are people. One blood--for better and worse.
Friday, December 21, 2007
An undeveloped rant
Ladies and gentlemen, we live in a time when the revolutionaries are old. Their balls sag. Yes, we live in a time when the avant-garde has worked itself into the status quo. Because as way back as Ancient Greece old men said that the young disrespected the old. Because every century, the anti-christ loomed over the law-abiding citizens of this great world. The self-proclaimed revolutionaries wrestle the self-proclaimed protectors of old fashioned values. Yes, everyone is a hero, even you. Everyone a martyr, even you. A princess that needs saving, a knight in shining armor. Yes, we all play the roles destined for us, and strike at the dragon’s throat to take care of it all. Yes, yes, all you need do: save the world, you worthless ant. You one-out-of-billions. I am no prophet, but because I am as self-righteous, oily, dirty, congested, and sleepy as you, I see the threads which hold you together.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Excerpts from a poem I'm working on.
A man and a woman lay by each other in bed.
The man: “I love you. Forever and ever, I will.”
She blinks.
A woman and a man walk hand in hand through the park.
Woman: “I love you. Forever and ever, I will.”
Man: “Uh.”
In a 1939, a Nazi Gauleiter (District Leader) and his Jewish mistress lay together in bed.
Mistress: “I love you. Forever and ever, I will.” Then, the wife walked in.
Two weeks later, soldiers gassed the wife to death in a gas chamber.
A man eats dinner with his brother.
Man: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
The brother punches the man, and calls him a faggot.
A woman sits with her sister. Christmas.
Woman: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
Two day later, the sister removes $500 from the woman’s bank account,
and escapes into New Jersey.
A man and his foster son sit in the living room, and play a football video game.
The man: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
The Orphan later steals the foster father’s girlfriend.
**************************
They kneaded the thigh, their breaths heavy and warm and wet. Their breaths swirled. A cup of water boiled and the steam
waved over you. The touch was like a rag rubbed over your chest. His breathing, theirs--wet, from the throat. They moaned from the throat. They made little jokes, and rubbed, and breathed, and coughed, and moaned, and made another little joke, and breathed, breathed, breathed.
They washed their hands, and closed the door behind them. Your father played poker in the dining room. Your mother slept on the couch in the living room.
**************************
Our enemies kneaded us. They pounded us flat on a pan. They sliced us out with a cookie-cutter in the shape of people. They flipped us out and left us in the over for 9 minutes, temperature 350 degrees Fahrenheit. They left us to cool on a windowsill. They decorated us with icing. They gave me 3 eyes, and you five nipples. They gave you a frown, and rested a smile on my stomach.
“Delicious!”
Hours later, at 8:43pm, we plopped into the toilet.
You: “No!”
Me: “What?”
You: “Nothing.”
Me: “Please.”
You: “What?”
Me: “Nothing.”
You: “Please.” And then you began to climb out.
Me: “No!
You: “Shut up!”
Me: “What?”
You: “You going to hit me?”
Me: “What? No!”
You: “Then what made you angry?”
Me: “Nothing.”
You: “I’m leaving.”
Me: “No!”
You: “Why shouldn’t I leave?”
Me: “Please.”
You: “Why shouldn’t I leave?”
Me: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
Because what should be ours shall be ours. We’ve waited longer than a cold night in which our knuckles fall to white, chipped skin. We have waited so long that we ignore the beggar asking for 80 cents. We’ve been lonely for so long that we hope for others to live alone too. We bathe in our victories. We bump into people on the street and do not say “excuse me.” We curse when we get a problem wrong on the quiz, and punch the wall when a stranger calls us a “bitch” in the hallway. We count the times they cursed us, we write the number in our journals. We sigh because the Iraq War has yet to become WWIII.
We have forgotten the names of our aunts and uncles, and we refuse to call people we’ve only known for a week. We imagine people talk about us behind our backs, and we expect that tomorrow, the sun will rise, and the moon will resemble a man’s face, and it will rain, or it will not. It snows, or the sun shines. Someone shoots someone else, or someone robs someone else. Someone emerges from the womb, and someone slips on the wedding ring. The sun rises, and the moon dissolves in the light. The sun falls, and the moon brightens. The stars hover in place for centuries. Shit smells like shit and flowers like flowers, and flowers dipped in shit smell like shit. The sun will rise.
The man: “I love you. Forever and ever, I will.”
She blinks.
A woman and a man walk hand in hand through the park.
Woman: “I love you. Forever and ever, I will.”
Man: “Uh.”
In a 1939, a Nazi Gauleiter (District Leader) and his Jewish mistress lay together in bed.
Mistress: “I love you. Forever and ever, I will.” Then, the wife walked in.
Two weeks later, soldiers gassed the wife to death in a gas chamber.
A man eats dinner with his brother.
Man: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
The brother punches the man, and calls him a faggot.
A woman sits with her sister. Christmas.
Woman: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
Two day later, the sister removes $500 from the woman’s bank account,
and escapes into New Jersey.
A man and his foster son sit in the living room, and play a football video game.
The man: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
The Orphan later steals the foster father’s girlfriend.
**************************
They kneaded the thigh, their breaths heavy and warm and wet. Their breaths swirled. A cup of water boiled and the steam
waved over you. The touch was like a rag rubbed over your chest. His breathing, theirs--wet, from the throat. They moaned from the throat. They made little jokes, and rubbed, and breathed, and coughed, and moaned, and made another little joke, and breathed, breathed, breathed.
They washed their hands, and closed the door behind them. Your father played poker in the dining room. Your mother slept on the couch in the living room.
**************************
Our enemies kneaded us. They pounded us flat on a pan. They sliced us out with a cookie-cutter in the shape of people. They flipped us out and left us in the over for 9 minutes, temperature 350 degrees Fahrenheit. They left us to cool on a windowsill. They decorated us with icing. They gave me 3 eyes, and you five nipples. They gave you a frown, and rested a smile on my stomach.
“Delicious!”
Hours later, at 8:43pm, we plopped into the toilet.
You: “No!”
Me: “What?”
You: “Nothing.”
Me: “Please.”
You: “What?”
Me: “Nothing.”
You: “Please.” And then you began to climb out.
Me: “No!
You: “Shut up!”
Me: “What?”
You: “You going to hit me?”
Me: “What? No!”
You: “Then what made you angry?”
Me: “Nothing.”
You: “I’m leaving.”
Me: “No!”
You: “Why shouldn’t I leave?”
Me: “Please.”
You: “Why shouldn’t I leave?”
Me: “I love you, forever and ever, I will.”
Because what should be ours shall be ours. We’ve waited longer than a cold night in which our knuckles fall to white, chipped skin. We have waited so long that we ignore the beggar asking for 80 cents. We’ve been lonely for so long that we hope for others to live alone too. We bathe in our victories. We bump into people on the street and do not say “excuse me.” We curse when we get a problem wrong on the quiz, and punch the wall when a stranger calls us a “bitch” in the hallway. We count the times they cursed us, we write the number in our journals. We sigh because the Iraq War has yet to become WWIII.
We have forgotten the names of our aunts and uncles, and we refuse to call people we’ve only known for a week. We imagine people talk about us behind our backs, and we expect that tomorrow, the sun will rise, and the moon will resemble a man’s face, and it will rain, or it will not. It snows, or the sun shines. Someone shoots someone else, or someone robs someone else. Someone emerges from the womb, and someone slips on the wedding ring. The sun rises, and the moon dissolves in the light. The sun falls, and the moon brightens. The stars hover in place for centuries. Shit smells like shit and flowers like flowers, and flowers dipped in shit smell like shit. The sun will rise.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Sexual Perversion at Columbia University
(Written around early March, 2007)
A November 2006 article for the New York Daily News said that Columbia University is a cesspool of S&M, sex in the Library, and naked parties. Said one student, “You go to dinner and then have sex.” Ladies and gentlemen, I am appalled at this university, at the students, at you, for not inviting me to these functions. Not that I’d do that shit. But be a little polite. Be considerate.
“Hey, want to participate in an orgy?” you say.
“Sorry, ****, but I can’t. Too much homework.”
**************************
Okay--the preceding text was my attempt to be funny (except the Daily News did write such an article). But, really, tell me how “hooking up” works. I’m lost on the subject. How do you go to dinner and then have sex?
The best advice I’ve heard—solid advice—is to be friendly, polite, and straightforward. Reasonably aggressive. Unfortunately, some men take this too far. Some go up to a woman and simply ask for sex. That’s weird. It’s bad to be the fifty-year-old standing on Broadway checking out college girls. It’s bad to be the drunken guy hitting on all the ladies at parties. It’s bad to be the class rapist.
I feel awful for women who have to put up with creeps. Butt-grabbing, staring, rapist creeps. I hear these stories—the non-so-serious and the serious—and I get a lukewarm tennis ball in my gut. These incidences are an invasion of a person’s property. If you were to grab a stranger’s ass without permission, you’re showing this person that you have no respect for them, that you think of that person as a means of getting off; their life, to you, is insignificant. It’s even worse when you’ve got stalker-type love. Stalker-type love exceeds lust in intensity, and can involve various types of stalking…such as internet stalking. O_o’
But it’s more complicated than men being perverts or possessive. Understand. In my old high school, I once saw this guy toss a girl cheek-first into a brick wall as if he were trying to put her in the hospital. Her whole body was flat against the brick wall, and she was laughing the whole time. This was flirting to those people. He was wooing her. (I repeat: he chucked her like a bag of sand.)
And, during other school days, other guys said things like, “Come here before I hit you!” or “Let me put my dick right here.” And this worked for them. Some girls were okay with that kind of stuff.
“But,” you may ask. “How can you stand here and scrutinize how other people—especially other men—go on with themselves sexually? You probably have the same thoughts. Haven’t you acted creepy?”
That’s not even a question. I’m 19 and male. Of course I want to fuck somebody, and of course I’ve acted creepy.
You may wonder how those incidences ended up. Well, dear reader, it’s none of your business. Because it’s not.
Still, I must say: I’ve never put my hands on someone without her and me already having that kind of understanding between us (no serious attachment necessary).
Anyway, imagine the conversations we’re supposed to have at naked parties.
A November 2006 article for the New York Daily News said that Columbia University is a cesspool of S&M, sex in the Library, and naked parties. Said one student, “You go to dinner and then have sex.” Ladies and gentlemen, I am appalled at this university, at the students, at you, for not inviting me to these functions. Not that I’d do that shit. But be a little polite. Be considerate.
“Hey, want to participate in an orgy?” you say.
“Sorry, ****, but I can’t. Too much homework.”
**************************
Okay--the preceding text was my attempt to be funny (except the Daily News did write such an article). But, really, tell me how “hooking up” works. I’m lost on the subject. How do you go to dinner and then have sex?
The best advice I’ve heard—solid advice—is to be friendly, polite, and straightforward. Reasonably aggressive. Unfortunately, some men take this too far. Some go up to a woman and simply ask for sex. That’s weird. It’s bad to be the fifty-year-old standing on Broadway checking out college girls. It’s bad to be the drunken guy hitting on all the ladies at parties. It’s bad to be the class rapist.
I feel awful for women who have to put up with creeps. Butt-grabbing, staring, rapist creeps. I hear these stories—the non-so-serious and the serious—and I get a lukewarm tennis ball in my gut. These incidences are an invasion of a person’s property. If you were to grab a stranger’s ass without permission, you’re showing this person that you have no respect for them, that you think of that person as a means of getting off; their life, to you, is insignificant. It’s even worse when you’ve got stalker-type love. Stalker-type love exceeds lust in intensity, and can involve various types of stalking…such as internet stalking. O_o’
But it’s more complicated than men being perverts or possessive. Understand. In my old high school, I once saw this guy toss a girl cheek-first into a brick wall as if he were trying to put her in the hospital. Her whole body was flat against the brick wall, and she was laughing the whole time. This was flirting to those people. He was wooing her. (I repeat: he chucked her like a bag of sand.)
And, during other school days, other guys said things like, “Come here before I hit you!” or “Let me put my dick right here.” And this worked for them. Some girls were okay with that kind of stuff.
“But,” you may ask. “How can you stand here and scrutinize how other people—especially other men—go on with themselves sexually? You probably have the same thoughts. Haven’t you acted creepy?”
That’s not even a question. I’m 19 and male. Of course I want to fuck somebody, and of course I’ve acted creepy.
You may wonder how those incidences ended up. Well, dear reader, it’s none of your business. Because it’s not.
Still, I must say: I’ve never put my hands on someone without her and me already having that kind of understanding between us (no serious attachment necessary).
Anyway, imagine the conversations we’re supposed to have at naked parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)