A Beautiful Man with a Beautiful Dream

The day Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. died, I wept. I honestly broke down in tears. I didn't cry when one of my grandma's died, when an uncle died, or when a cousin died. But Kurt Vonnegut? I wept. I've been rereading his corpus today because it always fills me with the joy that I'm a human being concerned with equality and peace, rather than "victory at any cost," and other such nonsense. Here's a quote from Vonnegut regarding the Allied air bombings near the end of World War II, Dresden in particular (look it up).

"There can be no doubt that the Allies fought on the side of right and the Germans and Japanese on the side of wrong. World War II was fought for near-Holy motives. But I stand convinced that the brand of justice in which we dealt, wholesale bombing of civilian populations, was blasphemous. That the enemy did it first has nothing to do with the moral problem. What I saw of our air war, as the European conflict neared an end, had the earmarks of being an irrational war for war's sake. Soft citizens of American democracy learned to kick a man below the belt and make the bastard scream.

The occupying Russians, when they discovered that we were Americans, embraced us and congratulated us on the complete desolation our planes had wrought. We accepted their congratulations with good grace and proper modesty, but I felt then as I feel now, that I would have given my life to save Dresden for the World's generations to come. That is how everyone should feel about every city on Earth."

Why don't we all feel that way?

Read more...

BABY EYES! Another Update From School

So 'baby eyes' is everywhere. Through the power of Teh Internetszszsz, I have found baby twins for people I know. It's the most incredible discovery since those Dead Sea Scrolls, or whatever. The first baby, the one above, is just fuckin' crazy looking. Also, I think the father should really hire a private investigator to see if his wife had sex with any ALIENS. But damn, he ugly. I'd love a baby like that, though, because when you show it to people, they HAVE to say it's cute, otherwise they're dickheads. And no one likes to be a dickhead. And if I'm the dad, I know my baby is shit ugly. So it's hilarious when people have to lie to my face and tell me how cute my shit ugly baby is. And in other news, I'm still an asshole.



But on to the babies (right?). Here's Ben as a baby. I think it's a rather incredible likeness. This is the face Ben uses when he wants someone to shut up. But, I've also seen him use it when Keith rubs his Lion Belly. This baby is apparently hoping for the same. Ben should do this face more. Like, he should do it all the time. Can you imagine sitting in class with a guy doing this face for an hour? That would be awful.





Now, here's Keith. Keith loves doing this face: it's his sad panda face. This baby has it down. Keith does this face whenever he forgets the name of a state capital (for the record, he and I can name about 15, together) or whenever he has to eat Panda Express. I think both events are about the same in terms of how much terrrbleness is applied to the individual experiencing them. Anyways, here's to you, Sad Panda Keith.



And this last one is precious. It requires almost no introduction. I give you:

MICHAEL FILLMAN!

Read more...

Reporting from PHI 301: The Class I'm Not Taking Seriously

So I haven't been taking this class too seriously. It's "History of Ancient Philosophy" and the way the professor is approaching it, I don't have to do much. He had us buy an anthological text and then he offered us, for free, his book-in-progress about the subject. We have readings in both, but here's the catch: his lectures, every day, are right out of his book, chronologically as well as word-for-word paste jobs. So, if I read and understand his book, I don't have to show up. Currently, I'm under .500 in terms of attendance.

Right now, the class is attempting to pick his brain about a midterm review and it's not going well. His approach is that a significant portion of what he is testing us on is our ability to understand what material is important; naturally, the questions people are asking do not fit into that schematic. Obviously, there is a lot of frustration. I find it all funny. At first, I wasn't a fan of the way he was teaching the class, but now, after hearing him talk about the midterm, I'm starting to really like the guy. I might be the only one.

In any case, I thought I'd give a characterization of the man through two direct quotes, right from class. The first comes from last week, and the second from right now, about ten minutes ago.

(When describing why both political parties in Athens at the time, the 'democratic' people and the aristocrats, were angry at the sophists.)

"The democrats, the democratic people at the time, were upset because a sophistical education was very expensive and the democratic people were, notoriously, poor. Well, I guess not much has changed."

He himself thought this was funny and laughed heartily. Also, it's only offensive if he's some sort of conservative ideologue, but he's not, so it's hilarious.

(Some guy trying to reassure the class that this midterm isn't going to be as hellish as they were thinking.)

Some Guy - "Guys, look, it's in his best interest for us to succeed."

Professor - "No it's not."

BAM! So quick. He didn't wait for a second to come back with that line. The class laughed and then realized what he said was a bad thing, at which point they broke out into desperate cries for help, which went unnoticed. The class, I think, is getting together afterwards to beat up "Some Guy" and feed him to the fishes. I might watch; it could be fun.

Oh, and if you haven't seen it yet, look at Jon's blog (http://jcwiii.blogspot.com). He claims it will CONSTANTLY be FUNNY, so it's our job to ridicule him whenever it SUCKS BALLS. Will it be tomorrow? I'm ready to find out.

Also, I think Ben should start a blog. And Keith. And Jesus. 'Cause then we'd all be cool. And we could all study Spy together. Keith knows what I'm talking about. And, I guess technically, Jesus, too.

Read more...

My Brother Has a Blog: Run For the Hills!

Jon's Blog About Gay People Like Himself

So Jon made a blog. The first post is hilarious. Read it. Cringe. Laugh. Die. And then give me your worldly possessions.

Read more...

Why Thinking is Bad, Kids

Sometimes I feel like I inject my life with too much control, too much planning, too many right answers. I feels so estranged from normal society, sometimes, because normal society often doesn't think, doesn't control, doesn't get a lot of things right. I feel like I'm on the outside, looking in, at a busy metropolis of life and action and vivacity that I'm not a part of. I'm not willing to take enough risks, because I hate being wrong; so I plan everything out and get the right answer and move on to the next query, the next target, the next issue to consume. Sometimes I want to just make a change, make a very uninformed decision, one that will have a significant impact on my life, something that will shake up my controlled world. I don't need someone else telling me how to live my life, or someone else making decisions for me; I just need to make some decisions without thinking, do some things without planning, hook up with a random person, and not care about it (for example). What if I did something that didn't seem like the right thing, or did something that I didn't plan out beforehand? Did something in minutes that required hours? I'm so afraid of being wrong, or caught in a bad situation, that I haven't done that, so far.

What if I spend six years doing undergrad, purposely? I'd love to learn three other languages, finish a philosophy degree, learn more math, and spend a year or two overseas somewhere, maybe Switzerland, or, hell, Senegal. But I'm so afraid of being 24 and nowhere in life that I remain reluctant and indecisve. I guess I have to remember that I'm only 20, that I've got years ahead of me (presumably, that is; but you have to live life based on this assumption, otherwise what the hell are you doing?). I have so much time to figure shit out and do whatever I want. I can't just fuck around forever, but I can certainly indulge in some things that aren't directly related to a career. I don't, I suppose, need to make progress in any particular direction, so long as I'm making progress, moving upward. Right?

And what is it that I'm heading for, anyways? Philosophy professor/author of philosophy texts? Do I consider law school? Linguist? Professional Douche Bag? What about bowling? I could drop everything and work on my ball spin. What about anything? Everything? I truly think there's no discipline in which I couldn't be successful. And the worst part? I could see myself being equally happy in any of the above situations. (Yes, even Professional Douche Bag; I've been perfecting the art for years now - all I need is someone to pay me.)

The more I think about all this, the less decisive I am. The more I think about it, th less sure of anything I become. The more I think about it, the less real it all seems, the more fake it becomes. Because if I can't see any conceivable difference between different life trajectories (with respect to my satisfaction), then what's the point? Where's the reality? Where's the point at which I know one is right and the others less right? Maybe I don't. Maybe it's like love: there's guaranteed to be a dozen people who would all be perfect life partners. Maybe I should just pick the one that makes the most money and be done with it. But I probably won't; for, as usual, indecision wins, and I do nothing. Or if I do something, it's a baby step in one direction that simultaneously leaves me open to other options in case of failure. So I get nowhere, again.

I need to tell myself, over and over: I can't wait for the future to vindicate the present; I have to make the present vindicate the future.

No matter what I do, I'll never be convinced it was the right decision. This thinking makes me clearly incapable of making the big decisions, the important ones, much less live with those decisions. This all kind of sucks, doesn't it? But whatever, it's something I probably have to figure out on my own. Advice on problems like this is usually less than helpful, I've noticed. It always seems that the advice means well but has no practical effect on the decision-maker; or it doesn't relate in a way that's intimate enough to make a difference. And that's because the problem is more than just words on a paper; it's something internal, something private and personal, so deep that no one can get at it except the person it relates to. And it's really hard to put that shit in words, so the advice solicited/received is almost always useless. And that kind of sucks, too, doesn't it?

Read more...

Dissolution of Anger Through ManLove

So I'm not in a good mood. My brother was really angry with me, and now he's not, I guess; one of my best friends is upset with me, which sucks balls; and I keep pissing off people by opening my mouth. It hasn't been the best of times, let's just say. The cure for my ills? ManLove, of course.


Ah, nothing like one man helping out a fellow man in the best way possible. Sharing is caring, kids.

But anyways, back to the shit that went down this weekend. My brother is clearly frustrated with a number of things going on in his life right now and it's no big deal that he sort of blew up at me this morning. Honestly, he's under a lot of stress, he put himself in a bad position that is difficult to get out of, and we were talking ideology last night. That's never a good combination. It was about relationships et al: the main point we kept returning to was the difference in approach a few of us had when it came to pursuing women. Keith and Jon were of one mind, and Biggie and I were of another. Keith and Jon felt risk-taking was necessary and that in order to win the game, you had to play the game. Biggie and I are, naturally, cowards and don't like risk-taking; we also don't like that it's a game (which seems weird, really) and refuse, at times, to play it.

Now, why are relationships games? Doesn't it seem a little weird to say "I'm going to find the love of my life by playing a game." I would like to think that the person whom I spend the rest of life with (assuming someone can put up with me for an extended period of time) would not be found in some game, with trivial rules and what not. I'd like to think that two adults sharing each other's company would stem from meaningful interaction as opposed to "gaming." But maybe that's just me, and maybe I'm really just trying to find a new name, while keeping the same characteristics - I'm not really sure. It's difficult to call a spade a spade when you're not actually sure if it's a spade. Existential shit, right there.

Maybe it's all a game and I just don't want to play it; maybe I'm frustrated that in order to frequently find meaningful (maybe...) interaction of this nature, I have to play a game. It seems odd to say that to find meaningful interaction of a particularly refined nature, I have to play a game. At that point, is it really meaningful interaction, or do we simply enter another game, followed by another, and so on? Is it all just games? Do we ever find real meaningful interaction, outside the context of a game? Probably not, and maybe that's what really upsets me: not that it's a game, or that I have to play it, or that I might have to take risks that I'm normally opposed to. Maybe it's that there can never not be a game, and I'll just have to keep on playing them to get by and to get laid. Does this depress anyone else?

The depressing inevitability that it's all a game, and can never change, is reminiscent of today's political system: to win and enact meaningful change you have to play a game that is diametrically at odds with enacting meaningful change. So, if you get elected, can you really enact meaningful change? Or are you already deep in the system, unable to do that which you once thought was possible?

Who cares. On to the second problem: my best friend being mad at me. So, best friend and I are, to be fair, at opposite ends of the political spectrum, and this is fine. In fact, it's healthy; it often breeds discussion as opposed to the normal reiteration of beliefs you find among groups with similar political views. But sometimes, best friend and I go at each other over stupid things (i.e. political shit) that really doesn't matter, and that's not good. The issue today? Well, I said George Washington (and other Founding Father buddies) needed to be examined in light of their slaveholding natures and that we shouldn't simply deify them straightaway because of other things they did. This didn't sit well with best friend and he said some things that weren't cool (even though I totally understand where he's coming from). So what now? I don't know. We'll probably forget about it, have lunch, do sexy time, and forget it about. But what if we don't?

...

I suppose an easy way out of all this contextual existential bullshit is to just say "fuck it" and do what you want: kill babies, sleep with random women, and make fun of old people - what else are you gonna do? Play the game? There's probably a third option, but in these situations it usually requires some sort of combination of the two systems, which is difficult and often untenable. And besides, third party...er, third option people get ridiculed and never have sex, so, you know, do what you want, I guess.

So what did all this prove? Nothing, as usual. None of this shit ever does. People write books; people read them; people think they've learned something. But honestly, they never do - no one ever does. We eat, shit, sometimes sleep, and occasionally we get laid. That's about it. Thinking, changing, learning...those are for sissies and wimps. Sigh...it sucks to be a sissie and a wimp.

Read more...

If you Condemn Hitler, then Condemn Washington

Often when discussing historical figures, I hear a defense that never ceases to surprise me: You can't say Person X is bad because Belief A was common at the time - everyone was doing it.

Sigh...Really? Are we going to say that simply because a belief was common at the time, a belief later proved horribly immoral, Person X should not be condemned nor partially vilified? Here's why this reasoning is a very bad idea.

Take George Washington (or most other Founding Fathers): he owned slaves, used slaves, and never made an attempt to abolish or decrease the presence of slavery. Awful guy? I would say so. He was engaging in a practice that most people at the time thought was alright. But, obviously (and somewhat intuitively), we now hold slavery as something atrocious and objectively wrong. Was slavery wrong then or only right now? Both! The slavery they were practicing was wrong, morally. Any slavery we practice today is wrong, morally. So then why do people always want to defend Washington by saying that it was alright in his era, so we can't condemn him?

I won't argue this way, but I could remind Washington defenders that he said himself slavery was morally wrong, and so did a host of other contemporaries. But again, I won't argue this way.

What happens if we let this defense obtain? Can we then condemn Adolf Hitler? Nope. Doing so would be inconsistent with our previous belief: Hitler's view about wanting to kill all the Jewish people was widely accepted in Germany/Austria at the time as a good way of doing things, and, more importantly, the right way of doing things. So, if we do not condemn Washington, then we do not condemn Hitler.

And what are we saying when we say Hitler is wrong, anyways? Are we saying that killing innocent people is wrong? Certainly. Most rational people would agree that, under unexceptional circumstances, killing innocent people is wrong - right now, and 2000 years ago. External to the Washington example, I would bet highly that most rational people would also agree that, under unexceptional circumstances, enslaving human beings is wrong - right now, and 2000 years ago. So again, I repeat the refrain: why defend Washington? Or Jefferson? Or any of the celebrities of the revolution?

If you do not condemn Washington, you do not condemn Hitler. That's logic, bitches.

Read more...

There Can't Nobody Do Me Like Jesus

So today on campus, at the busiest intersection in terms of both foot traffic and cars (and such), a Catholic Organization (which apparently inhabits a nearby building) decided to protest gay marriage. They came armed with multiple signs, poles to hang them twelve feet int he air, pamphlets...and a bagpiper! Needless to say, for many reasons, I was excited. Any time people gather to protest something, and are so prepared, they deserve attention. I gave them some of mine.

As a preface, I want to say that people are allowed to hold whatever position they want on a given issue. My dissatisfaction stems, in most cases, from a lack of consistency in a person's beliefs. That's usually the point at which I get upset. So, in the future, all I ask, Catholic organization, is that you be consistent in your beliefs.

I first approached the nearest member; he was an older gentleman, with a kindly disposition. I calmly asked him what he found so unattractive about equality.

...

He apparently felt the need to ignore me. After this initial foray, the herd could smell danger; they knew there was a lion in their midst.

I then asked the young guy handing out pamphlets and saying something about Jesus if he felt Jesus was an egalitarian. He asked what "egalitarian" meant, and after explaining that it had a bit to do with equality, he said, yes, Jesus would have been an egalitarian. I then proceeded to ask if Jesus would have supported taking away rights from citizens. He turned away and began handing pamphlets to someone else.

Hmmm. I wasn't getting anywhere. Well, might as well head for the bagpiper; I love bagpipes.

Now, my love for bagpipes is rather strong. And the bagpipe is an instrument that requires precision, exactness, and perfection that is beyond the capabilities of most mortals. For purity's sake, I'll simply give an exact transcript of our conversation. No joke; this word-for-word:

"Hey, man, you blow pretty good, but your pipes are a little out."
"Yeah? Yeah? They're out of tune? Really?" (he was rather defensive)
"Yeah, brother, they're a little off."
"Really. Flat or sharp? Huh? Which one?"
"Flat, man."
"Oh yeah? Do I push in or pull out?"
"Why would you pull out? That would make it worse. Push in, dude."

Then he turned away and refused to say more. I imagine his musicality quiz didn't exaclty turn out the way he envisioned. I suppose he didn't expect an adept musician to give him tuning advice. I wanted to tell him, a bit more forcefully, that he clearly had a deficiency in pitch perception, but I don't think that would have solved anything.

At this point, I was getting blacklisted by everyone, so my conversations were going unheeded. Flag waving and sign holding are apparently taxing activities.

Also, I suspect that none of them share my egalitarian attitude. Come to think of it, I don't think any of them share Jesus' egalitarian attitude, either.

This brings me to the crux of what I see as the misunderstanding between those who support gay marriage and those who do not: the issue is strictly about equality and beliefs concerning the rightness or wrongness of the act are irrelevant. If the lack of gay marriage fosters inequality in the state, then clearly there is a problem with the state. But for some reason, the conversation seems to center on the deontological nature of gay marriage.

It seems a rather easy issue to deal with: what fosters equality is permissible in the state and mandatory; and what fosters inequality must be reevaluated and, most likely, terminated.

So what's the big deal? Why do I get blacklisted for asking simple questions to people who put themselves in public situations in the desire that they will be examined and questioned? It's pretty awful.

Oh, and I guarantee Andrew says something about how I'm beating up on stupid people.

Thanks Andrew. :)

Read more...