teh Mexigogue

The above is a song by Flyleaf written about Cassie Bernall and Rachel Scott who died in the Columbine school shootings in 1999. Cassie is widely believed (although erroneously identified according to Wikkipedia) as the girl who was asked the question “Do you believe in God?” before being gunned down by the Columbine killers after she replied in the affirmative. This song is proceeds on that assumption but whether or not the girl in question was correctly identified is not an issue here. My point is that the song and the underlying story is compelling and inspirational even to a non-Christian like me, not because of the religious undertone but because it is the story of a person refusing to capitulate to a bully even in the face of overwhelming force. This is the quintessential hero story for our times and as such it is the kind of stuff cultural icons are made of.

This sort of heroism is admired in every culture and is the basis of many of our shared mythologies, back to and including the story of David and Goliath and even modern day ballads such as Jim Croce’s Leroy Brown. It is part of human nature that admiration for this type of bravery is ubiquitous and upheld and for good reason. Among the myriad things that human beings regard as exceptional, the ability to hold to your principles in the face of certain death is among the highest on the order of worldly deeds. Stories like this fulfill the need humans have for creating heroes (sometimes out of whole cloth) in order to impose meaning and redefine senseless tragedies as the Columbine massacre as battles between good and evil. This happens in part because as ego driven entities, human beings are repelled by the notion that our lives and death may exist devoid of purpose. This mythical Cassie image is raised up as the personification of a heroic believer who willingly chooses death rather then to deny her faith when faced by the ultimate theist’s dilemma.

A close examination of the public record in the Columbine case, however, will show this interpretation to be almost entirely fictitious and created after the fact, a reality the public willingly ignores because the story fulfills our need for cultural heroes. In this instance, this deception fuels a hyper moralized worldview where the nihilistic rage of the Columbine killers is transformed into an anti-Christian action. I point the misrepresentation because, while this tendency for self deception in creating cultural icons serves a psychological need, it necessarily does so at the expense of truth. The fact is that the person who was asked “Do you believe in God” by the Columbine killers was said to have given conflicting responses, which is understandable given the circumstances, and that even when she did reply in the affirmative, when she was further asked why she said that it was because it was what her family believed. On top of that the girl who was actually reported to have been asked the God question, Val Schnurr, was shot but in fact did not die which is probably the main reason that the question/answer was later attributed to Cassey Bernall. In all of cultural mythology there is nothing quite so problematic as a martyr who doesn’t have the decency to die. I believe it is for this reason that the Flyleaf song is entitled “Cassie” rather than “Val.”

Secondly this story opens up an interesting window into the human fascination with martyrdom. The subject is most often associated with religious figures such as devout (if theologically suspect) Christians and Muslims but the non-theistic types have their fair share of admiration for this type too. The most common non theistic martyr worship occurs with military exploits (e.g. phrases such as “He gave his life for the nation”) but there also exist a good amount of people who honor the sacrifices of cultural icons such as Malcolm X and Martin Luther King for entirely non-religious reasons (I would include JFK in the present example but, while certainly the victim of assassination, one would be hard pressed to make the case for his being a martyr in any strict sense of the word). If there is any question as to the value our culture places upon martyrdom, imagine the irrelevance and even ignominy these figures would have experienced had they lived out the term of their full natural lives. In the case of MLK much is already known about his extramarital affairs with white women (a revelation which would have played out very badly among members of both black and white races) but his assassination overshadows all that. As is often the case death goes a long way to improving ones public image.

Also lost on the concept of martyrdom is that simply dying for ones cause in no way establishes that the cause in question was just in the first place. If Muslims martyr themselves on one side of a battle while Christians martyr themselves on the other side then what? Neither cause was proven in such a case and it’s still quite possible that both sides were wrong (not to mention the fact that the ensuing hero worship serves only to exacerbate the rift between the groups). Besides that, speaking of the Christian camp I don’t think any group that extols martyrdom as a virtue has any business propping itself up under the banner of pro-life in a different argument but that’s another argument entirely. My point is that martyrdom does nothing to sanctify a cause (else we would be obligated to hold Japanese kamikazees in the highest regard rather than vilifying them as the sneaky jackasses of all time) and in fact, by its insistence of using human beings a means to the ends of others (a concept which flies against our inherent sense of morality), it does everything to corrupt it. No ethical philosophy demands martyrs or self-sacrifice. I quote Ayn Rand on the subject:

“Of course whether a man should die fighting for freedom is a different issue. Such a man is not dying for the nation. I honor the men who died fighting for freedom in the past, and I honor them when I say I hope they died fighting for their own freedom. Because we profited from their actions, we should appreciate what they did; But it was not their duty to be martyrs for us.”

In conclusion I love this song but don’t be a martyr because martyrs have to die and being dead is dumb. Thank you drive through.

The philosopher Ayn Rand held as a postulate that the inherent rights of humankind stem in part from the fact that man is by nature a rational animal and can only exist properly by being allowed to use his mind. This is correct in its essence but should come with a caveat. The human psyche did not evolve strictly for its ability to divine truth, it evolved for its propensity to cause the user to perform actions that contribute to the propagation and success of the genes. An inherently unbiased human mind, if it ever existed, would presumably have been selected against in competition with people who had minds that skewed the worldview in their favor. In a reality where competition is the norm, a self-righteous certitude that one’s own actions are just is indeed a potent armament. Rationality does not come naturally in human beings, it is achieved through the conscious suppression of various internal devices that cause us to fudge calculations in our favor which is why both sides in litigation often feel simultaneously that they are in the right. A true dispassionate reckoning is possible only with effort and this underlies a great weakness in attempting to deal rationally with people; rather than being geared toward rationality, the default mode of thinking in human beings may well be a mysticism invoking misunderstanding of existence.

Enter now the consideration that in a world of increasingly complex ideas a bias toward self deception is not always helpful. Self interested action, when it is not combined with respect for the rights of others (and this is an important distinction), can be a source of interpersonal conflict. It is both in the interest of the individual and of society at large to avoid these types of mutually debilitating conflicts whenever possible. Morality, as we know it, is a code by which society attempts to reign in the most egregious excesses of the individual especially in regard to the commission of wrongs against society or torts against individuals. This is of course the understanding in abstract terms of ultimate cause, it’s not how ethical breaches are experienced by people in real time. In the world ethical breaches are experienced (except in the case of clinical sociopaths) with the concomitant feelings of guilt, shame, contrition, and in some cases social ostracism or other group oriented consequences. The emotions that underlie these actions evolved because they can incite the individual to useful interpersonal behavioral strategies. This is to say that while the ultimate cause of these emotions is indeed rational, the proximate cause (the emotions themselves) are not. As such nature often points the way and drags even a stupid individual kicking and screaming toward an ensmartened path. The flipside of this, however, is that when our instincts don’t match well with a situation, they are also capable of leading us to the wrong answer. The ick factor of humanity can cause us to avoid harmful contaminants such as mice and carrion. It can also cause us to act unfairly to the detriment of people of a different sexual orientation.

What is my point dear readers? My point is that the basis of human morality does not reside in some metaphysical pie-in-the-sky abstraction, morality is based in the things that are endemic to the human condition which is to say that it is properly founded upon human nature. Absolute rights and wrongs do exist in the world, the root of which are are to be found in humanity which is also where redress should be focused when those rights are violated. Moral perfection is realistically unattainable not because we are in need of some Divine Being who will ultimately give a sense of worth to an unworthy humanity (a criminal and anti-human philosophy if I ever heard one) but simply because we implicitly acknowledge the potential for conflict between the individual and the group and as civilized people we set the bar high. As such we also value mercy when transgressions occur because a world where a ubiquitous tit for tat reciprocity exists for bad actions would in many ways be inhumane which is why familial blood vendettas, as entertaining as they can be, are largely avoided by decent Charles Darwin fearing people and are now regarded as a social faux pax.

I actually don’t remember my original point. Fuck.

In summation Walt Whitman is a douche and the writings of Peter Nguyen should be upheld as the standard for all humanity. This message will self destruct in 15 minutes.tatu illuminati

Rachael is blogging again. For some reason we’re friends even though her political views are completely different than mine. Everybody visit her site. She begins by blasting my old and dear friend, Coca-Cola Classic.

Ice skating bear goes on a rampage killing a circus hand. My favorite part, though, is the following:

“It is unclear what caused the bear to attack Potapov”

Um, I ain’t no expert, but I’m thinking THE FACT THAT YOU PUT FUCKING ICESKATES ON HIM MIGHT HAVE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT!!!

I’m sure he’s not really dead but if he does die I’m going to go to his funeral and take the microphone away from the person giving the eulogy. I’ma like “Yo I’m gonna let you finish but Tony award winner Frankie Manning died this year too and he taught the Lindy Hop which is the greatest dance of all times!”

What a putz.

I eat these noodles so you should too. Mmmmmm noodley!

(No I wasn’t paid to post this, I just like these noodles)

The cool part about this screenshot isn’t the final kill to death ration in battlegrounds, it’s the fact that this is the the one that gave me enough xp to ding to level 80 AND I did so by capping two horde flags to help us overcome a huge point disparity in the last minute. In fact the last flag assaulted was by me at the horde farm where I stealthed in and took the flag amid about 5 hordies who didn’t even notice me assaulting the flag because they were too busy dancing, then when thy tried tried to take it back I killed two hordies before being overcome but by then it was too late for them and, due to some heroics by someone else on another part of the map, we won. This is the third toon I’ve leveled to 80 but the first time I accomplished the task in a form that is worthy of blog mention. This was the coolest thing that has ever happened to anyone in the history of anytime!

When I first saw news articles and blogs that were comparing Serena Williams’ meltdown at the US Open with Kanye’s antics I was incensed. The two are not at all comparable, I thought, and I resolved to write about it. Let me preface this by saying that I am biased in favor of Serena Williams. I once had a co-worker who said both of the Williams sisters were ugly. Not at all, I said. Everybody knows Venus is the ugly one, even Venus knows that. Serena is absolutely beautiful in an NFL linebacker kind of way. Once when McDonalds was having a contest where you could peel off a tab on your drink to see if you won a car, 2nd place was a trip to hang out with the Williams sisters. I ate breakfast at McDonalds every day for a month and if I would have won the car I would have traded with whoever it was that won second place. Then when meeting the Williams sisters I would have immediately sent Venus to go do something else. That’s just the way it is.

Anyway to me Serena’s outburst was more understandable. I am in no way claiming that she was in the right to go off on the line judge the way she did but I can see how, in the heat of an important match, a player’s anger spill over at a referee for making a questionable call at such a critical part of the game (I say questionable because I haven’t found video so that I can determine one way or another whether she was really guilty of a foot fault). I think most sports fans can relate to being angry at referees at some point, it’s even become something of a national pastime. I even heard of one case of a contestant on Jeopardy solving a puzzle incorrectly once as “Kill the Umpire” (the correct phrase was “Kill the Vampire”). While I cannot defend Serena’s words or actions in the aforementioned incident, I can at least say I understand the impetus for her actions.

Unfortunately for me, the more I examined Kanye’s incident I was forced to admit that it’s very much the same thing. In both cases you have people who disputed the judges. In both cases the person who was angry acted incorrectly and in both cases they apologized and accepted responsibility afterward. The only distinction I can make is that Kanye’s beef was stupider because he was disputing a subjective judgment (how can one really say one person’s video is better?) whereas Serena’s dispute involved something that should be provable one way or the other. I think it’s dumb to argue over something subjective. And FYI Kanye, Beyonce’s “Put a Ring On it” is not “the greatest video of all times”. If the soundtrack were turned off you might have a case but, as submitted, no (it’s the most annoying song on my itunes). And while we’re at it, how is that the same woman who sang “Independent Woman” also sang a song called “Can You Pay My Bills”??? You’re confusing me Beyonce, plus Serena Williams can beat you up.

In summation, I must acknowledge that my personal bias is a big part of why I’m not as critical of Serena as I am at Kanye. Objectively speaking, both are guilty of bad action. I still hold that Kanye should not be allowed at award ceremonies in the future though because this is, I believe, the THIRD time that he’s stormed the stage and taken somebody’s microphone away. I like how he started the other day by telling Taylor Swift “I’m not taking anything away from you.” Yes you are dumbass, you’re taking the microphone away. What an idiot!

P.S. I don’t think Obama was at all hurt politically by the comment coming out where he called Kanye a jackass. I think it may have even helped him.

Kanye West is a stupid piece of shit and should be banned from any functions where decent people gather. He is a fucking child.

When I first started watching football as a kid Archie Manning was the quarterback for the New Orlean Saints. For those who don’t know, that is the father of current NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning. The Baltimore Colts hadn’t yet moved to Idianapolis and the Cleveland Browns hadn’t moved to Baltimore yet and changed their name to the Ravens (the current Cleveland Brown team in the NFL is not the original franchise, they are in fact an expansion team). The Jacksonville Jaquars hadn’t been invented yet and Doug Williams was the only black starting quarterback in the NFL and he was still seen as a curiousity (30 years later the answer is a resounding YES they can play the position so shut up). In the late 70’s I went to the Houston Oiler training camp in San Angelo, Texas and got Earl Campbell’s authograph (this was before the Oilers moved to Tennessee and changed their name to the Titans). The Cardinals were still in St. Lois, having not yet moved to Arizona. When I was a kid NFL teams played a 14 game season as opposed to the 16 games they play now and they hadn’t yet implemented the 2 bye weeks which now gives us 18 weeks of regular season football. When I was a kid the Detroit Lions had not yet reached the Superbowl. It’s good to see some things haven’t changed.

When I was a kid there were only two teams in the NFL that utilized the shotgun formation. One was the Dallas Cowboys, who I believe originated the formation, the other team was the Buffalo Bills who ran it with quarterback Joe Ferguson who, like Terry Bradshaw, hailed from Shreveport Louisiana. Back in those days the NFL rules had not yet been changed to relax holding rules against offensive lineman so it was a time when teams actually had to earn it on the ground with the exception of the San Diego Chargers who somehow managed the greatest offensive show on earth under coach “Air” Coryell. I might have spelled that wrong but I’m making a point of writing all this stuff from memory, I won’t use google or any other reference for this blog posting. Also when I began watching football teams almost always used a two back set until the Washington Redskins destroyed the entire NFL using John Riggins as the lone back one year in the 1980s after which half the teams in the league followed suit the following year. Also back when I first started watching football a quarterback completing 60% of his passes actually meant something because back then quarterbacks threw the majority of their passes downfield rather than dumping half of their passes somewhere around the line of scrimmage like they nowadays. Wee.

When I was a kid Brian Sipes and the Cleveland Browns were known as the Cardiac Kids because so many of their victories came from overcoming deficits late in the fourth quarter. Ron Jaworski was the quarterback of the Philadelphia Eagles, Steve Bartkowski led the Atlanta Falcons, Danny White for the Dallas Cowbows (and I also remember when he was only the punter), the Houston Oilers had somebody named Dan Pastorini, Brett Favre didn’t play for anybody because he was the same age as me, Bert Jones QBed for the Baltimore Colts, Terry Bradshaw still played for the Steelers, Steve Grogan played for the NE Patriots. Oh and there was no such thing as having a play called back due to instant replay and the two point conversion was for rah rah college players.

I remember when Dan Marino slaughered Joe Namath’s record by throwing for the unbelievable total of over 5,000 yards in one season. I also remember Eric Dickerson beating O.J.’s record of 2,003 yards in 332 carries but it didn’t really count in my mind because Dickerson had 16 games to accomplish the feat whereas O.J. only had 14. In retrospect maybe Juice murdered the wrong people. Also when I was a kid Tom Landry was still a God among men which made it all the more weird when he made commercials talking about his personal relationship with God. Being from Texas, I would have thought it more appropriate if God had made commercials talking about his personal relationship with Tom Landry. Oh yeah and back in those days Bum Phillips still coached the Oilers. I wish somebody would convince Wade Phllips to wear a cowboy hat.

Back when I was a kid I thought all NFL team colors were grey because we only had black & white TV until I was 13 (which would also explain why I had never seen Puerto Ricans). Speaking of WHY WERE BERNARDO AND NATALIE WOOD BOTH WHITE??. I digress. When we did finally get color TV the team colors took me about two years to actually get used to. Also Buffalo’s helmet morphed from standing blue buffalo on white helmet to running blue buffalo with red stripe on white helmet then finally that same buffalo on a red helmet. Cincinnati also went from a plain orange helmet with BENGALS written on it to the monstrosity they have now that looked like it was patterned off of Quagmire’s underwear. Also when I was a kid 270 lbs was a respectable size for a lineman. Nowadays if you’re that small you better run the 40 in four something.

Ok I’m going to stop both because I’m getting bored and because it’s the first quarter of the first game of the season. Are you ready for some football?