f scott fitzgerald – you are so right/wrong

the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. – f. scott fitzgerald

this quote, while likely a heinously cliched line, is quite possibly the most perfect way to understand conviction.  ask me for a contradiction and i will ask you for a conversation.  it is the nature of this life and this world that we are mired in contradictions.  hypocrisy is an inherent reality in our everyday go-abouts and though it invariably draws the ire of so many stalwart, principled men (and women), we only do so because it is so hard to achieve the aforementioned ‘first-rate intelligence’.

we are told to be our very best and to excel beyond the flock, yet we must strive for equality and fairness.  we ask for humility and restraint, yet we idealize passionate, expressive individualism.  we seek harmony, yet reject conformity.  we seek absolute freedom, yet balk at social deviation.

it is not something that we consider often, because the opinionated are only so through their convictions and their convictions are only so through their ignorance.  one can only support universal health-care when ignoring the right to privacy and property.  we can only support the free market when we ignore the inherent inequality it produces.  there are so many things we believe in that we consider to be instrumental towards painting an accurate portrait of our identities that we must inevitably indulge in hypocrisy in order to navigate the unclear and nonpartisan nature of the real world.  this reality, cold and warm, bitter and sweet, it provides no meaning, no suggestions, no moral compass in any matter.  it is only man who generates these meanings (tip of the hat to kant) and it is exactly because of the meaningless reality that we have so many complex beliefs about everything.  when in the absence of direction, we scatter.  we arbitrarily choose any direction and run.  but when we realize finally that every story has an equally compelling antithesis, we freeze with uncertainty and doubt.  we wallow in confusion and disarray- OR-we simply adapt the world to our existing schema, mold it to our needs, and tip the scales so that we might again find the conviction to move.

i have thought upon the life i lead and wondered of the virtues i aspire towards.  i have reviewed and critiqued and edited myself over and over, and in each session, i have come nose-to-nose with contradiction.  yet i realize that there are desires and needs which the indulgence of make life palatable and preferable over nothingness.  i stepped down from the soapbox long ago for only the truly confused believe they have something true to say (lol- hypocrisy).  i have given up the task of decoding and submitted to the simple state of being.  if there is meaning, it is not for us to know.  for us, we have but the most basic desires of the flesh.  all else is a perversion of those needs, folded over and over into a convolution of contradictions.  that voice you hear, your conscience, the angel upon your shoulder, your jiminy cricket; that is your mother and father speaking.  that is cnn and mtv speaking.  that is the text of your childhood stories speaking.  it is not real like the glacial ice of the arctic or the iron core of earth.  but make no mistake that it does bear consequences, for as unreal as it may be, it is part of you and will always be, like the use of forks and knives or driving on the right lane.  we can dissect the theoretical ambiguity of our beliefs forever, but what life would that amount to?  a life of counting stars or catching fireflies; useless in every way.  but we have our likes and dislikes, our desires etched upon our souls and to abstain would be to squander the gift of life.  you have all eternity to be ascetic, but only these brief years to indulge.

so the fundamentalist who preaches of bombing abortion clinics shall indulge in the hypocrisy of his beliefs because it is what pleases and soothes his being.  the musician who writes sentimental, unoriginal ballads will do so because it soothes his being.  the teenage girl who reads serialized fantasies of vampiric romance will do so because it soothes her being.  and i will squander a few hours everyday counting the stars because it soothes my being.  though i might know and understand the hypocrisy, the incredible tragedy of my decisions, the immense wrongness of my actions, it is my only power in this life to indulge.  and for those who find it wrong for me to indulge, it is their prerogative to act against me, and soothe their offended beliefs, for that is all they have.

i believe in many things, foremost is the irrelevance of all my beliefs, but i refuse to let it weigh me down, for i can do nothing more than choose a direction and run.  that is conviction.  it is unfaltering and unrelenting and unshakable conviction.

globalization the key to communism?

this proposition is heavy on the theory, light on the details.  be warned.

one of the most enlightening and rewarding academic decisions i’ve ever made was to focus my attention on sociology and exploring all the alternatives it provides to the status quo system in place in modern western civilizations.  i say this with particular respect to economics, which i find to be the most displeasing areas of study among universities.  the reason for this is that economics seems to hold itself to the status of science when it is clearly not.  even worse is the manner in which universities seem to treat economics as a science.  the field of economics implies a study of the ways in which a society might organize and structure the means of production and distribution.  what it actually is is an in-depth study of one economic ideology and how it organizes and structures our society.  the economics major at rutgers heavily promotes micro and macro economics and further specification built upon those principles, principles which are products of economic liberalism stemming from adam smith’s theories.  this is somewhat like working towards a physics degree and only learning about einstein’s theory of relativity without any concern for quantum mechanics or attempting a political science major and learning only about american democracy with no regard for monarchies or dictatorships.  the reason for this is clear; as rutgers is an american institution and thus prepares students for american life, which is dominated by capitalist economic principle.  the university is preparing students with the knowledge they need to properly integrate into the existing social system.  it makes little sense to teach marxist economics or tribal economics as we don’t live in a world of those principles.  i recognize and understand this necessity, however, it intensely frustrates me when undergraduates study economics assuming it to be somehow the only legitimate system, or worse yet, regarding the teachings as somehow scientifically reliable.  anyone who has taken a sociology or history course on adam smith knows that all his theories are predicated on fundamental assumptions of human nature which have not ever been scientifically verified.  furthermore, his theories are also philosophically juvenile in their assumptions of moral right and good, focusing entirely on the material with no regard for the human condition.

one might argue that western capitalism is clearly the only viable economic system as it is the system which has succeeded.  well, this argument is like saying that the eagles are objectively better  than the giants because they knocked them out in the play-offs.  it confuses existence as an argument for legitimacy.  simply because the giants happened to lose this one game does not effectively prove them to be an objectively worse team.  worse yet, it does not account for any circumstantial variables which might influence outcomes.  simply because the giants are not going to the super bowl this year does not prove that they could not ever attend the super bowl.  yet, many seem to believe that because american capitalism held out against communism, it is somehow objectively a superior ideology and that because communism failed once, it can never succeed.  to better understand this argument, one must understand the premises of communism.

it is the belief of many that communism failed because it was unable to effect a true manifestation of its tenants.  the belief is that the failed form of communism was not truly communism.  it is a well documented characteristic of marxian communism that the revolution be of global proportion and that for communism to truly work, it require the unanimous revolution of all nations.  i believe this is because marxism does not argue that capitalism is an inefficient model, but rather an unsustainable one from a humanistic liberal perspective.  capitalism addresses society as a machine, disregarding the humanity of its members.  this does not mean it is productively weak, but rather immoral and unsustainable.  in a material competition, there is a good chance that capitalism will indeed defeat any other economic model.  however, that is not to say that were marxism to have succeeded in converting the world it would have failed by some intrinsic defect.  perhaps it simply was not time for such an economic model to arrive.  the insulated nation states of the time were still too insular to foster a global revolution.  capitalist influence was too strong and its material allure too magnetic.  however, there is a growing trend which may hint at a future where a marxist revolution is more plausible.  american economic might during the cold war was far too influential to overcome.  economic assistance plans like the marshall plan kept key nations from the marxist persuasion.  furthermore, the strength of the american middle class mitigated the vital role that class inequality must play in a communist revolution.  so what has changed?

the american economy is weak.  the middle class is shrinking.  class inequality is greater now than ever before in the 20th century.  most importantly, american capitalism has recently implemented a campaign of globalization, joining the world’s economies into one megaeconomy without borders.  this i believe to be a potential death knell of modern capitalism.  perhaps not in my lifetime, but eventually, if globalization continues to unite the world’s economies, it will lay out a foundation for global revolution like the world has never before been afforded.  with the unification of the world’s economies, a communist revolution would no longer face the problem of staggered levels of development among nations.  the exploitation of laborers would no longer be a social condition specific to single nations, but an epidemic held in common among all globalized nations which are exploited by the wealthy nations of the world.  in essence, globalization transforms the world into one enormous model of the smaller, individual economics we see in developed nations today.  instead of poor laborers in ghettos working for rich capitalists, we have the poor geographic regions of latin america, africa, southeast asia, all laboring now for the benefit of the wealthy nations of western civilization.  the exploitation of laborers becomes truly international and the vision of a global proletarian revolution becomes shockingly plausible.  what america is finally coming to understand is that free market capitalism knows no national borders.  trade is the ultimate bond between nations.  as corporations move to exploit cheaper and cheaper labor in foreign countries, american laborers find themselves increasingly short of work.  what needs to happen is the reformation of the american working class to an american service class.  if america wishes to continue its trend of a borderless global economy, then it must transform its citizens to become the capitalist owners of that economy.  american workers cannot compete with the labor that developing nations can provide.  they are becoming an obsolete class, yet little is being done to transition those families and individuals to the service jobs which foreign nations cannot provide.  american employees of ad agencies, media corporations, financial institutions, and software developers need not worry about their foreign counterparts in mexico, indonesia, or nigeria because there is no competition.  if america is to succeed in the globalized world it is creating, it must not only shift its labor exploitation to international territories, but also promote and develop its own service industry to manage this new global market.  this means more americans need specialized skills and talents only developed nations can provide in order to exploit the cheap labor that developing nations are so eager to provide.  otherwise, the poor laborers of america will continue to suffer and a tremendous social problem will erupt.  to avoid massive civil unrest in america now, it must embark on a campaign which might ultimately lead to global communism later.

consider this, however unlikely and far-fetched it seems:

the world’s largest communist nation, the people’s republic of china, holds the largest share of us treasury securities of any foreign nation, a whopping $585 billion.  if it were to sell this debt, it would undercut the dollar and cause an almost immediate recession of epic proportion, throwing the entire global economy into severe turmoil.  epic recession means epic unemployment and poverty which is the breeding ground of communist sentiment.  the world’s largest communist nation has the ability to plunge the world into a period of almost guaranteed communist reform.

the soulless atheist

after listening to the entirety of the four horsemen discussion and thinking on it before falling asleep, i came to an interesting perspective.  i won’t comment on whether or not religions are viable or believable arguments.  what i will comment on is what religions bring to the table in terms of social benefits.  regardless of the truth behind gods and deities, there is a rather common belief that religion imparts within people a morality which would otherwise be unfamiliar to the human race.  it is religion which has held the moral fibers of society together and maintained the necessary solidarity between individuals to foster a secure and righteous society.  in fact, this role is so greatly respected that most religious people don’t bother to examine other possible moral foundations.  this is fine, since most of you know that i don’t believe in moral absolutes, however, the problem is that because religious individuals hold their religious morality with such high regard, they come to believe that those who do not subscribe to their beliefs must necessarily be absent of the moral values they also hold as sacred and vital.  this isn’t to say that people of one religion don’t recognize the religious morality of other religions.  certainly every religion has it own set of values which are often quite congruent.  however, when addressing a person who is an atheist, it seems that because the individuals chooses not to practice any faith based value system,  he/she must ultimately lack a concrete moral compass.

now, to me, this argument seems similar to economic theory, particularly regarding the smith/marx divide.  it is believed by smith that the cumulative diversity of self-serving behavior within the market place ultimately produces the most productive society as every person’s greed pulls society in a unique direction and ultimately the forces balance to a perfect equilibrium.  this idea is hotly contested by marxists who believe the unregulated market ultimately leads to exploitation and increasing class divide which will inevitably reach a tipping point in which the united will of the proletariat will outweigh the centralized power of the bourgeois elite, leading to revolution and massive social and economic reform.

the similarity comes from a belief in whether individual people can enact positive outcomes without the assistance of an overseerer.  the belief that without religion, humanity devolves into ruthless amoral beasts is similar to saying that men cannot be relied upon to create and uphold their own economic lives.  without the guidance of the state, or some theoretical social conscience, economics becomes corrupt and flawed.  it is an argument against economic liberalism.  similarly, to believe that w/o religion, man cannot maintain a civil and sustainable society is almost an equivalently antagnozing argument against social liberalism.  of course, i will grant that religion has in great part throughout the course of history provided a very salient moral outline for societies to mind and abide, however, i find it ignorant to dismiss the possibility of alternatives to religious moral guidance.  i believe mankind has the rational capacity to analyze and understand social circumstance well enough to theorize and effectively argue in favor of a new brand of moral code rooted in logic and social necessity.  it would be a moral code reinforcing the same socially beneficial principles of religious doctrine, only without the unverifiable faith based justifications.  better yet, because this code relies on rationality and reason, it would be inoffensive to criticize and reevaluate the doctrines so long as the criticism stems also from valid logic and reasoning.  unlike the unquestionable voice of god, the redress of outmoded policies and open discussion regarding the credibility and effectiveness of any mandates would be far less difficult to approach.

for an example, we can turn to immanuel kant’s writings on ethics, particularly his conception of maxims as rules of behavior which promote rational social cohesion and sheer existence.  thus, we ought not to kill because rationally, no society can exist if all members are allowed to freely kill at will.  the individuals of the society would eventually murder everyone among them, forcing the dissolution of the society and thereby any rational need for moral codes.  it is a behavioral condition predicated on a logical rational.  one ought not to lie because were everyone to lie without reprecussion or reprehension, it would undercut the value of any promise or statement of truth, not only eliminating the necessary social glue of communication, but also intrinsically ruining the value of lies, as they are predicated on the fundamental value of trust.  of course, i wouldn’t suggest this to be the best solution, but it does exemplify the kind of rationality that i’m referring to.

in fact, it seems that those adherent to religious doctrine or any absolutist mandates are often the most dangerous to society and generally conduct the most devastating acts of moral offensiveness.  so, when viewed from this light, it appears that the soulless atheist is far less soulless and perhaps a more critical eye ought to be cast upon the moral codes so many theists refuse to question.

aw…look at that cute negro

here’s something i recently realized.  white people love africans.  they love them like they love homeless dogs.  they wanna save them all and give ‘em food and clean water, but they would never marry one.  awesome!  just don’t start altering them…again.

nice negro

ladies, you know it’s true.  u’ll fly over and teach them english but u would never bring one home to mommy and daddy.  be honest.

the long winding road to fast cars

recently, i lost my one and only copy of call of duty 4 to an act of violence unparalleled in modern history. i cannot think of a single moment, let alone a stretch of time within the past two centuries in which more violations to human rights were committed than in the single instance my dad scratched up my cod4 disc. surely forced relocation and non-consensual euthanasia pale in comparison to the atrocity of losing the best online multiplayer game in recent years. it was also like $50 when i got it. needless to say, i’ve been forced to revisit my games of yore, sometimes reaching back as far as a year. talk about retro gaming. anyway, i’ve taken up relearning the joys of kissing the apex and tuning gear ratios with a fun little game called forza 2 motorsport.

during a particularly tedious run of the nürburgring nordschleife track (not nearly as fun as pronouncing the name), my mind began wandering off as i grew weary of the monotonous forests of germany (this explains my traffic record). soon i was pondering how best to answer a question that’s been popping up occasionally among the girls i know. “why do they advertise 0-60 in car commercials?” or the declarative variant, “i hate when they advertise 0-60 in car commercials.”

the argument goes that it’s needless to purchase a car for its acceleration or performance because it is so rare that one can truly enjoy the g’s when driving during the typical excursion. nor is it rational to purchase a car with racing credentials when you are clearly not a professional race car driver. while i am quick to cede the argument that performance cars are not rational purchases, i find it ironic to hear women preaching the virtues of rational spending.

to put it in the simplest terms, performance sports cars are luxury items. they fall into the same category as designer shoes. clearly, you don’t need 20 pairs of shoes to get by, nor do you need one that’s worth over $500. you’re never going to use them, just like the 500 ft lbs of torque we will never use on the road. it’s not a matter of practicality, it’s a matter of luxury. you’d be hard pressed to find a person who doesn’t dream of indulging in some needless expenditures, whether it be a 6 bath mansion, a $3,000 guitar, or even a 52″ plasma. it’s just that simple. in america, we value luxury. if you want a no-frills lifestyle, i suggest moving to guatemala; and unless you’re prepared to swear off all the frivolous crap you enjoy, i would suggest you stop asking why 0-60 is a legitimate concern to some people.

activist guilt

it is no secret that i view activism to be a very amorphous and unstable endeavor, but recently i came to a unique understanding. it is something i have dubbed activist guilt, something i wish i’d see more of. this is the guilt that one suffers for being an activist in a cause that does not effect him/her. a prime example is the war on iraq. we all know that everybody is a-hootin’ and a-hollerin’ about how misguided and terrible this war is, but consider how many people are actually negatively impacted by this war. the only people who truly suffer by this act are the soldiers and their families. the rest of us americans are simply losing a bit of money in the way of taxes and hopefully, we’ll make that up in the form of oil in the near future. even if we don’t, we can’t possibly compare our economic grief with those of the families who must actually sacrifice. however, a great many of us are in opposition to this war as if it were a child molester trying to put an early end to our childhoods, even though we have no direct connection to the effects of the conflict. we rage on and on about the moral wrongness of this military endeavor, yet we have given nothing, lost nothing, felt nothing of the consequences. does it not seem slightly foolish for one such as myself, who has given nothing to this war, to raise my voice and cry foul like i’ve sent my dearest child to be killed in a foreign desert? what of the families who willingly and bravely part with their sons and daughters for the sake of this war, giving them up for a cause which people who have given nothing so vehemently attack and oppose. aren’t they the only ones who truly have a moral right to object? consider this on an even higher scale. for everything that improves, something else must degrade. that is the fundamental law of this world. to become richer is to take another’s money. in order to live better, someone else must live worse. if you want socioeconomic equality for the less fortunate, then you must bear the consequences on your shoulders. pay those sweat shop workers higher wages and everything you buy will increase in price. if you let the middle east use their oil to better their national infrastructure and support their citizens, then you must be willing to pay the oil prices that inevitably begin to rise. so, to simply speak of these things in agitation and thoughtless emotional outbursts is a slap in the face to those who must actually bear the cross upon their backs. without your own personal sacrifice and action to truly make change, you are doing nothing more than mimicking the frustration of the poor souls that actually suffer. there are those who exhibit this quality of insubstantial concern for matters which they do not fully understand or are unwilling to sacrifice for, most commonly the apple demographic. their lifestyles are a superficial concern over the appearance of injustice and moral wrongness, but an inevitable lack of initiative and understanding for how things truly work. sadly, most of them are probably too weak-minded to even understand why i attack them, only that it’s not very nice. for those of you offended, please accept my apologies. you are great people. i’m amazed how you are able to maintain social awareness and political activism while also managing to be so trendy. your lives are an inspiration to us all. i can only hope that one day, my macbook helps me to solve poverty in latin america like yours undoubtedly can. also, you’re always so pretty and well-kept. you’re great at sports. you’re funny and witty. despite your beauty, people are interested in you because of your engaging personalities. you will one day be great humanitarians and be known for your great deeds of compassion, as well as your popularity, trendiness, and aphrodite-like comeliness. people will be so awestruck by your many qualities of greatness that they won’t know which to worship more and simply fall into an ecstatic state of incapacitated convulsing brought on by the overwhelming sense of reverence; unable to control their bodies, they can do nothing but arch their backs in the orgasmic joy that your presence alone elicits.

critical race theory 2: why blacks and hispanics are poor

here’s a post that i’ve been planning on writing for a really long time, but couldn’t find the words to keep it interesting enough to capture the attention of an audience. i will attempt to use pictures and videos and other media related links to help jazz up an otherwise tedious and immoderately drudging topic. mind you, this article isn’t meant to incite change. far from it in fact; it’s almost the opposite as i am attempting to explain why struggling for racial and social equality is just an exercise in futility. all the statistics are taken from the income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the united states: 2005 report released by the us census bureau in 2006.

in 2005, there were an approximate 293,834,000 us citizens. the break down of the four major ethnic categories are as follows: white: 66.48%, black: 12.44%, asian: 4.17%, hispanic: 14.24%.

12.58% of all american citizens that year lived below the poverty level. that’s approximately 36,950,000 individuals. now, let’s see how this group breaks down ethnically. the report shows the following percentages: white: 43.92%, black: 24.81%, asian: 3.79%, hispanic: 25.35%.

for a nation founded upon an ideal of every man being equal, you would expect that socioeconomic statuses to be spread out equally among all the races. however, such is not the case. clearly, through the statistics alone, we can see that there is a disproportionate number of minorities who fall under the poverty level. blacks and hispanics are almost twice as likely to be under the poverty level, relative to their percentage within the total american population. white people are disproportionately above the poverty level. it’s clear that there is a significant correlation between race and socioeconomic status. you can find an even more detailed table of income statistic based on race and gender here. the question that remains to be asked is why this inequality exists.

the answer can be found in marxist economic theory which states that those who control economic power in a nation control social power as well. if white men come and colonize a nation and set up a new economic system, it can be inferred that white men will control the economy. as immigrants of various races join this nation, they will be subjected to the economic system inherent to the nation. now, in order to maintain an economy, one must maintain a strong labor force. without a strong labor force to man the blue collar workings of industry, that industry crumbles. the problem is that the labor force is not paid very well since their jobs usually apply to activities which do not require extensive mastery or experience. they can be easily replaced. if too many people are qualified for high level jobs with big salaries, they will all be attempting for a much smaller niche which cannot support them all. this is why america, and indeed every economic entity requires people who are willing to work in the labor force or who are simply unable to ascend any higher. how does one ensure that he can continue to amass a large enough labor force to maintain his industry? one must actively manipulate society to create that work force. louis althusser, a french marxist and theorist, describes what he calls an isa (ideological state apparatus). it is a complement to the rsa (repressive state apparatus). in order to maintain order, societies utilize both to domesticate its citizens. the repressive state apparatus is basically the law and those who enforce it. it is the force used to keep order. if there is an uprising or riot calling for change, the rsa may be used to quell the incident. however, repressive state apparatuses are expensive to maintain and almost impossible to use in controlling an entire population. thus, an ideological state apparatus is employed in order to indoctrinate the citizens into becoming complacent and productive citizens. everyone can agree that it is fair to allot rewards to the best man, but what if the system that allows for training is imbalanced, or what if two men are equal in their qualifications. if a child is raised in a poor family and that poor family can only afford to send him to a poor school, where he receives a poor education, that child will inevitably receive a poor job. however, because there is no favoritism given beyond qualifications, this result is fair and acceptable. thus, schools act as part of the isa, preparing you for an economic role in society. if a church preaches that you must live in a certain way, work in a certain way, spend in a certain way, it is an isa. if your parents raise you a certain way that promotes specific career opportunities, they are an example of the isa. the ideological state apparatus is anything which may impart an idea effecting your choices and abilities relating to the economy of the society you belong to.

so, because white men were the first in america to establish industries and control the economy, it is natural that they would hold a great portion of the higher paying jobs. when an immigrant arrives without the communication skills required to work in a service industry, they are made to work in the labor force, practicing the universally held ability to provide manual labor. history has even shown that before racist sentiments went out of fashion in the modern world, race was commonly used as a convenient excuse for labor designation. american slavery is the most notable example as plantation owners who required cheap manual labor subjugated black slaves on the principle that blacks were an inferior race, unfit for equal human rights. such ideology helped create the backbone of the budding american economy. by the time slavery was abolished, it was already too late. black people were brought to a new world, dominated by another race and given nothing to compete with. reconstruction failed to make the necessary social changes, and white people maintained their dominant jobs. the only difference now was that they needed to pay a small wage to their black workers. the black race was still relegated to menial physical labor. so why are minorities disproportionately poor? it’s because they need to be in order to fulfill the labor force requirements. it’s because rich white men do not want to give up their cushy jobs to facilitate a more balanced society. when society gives aid to the underprivileged, we cry foul and point out the inequality of that aid. it is because every black or hispanic man who gets into an ivy league school is one less white man who could have. are you willing to be the parent that allows that? are you willing to relegate your child to a menial life for the sake of social equality? of course not. who would? what many people do not realize is that in order to help the less fortunate, those who have fortune must make sacrifices. the problem with the nation is that too many people want change without sacrifice. you may be a liberal white male, partaking in noble social causes on your daddy’s watch, but at the end of the day, when you get your ivy league diploma, you will chase the big figure salaries, and when you get them, that’s one poor undereducated person you just took a job from. the mere fact that you went to an ivy league means you filled a spot an underprivileged person might have had. the mere fact that your mommy and daddy can afford to send you to college means they have jobs that underprivileged people could have had.

until now i have neglected a major statistical anomaly, which is the fairly balanced and equal treatment of asian americans and their economic standing. you might have noticed that asians were the only class whose poverty percentage closely matched their population percentage. if you checked the income table, you will have seen that they also have the highest average income of all the races. even big businesses are starting to take notice. why do asians not suffer from this failings of minority status? it is not because asians have an unusually strong work ethic or are smarter than other races. the answer is that the modern asian immigrant comes from moderately developed nations and only the best of them can really afford to migrate to america. this means that those who arrive are already considerably educated and moderately wealthy. consider that african americans are mostly descended from slaves who were involuntarily dragged across the atlantic to america. they had nothing to begin with and once released from bondage, were given nothing to start over with. simply put, they were left to fend for themselves as white men controlled the economy and society within which they struggled. it has taken them decade upon decade to slowly build up to where they are now, a status still far from being equal. asians who immigrated to america, like myself and my parents, did so after a great deal of planning and consideration, as well as a great deal of saving to help them get started after the move. my dad was a professor and my mom was a pediatrician, both of them earning a decent wage and both of them highly educated. they were highly motivated and extremely hardworking people. they could not retain their professions after moving to america, and worked menial jobs for many years while getting new educations. it was a very difficult endeavor, and very admirable to behold, but their previous education and saved money helped make the transition easier. a great many hispanic citizens come from destitute nations and have little money or education, but they can make the journey simply because of geographic convenience. traveling from central america and mexico into the united states can be accomplished a lot easier than from asia, so a great many of them can make the trip without much resources. once in america, they’re willing to take on menial labor because the income is still greater than that which they would have earned in their native countries.

i’m not saying that poor minorities are forced to remain poor, that they cannot climb the socital ladder and become wealthy individuals, but it would be completely ignorant not to recognize that for the poor, it is a much more difficult goal to achieve than for a rich white man, and that difference in difficulty is all it takes to keep entire social classes down. if you want to change things, you cannot just fight the inequality outright against a majority unwilling to abdicate their high-earning jobs for you. any change that happens must be subtle and fair. the best way is to work harder and better than white folk. teach your children to work harder and better. education is the only thing that will pick you out of the rut. the sad truth is that you and your children must sacrifice fun for hard work. you must overlook the decadent media portrayal of american life and realize what priorities are most important in attaining better jobs and better pay. unfortunately, a great many parents do not do this well enough and their children end up trying to fit in socially before they can economically, not realizing the cost of living like an american. the media (another powerful isa) has a great part in how the youth of america is brought up and without parental supervision, it will inevitably corrupt the work ethic that the underprivileged must cultivate in order to succeed beyond the prior generations. that, however, is an article for another day.

diesel: dee-zull or dee-sull

today i saw a review of the mercedes-benz e320 blutec diesel luxury sedan. it’s a car that runs off diesel fuel, the johnny-come-lately alternative fuel source for the automotive industry.

now, i wasn’t really paying attention to the review because frankly, i think the car is a bit too blase for my tastes, but what really caught my attention was that every time the reviewer mentioned the word ‘diesel’ he would pronounce it ‘dee-sull’. after about the fifth time he said it, i started getting really annoyed and stopped watching. later on during the day, i began thinking about the difference between ‘dee-sull’ and dee-zull’. i assume that most people say ‘dee-zull’, though it’s technically correct to say either. this got me to thinking how a habit or idea like saying ‘dee-sull’ in propagated. after ruminating on the topic while taking a well-deserved shower, considering all the ways to rid the world of people who say ‘dee-sull’, i came to a startling conclusion: language is not safe from evolution.

now, you might think, that i mean something like, ‘the language apparatus (throat, mouth, nose) evolves physically and accommodates for certain sounds which go on to define the limitations of spoken human language.’ this is not what i mean, though it is true. what i really mean is that language, in fact all things that exist, are subject to the process of evolution. it’s not just an anthropological term limited to describing biological change. it is a much more profound and encapsulating concept which applies, almost metaphysically, to all things that exist.

consider that if a man is born with a genetic disorder rendering him incapable of walking, he would clearly die out quite rapidly (assuming a more primitive time when societies weren’t around to shoulder the burden of invalids among the populace). this characteristic would fall before the onward march of evolution, dying along with its carrier. so long as the carrier is unable to genetically propagate the disorder through reproduction, the mutated genetic code would last only as long as the host’s pathetic lifespan. genetic reproduction is the method of propagation nature uses to power the endless cycle of life. now, consider if a person were taught to beat women every time he met them. in today’s society, this would clearly run him astray, providing for almost no opportunity to reproduce. he would not sire any offspring and consequently be unable to continue this odd tradition of unadulterated misogynistic violence. in the same way, behaviors, habits, and ideas are subject to the flow of evolution. if something is not conducive to mass propagation, it will likely die out with the individual that exhibits the quality.

however, these intangible qualities are not completely regulated by the same mechanics as biological evolution as there are many ways to propagate an idea. it does not require reproduction or child-rearing, but rather thrives on the art of persuasion. those concepts and ideas that are more easily instilled upon others end up propagating the most successfully and those which few people take towards end up dwindling and fading away into extinction. all of culture is in fact regulated by this metaphysical evolution. it is an evolution of thought. these thoughts and ideas are what richard dawkins coined ‘memes’. they are how human culture changes over time. an idea that seems to benefit the individual best with regards to success in life is an idea that he/she is likely to follow. the more beneficial the idea is, the more widely it will spread among the population.

fashion, for example, makes for an easy analogy to this evolution of memes. fashion functions on innovation and creativity at the highest levels, new ideas and concepts explored by the avant-garde designers within the industry. these innovative ideas are like genetic mutations. they produce something fresh and new. the true test then is how well they are received. the public opinion and reception of a new design is like the reproductive success offered by a genetic mutation. if the public hates it, the design will die out. if it is loved, the design will flourish. how well it’s received is also dependent on a myriad of variables spanning from audience to marketing to sheer aesthetic quality. it’s all circumstantial whether a new design can survive in the fashion industry, just like the survivability of a genetic mutation is also context dependent.

so back to the diesel question. how does the pronunciation of diesel propagate? through sheer circumstance and ideological persuasion. if one were to commit a veritable linguistic genocide, one must attack the psychological, social, and ideological allures of the pronunciation in question until it became so unpopular that to utter said word would incur widespread beleaguering from every corner of society. so as per my goal to eliminate all the people who say ‘dee-sull’ instead of ‘dee-zull’, i must notify you, the reader, that only mouth-breathers, lisping homosexuals, and brain-damaged layman pronounce the word diesel with a sibilance. ask yourself, are you any of those things?

evolutionary dialectic of social politics: are you liberal or conservative?

i once posted a short blurb in a previous entry entitled “ggthoughts” about how evolution had selected for a dialectic of survival urges. it was a sort of yin and yang philosophy that explained how competitive and cooperative nature both exist in a balance to maintain human survival. i would like to expand this concept into an area which most people 18-24 find overtly fascinating; politics. most of us young people are decidedly liberal. this however, i believe to be generally not a cause of our core beliefs, but because of our rebellious vestiges stemming from parental authoritativeness. conservative social politics tends to promote social order through authority and obedience, concepts which are often reflected in parental relationships. young people are liberal because liberality promotes independence and freedom of choice. however, as they grow older and the shackles of parental supervision recede with maturity, people lose their rebellious nature as consequence and responsibility finally bond with independence and freedom. also, as young people grow into positions of authority and power themselves, they will seek to maintain it, shifting stances to a more socially conservative approach in order to preserve their new statuses.

here is where things get theoretical. consider the yin and yang of social politics and what each side stands for. social conservatism is a call for order and harmony founded upon obedience and adherence to authority. it is the product of our social contract; an abdication of our complete and full freedom for the promise of safety and order. it promotes peace and unity, to protect and defend the society in which it exists. the government asks that we obey laws, not to prevent, but to monopolize violence. it seeks to unite a people and sublimate individual aggressions into a collective will to fight. it unifies and galvanizes a people into one dense but manageable entity. this is the cooperative evolutionary urge. this is where we set aside personal selfishness in order to produce mutually beneficial relations that work to mediate and mitigate interpersonal disputes within a population. on the other hand, we have social conservatism to the extreme right, where personal liberties and freedoms are entirely stripped in order to facilitate a completely utilitarian and functional society devoid of sedition, violence, and dissension. it is the classic distopia where the faults of human individuality are wiped away, leaving a sterile and faultless civilization of monotonous harmony.

now consider the yang, liberality. liberal society promotes individuality and the rights of the individual. it promotes freedoms to pursue behaviors adhering to our own standards. we are granted the rights to be introspective and unique. it promotes qualities like creativity and independence. this is the world of choice, a world of individual voice and expression. we wish to be our own persons, to prove our worth as individuals. however, this too has a dark and violent extreme variation. it is the natural world that we create governments to protect against, yet it is this natural world which we crave in our individuality. we wish to do and act as we please, without restrictions and limitations, however we cannot, for such behavior would lead to chaos and destabilized societies, rife with violence and disagreements. if a murderer wishes to rape and kill every women he meets, by absolute liberal ideology, in which our freedoms to act and choose as we please are guarunteed, such behavior is acceptable. a world of insidious selfishness, overrun with egocentric beings citing freedom of choice as defense against crimes against their fellow man.

i have introduced the polarized social politics which govern our existence. with this, it is clear how the two are intertwined in our society to provide us with a compromised position of both extremes. it is a dialectic amalgamation of these opposing forces that guides and steers the course of our society. we see that both sides represent relative good and evil. they both present pros and cons which can be used to argue for or against either side. understand now that this mixture of theories spawns from the evolutionary dialectic of human nature and that everything is linked to everything else, from our humble beginnings as competitive prokaryotes to our complex system of social governing. there is a balance in all things which must be understood in order to fully appreciate the change we hope to make.

the best nytimes article ever (maybe)

this is by far one of my favorite articles to date. this is the kind of rationality that makes me want to give mr. landsburg a big handshake whilst gazing upon him adoringly with doe-eyed reverence.

behold, the key to fighting the spread of aids

more sex is safer sex: the unconventional wisdom of economics by steven e. landsburg

anyone who has an average of 2.25 sexual partners a year or less should fuck more often; it’s just good business!