Author of The Anarchist Cookbook Sells Out, Denounces Book

The author of The Anarchist Cookbook, one of the classic "banned books," has denounced his masterwork. Read author William Powell's statement here at Anarchistnews.org. Why do I care? Why am I posting about The Anarchist Cookbook? Why are you not posting about it? It's a classic book and a hot-button issue after all these years. Powell wrote the book in 1968-1969 and people who know what it is still whisper when they talk about it. I love discussing things that are taboo. I'll let you in on a little secret. I have seen and read parts of the book. It's outdated at this point, but from what I understand people have made updated copies and put them online. People tell me current ones are far worse than what Powell had originally written. Even the revelation that Powell denounced the text appears to be old according to the comments at the above story link.
Hat tip to the twitter feed of Anarchist News where I first saw the story.

An Internet Belletrist Creates and Settles an Argument about an Unimportant Topic

Roger Ebert has been carrying on about video games and their status as art it seems since time immemorial. I have tried my best to let it go without comment, but his original post on the subject is dated April 16, 2010. He has since retweeted about it over a dozen times. He won't let it die, and why should he? He has almost 4,000 comments on that entry alone so you can chalk this up to pure envy if you like. You should definitely read his piece since it will help inform the discussion I will attempt to have here and it is well-written, as most of his pieces are. So why would I put everyone's favorite Twitterer and recent winner of the Webby Person of the Year Award on blast? Let me get a few disclaimers out of the way before I go any further:

• I'm not an internet or real life bully by nature, and that is not what this post is about. I take issue at the premise of the argument and why 'video games as art' even needs discussion.
• I have read Ebert's reviews before and enjoyed them. I have also followed him on twitter for several months. I even use to watch At the Movies and liked it.
• No matter what you read after the current bullet list this post is not about hating on Ebert so much as the origins of argument of the video games as art debate. That is to say this is not another 'Ebert is old and doesn't get it argument.' I'm not internet attacking Ebert, but I am also not going to coddle his e-balls like everyone else does. It's like people are afraid to cross him online.
• I am not a hard-core gamer. I don't own a video game console. I have 4 PC games, one of which I play with any regularity, Left 4 Dead 2. Oooohh, I put the title in italics, does that mean it's art now?

The origins of the video games as art debate are suspicious at best. Not that it matters at this point, but a few people spouting off a faulty premise does not an issue that needs addressing make. No one is bringing their video games to Cannes to screen them. The people at EA are not wearing thick black frame glasses, berets, and going to coffee shops to cut themselves. Who said a video game is art anyway? From the second paragraph in Ebert's entry it appears two people on record made that assertion and prompted Mr. Ebert to write a post. I wonder if Ebert knew the all along his entry would be viewed as an attack on video games and cause gamers to put down their energy drinks, come to his blog, and comment so that they may stumble upon something that actually is art and quit wasting their lives playing video games.
Most people play video games simply to shoot shit or gather crystals and orbs to pass the time and have fun.. When I tell a friend about a video game I don't cut off my ear lobe and send them a letter advising him if we play this video game we may be moved to tears and be bosom buddies forever. I send an email and say, "Check out all this shit blowing up and all of these zombies we can shoot. Kick ass, bitch." It's not serious. My friends and I get drunk and play until 3am in the morning about once every two months at this point. We are old enough that it is not a focal point but more of an excuse to hang out and talk shit online- pure mindless entertainment. Even at the point where I was playing video games with the most frequency if someone would have asked me if I thought video games were art I probably would have retorted something like, "Is an anus a vagina? Why are we even talking about this?"
So now that Roger has generated this argument out of nothing, he proceeds to play you all for fools. I'm sure he had to expect people would just call him old and accuse him of "not getting it." Many commenters on his post played right into his hands. He continually pwned gamers short on defenses thought Twitter, the noobs.
The whole argument is pointless, though. Let me see if I can use a correlative metaphorical argument to demonstrate how I see this whole back and forth.

Person 1 (Ebert): "Hey, I don't think Gatorade is soup."

Person 2 (Many commenters on Ebert's video game post): "Really? Well, I never in all my... Certainly it shares so many characteristics with soup. It is made in a similar way. Well, have you tried the new G2? Try that and tell me it's not soup.

Person 3 (me): "It's not soup. It's Gatorade. It's different than soup. They have being mostly liquid in common, but that is about all."

Video games use images and sounds like some forms of art, but it has never even entered anyone's mind that a screen capture of Halo should be hanging in The Louvre. Hey, internet, forks are not combs. Do you want to fight about it? "... but that bird in The Little Mermaid said they were." Yes, I have watched The Little Mermaid, and it was obvious the bird was pulling that statement out of his butt. I have a little sister and growing up I was made to watch the whole Disney animated catalog with her multiple times. The Fox and the Hound will probably still make me cry if I watch it right now. I had almost every line from Aladin and Beauty and the Beast memorized for a while also. Go ahead. Make fun of me. I am so gobsmacked with the internet right now.

Something Good Finally Coming From California

Yasha Levine has a piece on Alternet.org about how solar power may become viable for the average homeowner thanks to creative financing. Picture Al Gore in a cheap suit saying loudly, "No money down, affordable monthly payments, no equipment to buy" California company SolarCity is making all of this possible, and hopefully this trend spreads to the rest of the country with a quickness. We have been hearing for years that solar panels will never work for the average person because of how expensive they are. Problem solved. It seems like someone should have thought of this before. I do not go out of my way to do anything for the environment, but I am all about solar power for two reasons. Power companies have monopolies in their areas and competition will bring down prices and it will help me in my quest to become more self-sufficient. If I have solar panels on the roof I can still get electricity when western civilization breaks down. Now I can focus on making stylish tinfoil hats and clothing to keep the government from listening to my thoughts.

Fundamental Assumption Review: Full-Body Scans at Airports

One can not swing one's dead cat without hitting a place where one of our personal freedoms used to lay (correct usage of lay/lie- had to look it up.) We need to examine the assumption that every single measure that is introduced to protect us and make us safer is really going to work. I do not have any evidence to back this up, but does it not seem as though all of our security measures are reactive instead of proactive? Either way I am not happy about another invasion of privacy in the form of full body scanners at airports. Here are a few tweets I noted when the story broke. I have been too busy keeping up with Conan to blog about this until now. Damn you NBC!

Hannaloves27 RT @politicsoffear: When Obama promoted "transparency" I didn't think it involved Napolitano seeing me naked. #tcot #tlot
3Report Airport Body Scanners Provide Crisp Image Of Your Genitals http://is.gd/5Soz7
Funny, but another thing to consider (thanks to Alternet) is who is getting rich from these body scanners?

My personal policy is this: Want to look at my junk? You have to pay. This ain't no freebie. I do not have much choice in this, however, so my plan is next time I fly to make sure I work up a rock hard bon, smile, and in my mind say, "Scan this!" 

My Culture is Better Than Your Culture, Fundamental Assumption Review

I was thinking last night as I was drinking that Americans have an attitude problem. We actually have many attitude problems, but the one on which I was focusing is the notion that out culture is great and other cultures are not so great. I made some notes because I wanted to write about it today.
First, do we really believe that out way of life is better than others? Sure we have amenities and conveniences that other peoples are not afforded. The converse of that is we are spoiled and weak.
Looking at the bigger picture, outside of the individual level, many of our dealings and relationships in the world are predicated on the stance that our human rights positions are better or our way of government (that is incorrectly called democracy so often, see current health care debate) will make a country great like us when we force it upon them. There is some truth in those two notions, but we also have many problems with our government and treatment of people in this nation. We are the world's biggest hypocrites. Bottom line. We espouse freedom for all people from presidential podiums while we are tasered if we look at a police officer the wrong way.
We can not simply leave everyone alone and do our own thing here in the States either. America is too vested in interests around the world. Shutting up and minding our own business would most likely do more harm than good in today's world. The isolationist stances of the Washington Doctrine and the Monroe Doctrine that I have been a proponent of personally will simply not work in a new, flat (Tom Friedman reference) world.
With my own ideas being so muttered I looked to the internet to for stories to corroborate and clarify my stance. I found this story about Dutch politician Geert Wilders. Yes, his name is Geert.

Fundamental Assumption Review: Constitution

Tea party this, real American that, knowing where we all come out on every single issue facing our country right now is impossible. Besides that, I heard a very wise man say, "Consensus is a synonym for mediocrity." This article, written by Chuck Baldwin on prisonplanet.com, lists several sentiments he feels a Constitutionalist should echo. I'm not sure I agree with every single one of the sentiments although I do fancy myself a Constitutionalist (as well an asshole that sticks his pinky out when he sips hot tea.) I, with naive idealism, believe that if we can truly back peddle, rediscover, and reapply our founding document we can keep this thing afloat for a few more decades.
I am not sure number fourteen on the list is viable considering how long the U.N. has been around. We need to have our hands in there still.
Here are a few that stuck out to me with which I agree:
Number seven, "You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no authority to be involved in education or law enforcement, or in any other issue that the Tenth Amendment reserves to the States, or to the People," interested me greatly. Ever since reading the Constitution (link to full text) the whole way through I have wondered how law enforcement agencies have proliferated at the federal level over the past 200+ years.
keep reading...

Global Warming, You Say?

I watched a clip of Al Gore vehemently declaring that a consensus exists that says global warming is a scientifically proven and accepted fact. Here is the video (skip to 1:15 to get to the meat of the video.)

Well, Al, suck on this! [The Standard.net]  31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying global warming is false. That does not sound like a consensus to me. The author of the article brings out the point that one of the main reasons global warming has become such a hot-button push for politicians lately is because they are running out of ways to tax us to bankroll their mismanagement of more billions of dollars. Anarchy has never sounded so good.

Can They Do That?

Fox News is a double-edged sword. I'm no fan of Glenn Beck. He is a tool, but he serves a purpose. We need critics to keep balance. Commentators like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Bill O'Reilly keep the left honest the same way Keith Olbermann, Alan Colmes, and Michael Moore keep the right honest. We have free speech and public discourse to help society move forward. Each side of the political spectrum should have a problem with the White House defaming Fox News [MSNBC.com]. It would be a terrible precedent for the White House, except for the fact that Nixon did something similar when he was president. The Obama administration is openly criticizing Fox News, even calling them not a real news organization.Wow, thin skin much? People were openly questioning whether or not Bush was mentally retarded. It was en vogue to do. That was out of fucking line. Obama does not want anyone questioning policies. Do you want to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts? Do not question President Obama. He is infallible like the fucking pope.
Keep reading by clicking the link below:

Obama Praises Islam-Not a Big Deal

A sitting president praising Islam is the kind of thing that gets right wing extremists' panties in a bunch- and how! President Obama has done just that during a dinner on Tuesday to celebrate the Islamic holy month of Ramadan (which always makes me think of Ramada Inn.) The part of this story from Foxnews.com that surprised me is that we currently have 2 Islamic congressmen. Wow. Soak that in for a minute. I can see so many people overreacting to our president saying anything positive about Islam when, let's all be honest, we are basically in a war with what we understand people who follow that religion's ideals to be, even though that's not necessarily how every muslim feels. I'm speaking of perceptions here. It may come off as our president stabbing us in the back a little. President Obama saying that also may add credence to some people's suspicions that he is a "closet muslim." What he said about Islam does nothing of the sort for me. Let me summarize what the president said. 1. Muslims contribute to American society. 2. Islam is a great religion and has a commitment toward justice and progress. 3. American is not at war with Islam. That's just from the quotes pieced together in the Foxnews.com story, but I can't say I vehemently disagree with any of those statements. There are muslim people in America who pay taxes, teach, are doctors, and do other things that fit into the definition of contributing to society. Many people follow Islam, so in that sense it's pretty great. I don't follow that religion, but the extremism inside of Islam is just that-extremism (that's why we call it extremism- because most muslims do have a commitment to justice and progress.) And America is not at war with Islam. Some people assume we are. We have Islamic countries as allies and many who we are on diplomatic good speaking terms. Isn't that where people lashed out at former President Bush? I heard cries of more diplomacy often, and when President Obama tries to bridge a gap Foxnews wants to jump on him to fan flames of rumor. Fox News is pitiful in moments like this, and I am no fan of our current president. At least they have enough balance to point out that President Bush held these types of get-togethers for Ramadan, called iftars, during his time in office.

Fundamental Assumption Review

Now more snarky blogging and less posting videos because of how drunk/lazy/hungover I have been. It's time for a Nonpopulist Fundamental Assumption Review, where I like to take something most people glance over and shine a light on it momentarily so as to make you think. Pills are a part of the way we live. It's accepted. No one disputes or questions the proliferation of pharmaceuticals in recent history, and the billions of dollars of revenue that biotechnology and pharmaceuticals generate yearly are the wage by which many people put food on their tables and shelter over over their heads. This story from Reuters says that prozac use has more than doubled in the the past decade from 13 million to 27 million.
That number takes a minute to get your mind around. Whenever I hear a number like that I like to remember that there are around 300 million people in the United States to put such large figures in context. I'm not trying to say pills are bad or no one should take pills and just pray or chant until sickness goes away, but I think it's good to ask the questions, "Are that many people clinically depressed? If so, why and how can they be helped besides pills? Or are pills the only way?

Let me rework some words of Jesus to say it another way. (Jesus is probably one of the most Nonpopulist people that ever lived, by the way.) Man does not live by pills alone.

And prozac isn't the only pill being depended on. This story just provoked my thoughts. The way I really feel is that I hope that I never have to lean on any sort of pill for an extended period of time be it for cholesterol, high blood pressure, or pain. I want to live outside of that construct.

Fundamental Assumption Review: Who Really Wants to Help Us?

I'm back posting after a short hiatus due to moving. I know no one missed me because no one reads this blog, but I'm pretending here.
We live our lives based on some beliefs that are fundamental assumptions. Assumptions, however, turn out to be wrong sometimes so we need to be open to reviewing our assumptions from time to time. One assumption that I've been thinking about lately is that our elected officials always have our best interest at heart. Certainly our representatives consider the people's best interest from time to time, but there may be other things that outweigh what would be the best decision for the majority of Americans. There's many theories as to what those other things would be, and I'm not trying to speculate on all the other motives that may be in play. What I really want to question is the fact that they are altruistic or that the average person believes politicians always have the utmost integrity. Think about this: The government's recent handling of the various bailouts and rescue packages has received harsh criticism from a variety of sources. Some have gone so far as to call the government officials making the decisions stupid or ignorant. All of us who pay attention to the government have all seen things we question from time to time, or even want to call stupid, but the recent billions thrown around in Washington have drawn extra ire. But what if these people are not as stupid as they are made out to be. What if they are making the poorer decision on purpose for another reason. Another problem is I am not sure which alternative makes me feel better. I think neither.