Evolution of a Meme

When the world-created the mind-numbing abberations of 4chan and reddit, I don't think anyone expected us to unleash a Golden Age of photography and art. Alas, it seems to have occurred!

Starting from the same birth group, 4chans /b/(random) board, also known as the seventh circle of Hell, as all the "Advice Dog" series, a simple, elegant and professional photograph of a wolf by Montana artist Jeff Vanaugha was cut up, cropped on to a pattern of colored rays and finally, TA-DA!!!:


But wait, there's more! We can't have too much of a good thing right? No, not possible, or as courage wolf would put it, "Get there, get more there!" We had to find more wolf pictures:


Sir Courage Wolf Esquire. This art is wonderful in that nearly anyone can claim it as their own, in this case a Britain and world in a crisis of identity.


Baby Courage Wolf, classic comedic juxtaposition. Did I mention that every one of these, has come in to being (including the original Courage Wolf) since June of 2010?


Insanity Wolf, a classic nightmare image with background clearly conjuring the emotions and thoughts required to contemplate it.

Finally, beyond adding to the great library of Meme, there are modifications of existing images:


Monsieur Le Courage Wolf. It may be art but it is not above the stereotype. It also is nowhere near as popular as the other deeper images that convey a far truer message or at least use better comedic forms. This brings up an important point: are unartistic television shows profitable because its what people want, or because they cost less to make and are more predictable, a crucial consideration for those who will spend money to advertise a product on TV, and they are still tolerable to the audience?

Insanity Wolf in turn became a major meme all its own, inspiring numerous spin offs. In the interest of limited bandwidth, we will largely no longer be showing many additional images. However, nearly all memes originated in similar ways - a first, followed by a second, followed by seconds of seconds, each time taking on the watermark and unique thoughts and emotions of the people who created in anonymity before it. I believe it was Ronald Reagan who once said "You would be surprised what you can achieve in life if you don't care who gets the credit."

Some memes also originated as spoofs of the websites where memes originate. Included are "Pedobear," an image of a "Protection Bear" posted whenever child pornography was posted in a 4chan thread, the joke, of course, being that he must show up for the wonderful child pornography, while his smiling bearish face juxtaposed with a creepy pedophile creates humor too good to buy! Also Redditors Wife, who is constantly being ignored in the interest of Reddit, and the various Pokemon memes (including one of Ash Ketchum as a Hispanic) that obviously spoof the fascination of 4chan users with such ridiculously retarded things - in both cases spoofing the readers as opposed to the site itself.

Lastly, let us consider the Baron Ducreaux, in some ways an expression of the longing in our society for civility, depth, and sophistication as it juxtaposes good manners and rap music:


Centuries ahead of his time, the French court painter Baron Joseph Ducreaux famously painted himself using body language that would not become the norm for another 200 years in imitation, according to the artist, of a Mockingbird. (Painting title: Portrait de l'artiste sous les traits d'un moqueur, translated Self-portrait of the artist in the guise of a mockingbird by KnowYourMeme.com) This is far from the only unusual painting that the Baron did in his time with the doomed court of Louis XVI, as he experimented often with facial expressions and features as a vehicle for describing personality, a crucial problem in an era before photography and easy travel, when portraits were used to show wealthy women and men their prospective mates. Though his painting are in the Louvre, what likelihood is there that the Barons work could've achieved such notoriety and widespread appreciation without 4chan, reddit, facebook, and the other pathetic wastes of time of the unwashed masses?

Unfortunately, such widespread appreciation has also inspired modification, including famously the Steve Buscemi Ducreux where Steve Buscemis face is inserted in the place of Baron Ducreaux's, but since in doing so the authors have satirized Steve Buscemi's manner and personality, have they not, albeit unwittingly, contributed to Ducreaux's legacy? By satirizing the satire, a new work of art has been born. Andy Warhol, in particular, DESIRED imitation with his simultaneously kitsch and inspiring works on Marilyn Monroe and soup cans, and purposefully sought out the field of advertising as a place to find true beauty.

There is too often a tendency to call putting weird strings and things on paper modern art, when the true modern art is right underneath our noses, evolving, as always, with the modern world. If any of you wish to further inquire about the art of Memes, I would suggest KnowYourMeme.com, a specialty news site that analyzes online trends, as a broad-based and reliable source.

All images from MemeGenerator.net, and with clear legal intent, discarded works.

The Great Confusion - a critique of "socially-conscious" enterprise

Wind farm in the Techape Mountains, CA, by Stan Shebs, license c.c. a.s.a 3.0 unported

Whether its renewable energy, microlending in Asia, or low-income housing, we end up hearing "socially-conscious" or "social entrepreneurship" frequently enough to nauseate. As I look through the news, at "socially minded entrepreneurs," I cannot help but notice just how insignificant they really are. For all of their "changing the world," only microlending appears to have changed much, and microlending was not started as "social entrepreneurship" but rather adopted by the figurative guild of "social entrepreneurs" later.

One of the great dangers of social entrepreneurship is the tendency to treat profit as a hurdle instead of an objective. Whereas standard business aims to sell enough at a good enough price to justify its existence, expand and attract others to compete, social entrepreneurship does just barely well enough to exist. Worse, sometimes it doesn't even do that, but rather siphons off funds from the taxpayers through government edict that could be put to better use. In the end, this destabilizes governments and entire economies, as America is only now finding out.

Sometimes people claim that social entrepreneurship can fulfill aspects of true progress that standard entrepreneurship could not. This, simply, is a lie. Take green energy for example. The claim is that we cannot create carbon-free/pollution-free energy without some kind of government investment, but the reality is that we already have such things. We have at least two extremely profitable carbon-free power sources: hydroelectric and uranium-based fission nuclear. We also have a moderately profitable one called Geothermal. Detractors will argue that uranium creates nuclear waste, hydroelectric floods land and threatens biodiveristy, and geothermal takes land in natural areas like the Valles Caldera. And yet they advance wind, which takes up far more land in natural areas then geothermal ever would, and hydro would in some cases, and harms biodiversity by destroying migratory birds, and solar, which, like all semiconductors, requires dangerous chemicals and chemical wastes in the production of solar panels, or else, in the form of solar-thermal, takes up vast land and destroys entire habitats like wind, while taking astronomical costs to build and in the end not being sustainable for the simple and basic reason that nothing built can last forever.

Another claim is bringing third-world countries out of poverty, but alas, every first-world nation was once a third-world nation, and every one of them was brought out of this condition by the expansion of private business. And today, in India, Brazil, Russia, Rwanda, Uganda and China, private business is bringing a few more home. Does this mean there is no role for government or charity? Hardly, this is all collectivist we have not even looked at taking care of individuals yet, but it does mean that your "social entrepreneuers" are wrong about precisely what that role is.

And then there's the matter of precisely what profit is. When most people here the word, they think of some fat guy in a suit who already has too much money (in this day and age, that more accurately describes politicians.) Most business today is done by a combination of ma and pa business and joint stock ventures, depending upon the sector. Indeed, "fat suit guy sole proprietor" has not been the dominant model since the late 1800's.

Joint stock ventures are made up of 1,000's of investors of every social status, both wealthy seeking more wealth and workers seeking a retirement through 401K's, putting money towards a limited liability venture that they are not in control of but still suffer the gains and losses of through stock price and dividend. When you create profit for your joint stock venture, that's a larger 401K for a soon to be old man as well as a larger portfolio for a serious investor (who is not always, but usually is, rich.)

But that's not all profit does! Profit also means that a large enough number of people will contribute a large enough sum to your product to make it more then worthwhile to produce. It also creates new investor groups, both ma and pa and joint stock, to create more production of the desired thing. This virtuous cycle puts out WHAT PEOPLE WANT IN THE GREATEST SENSE, instead of what is desired by a small "ecologically friendly" elite. Indeed, it is far more democratic then democracy, as democracy only considers yes or no and not the degree to which something is desired. Democracy is like a net of thick rope with 4 inch gaps and the free market is like the finest of satins - its holes nearly invisible.

Profit too prevents the waste of resources - if building space, workers and raw materials are demanded by a more profitable enterprise, the price will increase until finally the less profitable either go out of business or rearrange their assets, freeing up the building space, workers and raw materials. As our society decided "getting off of foreign oil" was the highest of all goals, E85 drove up the price of food to cause many of our poor to starve by taking tons of corn and turning it in to small quantities of motor oil. Meanwhile, oil prices continue to rise astronomically, and a few foolish legislators suggested increasing Ethanol content beyond what engines can take without corrosion.

The reality is that profit is a very lofty and socially honorable thing, that very much does empower all of society, and create the best world the given conditions can create for the common man. Treating it as a problem, instead of a solution, will lead to hubris and a small elite dictating things as "the right thing to do" instead of allowing nature and the common man to decide amongst themselves. There is no one so ignorant as one who thinks he knows what's good for his neighbor, and so much of the 20th century has been ruled and ruined by such men.

Full Extent of the Pacific Electric Railway, circa 1920. Public domain work of US Federal Gov't.

Guest Post - Jamie B Musing

With all that's been happening in the news in politics lately, it's been a while since this blog hosted a true culture article. In the spirit of both this and advancing the blogosphere, I present you a guest post from the esteemed Jamie B Musings of "Culture Shock: Everything Pop Culture 5 Days a Week." The above blogger image is authorized for use on this blog only.

Back in college, I was listening to the radio when I heard a story that disgusted and irritated me. It was about two boys, ages 15 and 13, who were molesting their 8-year-old half sister. The mother had left the girl in her brothers’ care while she was at work, and the child reported it to a teacher at her school. The boys claim they got the idea from watching Jerry Springer. It wasn’t just the molestation of a child that bothered me. It was also the fact that, once again, someone is blaming their own actions on media and this case would more then likely stir yet another debate on the effects of media of small children.

This is not the first time this has happened. Different forms of media have been blamed for everything from rape to armed robbery. Different songs by artists such as Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne have been blamed for suicides. Not only that, but the artists have been sued because of it as well. Then there was "The Catcher in the Rye", which has been linked to several celebrity stalkings, including the death of John Lennon and the attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan. Once, Christopher Pike, an author of young adult horror novels was asked if he felt responsible for the suicide of a kid who had read some of his books, even though he never promoted suicide in his work. In fact, he portrayed negative consequences for the act in his "Remember Me" Trilogy. What is even worse, many conservative groups use these cases as ammunition to censor certain materials which is not the answer and one step towards creating the world Ray Bradbury wrote about of Fahrenheit 451. What it all comes down to is too many people are trying to use the media to make excuses for the crimes they commit.

I find it hard to believe any sane and rational person would commit a crime just because they saw it in the media. It is time for people to stop searching for the easy answer. Let's face it... there are no easy answers in life. The human mind is a complex machine and I believe when someone commits violent acts, we need to look much deeper than the media to understand them. We also need to be more aware of what's going on around us and act accordingly instead of burying our heads in the sand. Look at the Virginia Tech shooting, for example. The shooter was known to be a problem on campus and had scared more than a couple of students and teachers and that wasn't the first time something that that had happened somewhere. Nothing will ever stop all violence, but I really do believe that we can only make it better if we're willing to look deeper than media to solve the problem.

Mannies wanted

Eugen Keler with his black nanny, 1874. Public domain by copyright expiration.

Not long ago, really only a matter of decades, entire generations of wealthy Southern males and females were raised not by their mothers, but by, usually black, servant ladies who went by names like "Miss Marcy" and "Miss Denise" and who were given the important job of raising the next generation of a wealthy, Southern family. When these men came in to town, the first person they visited was not their parents, it was who raised them.

It was a good deal for the Mannies too. The pay may not have been much, but their erstwhile "masters" were often very generous in the form of gifts and benefits, and this member of the family was taken care of exactly like that - a member of the family. And they could live in a nice room in a nice mansion, and when the family got Filet Mignon or ate out, so more often then not did they.

Today, wealthy, intelligent women with hard careers aren't having children. Now it is true that there is the little matter of passing a bowling ball through a tiny hole (it may be hard to "put a camel through the eye of a needle" in the words of scripture, but women do it on a regular basis), and no one can really help you with that, besides the obvious possibility of cutting you open, but we as a society can help you with what comes after. We can provide Mannies, people to take care of the child you are too busy for, and he will still be yours, and family, but if you are too busy with your career what is not neccesary need not be minded.

It seems that today we have a resistance or hate or even unnegotiableness to the notion of Mannies, to the notion of someone else raising our children, but we shouldn't. Why shouldn't someone who has time look after our kids? Is it better if no one is there for them just because you can't be? Is it better to simply never have children, and never experience any of it, just because you can't handle all of it? And obviously this solution only works for the wealthy. But why shouldn't it work for who it does?

The Gospel of Joseph Stalin, Chapter 5: The Parable of the Green Fool

Secretary General and Loving Father Stalin, who only sends those who really need it to Siberia to be worked to death. Photo taken by CCCP, public domain for all good comrades. Here

"Someone in the crowd said to him, “Liberal, tell my brother to divide the tax money with my solar power company.”

"¹⁴ Comrade Stalin replied, “Individuals, who appointed me a judge or an arbiter between you? Can't you tell I have the general will to look out for...” ¹⁵ Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; you might turn in to a conservative! But for now you're just a useful idiot...”

¹⁶ And he told them this parable: “The ground of a certain country yielded an abundant economic harvest. ¹⁷ He thought to himself, ‘What shall I do? I have no way to prevent the world from changing.’

¹⁸ “Then he said, ‘This is what I’ll do. I will tear down my coal power plants and build bigger solar panels across miles of beautiful, open Desert, and there I will have my electricity. ¹⁹ And I’ll say to myself, “You have plenty of power laid up for many years. Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.”’

²⁰ “But the general will, now extended to include the cute, furry creatures of the forest, said to him, ‘You fool! Yellowstone will erupt this very night, cover the Western United States with lava and block the sun for 50 years. Then where will this stable world you have prepared for yourself go to?’

²¹ “This is how it will be with whosoever stores up things for themselves but is not rich towards the general will."

California Nightmares

The Delta Smelt, Work of USFWS, public domain

It seems, not long ago, the world dreamed of California - its gold, its industrial power, its great cities and farmland. Today, the state is in massive debt, farmers are strangled of water for a 2-inch fish, unprecedented regulation strangles every aspect of innovation and industry, the notion of private property becomes less and less meaningful, and unemployment in the once-fertile Central Valley skyrockets to over 50% in some places. Worse, it seems somewhere down the road California lost its soul, as even where business is still strong, it is driven by people from out of the state.

What we find today is a coastal California more interested in complaining about insensitive jokes in the film "Juno" then building business or making things work, and an inland California slowly being sacrificed at the altar of a fish. We find a state legislature that refuses to cut spending or authorize new industry, preferring instead to bleed their state dry with taxes as fat cat administrators take home six-figure salaries. We find a constitution with specific language banning an entire industry, nuclear power, and communities that plot to prevent new industrial development because they're scared for their land values, while factory after factory shuts down. We find a state that has totally lost touch with who or what built it, and a new race of man who not only does not know how to provide for himself, but refuses to, preferring instead to take and take and take and finding building too ugly for his tastes.

Perhaps most disgusting about California is the absolute willingness of the people on the coast to annihilate the welfare of the rest of the state, and that brings us to the point of this blogpost. A plan needs to be made to protect the people of the rest of the state from the coasters. What the coasters do to themselves is their own problem - I hope someday they will learn, but if they don't at least I won't be responsible for it. They must, however, not be able to destroy all of this land that has never agreed with them or signed on to what they do.

It seems most rational to cut California in to 4 states, so as to create as logical of a configuration as possible and best serve the needs of the people. A proposal already exists for the state of Jefferson, and for the Southeastern desertlands. For the Central Valley in between, I propose creating the somewhat historic land of American River corresponding to the area that the Spanish authorized for American settlement in the early 1800's and the famous river named for that event. In addition, I took the liberty of including conservative Orange County in the proposed "South California" (here renamed "Mojave") state. This way, the Coasters can be stupid in peace. We'll even give them a stretch of coastal wilderness, west of the Santa Lucias.

public domain

The Story of Kenmore

The City logo of Kenmore, WA

All along the lake, east of Seattle, are mighty hills and muggy swamps, but there was one place in the far north, right where the lake ended, where the hills turned in to a plain. This spot had plentiful timber, and since it was the termination of the lake, and also flat, the first roads built eastward and northward ran through it. Further up the Sammamish River, which runs through it, was a great floodplain, but here, at this one place, the floods did not occur. Instead were great strands of timber, 20 feet in diameter and 300 feet in to the air.

A young McMaster from Kenmore, Ontario came to Seattle in 1889. A month after he got there, the city had burned down, and his future looked bleak. Kenmore, Ontario was in turn named for the Scottish village of Kenmore, on the Loch Tay in the highlands, by a McLaren who came there long before, from Kenmore, Scotland, and always had the Highlands in his blood. McMaster was not willing to throw in the towel, and heard tell of the great virgin timbers of the lakes northern shore, and knew of the roads that crossed there and the flat plains. He also knew of a river that, with the taming of the floodplains, was now deep enough for steamboats, and a canal they were building from the lake to the sea.

Not much later, he started a Shingle Mill at this point on the lake. There were many sawmills around, but shingle mills were less common, and greatly in demand as the population grew. He also built a great log boom, that both helped feed his shingle mill when demand was high, and helped feed sawmills on the lake when demand was low. Though the entire logging operation was abandoned in 1920, the growing community of Kenmore, named by McMaster for his former home, preserved the boom, maintaining it as a fishing and swimming dock for the good of all.

The community also took an abandoned barn, and in 1952, made it in to their first library. They built a school, and roadhouses, and restaurants, and expanded the road. They built parks, great ones that are still around, and preserved a beautiful old Mission style Seminary as part of St. Edwards Park. The road they maintained and expanded is now 522 Highway, a "State Route" that is a major eastward path in to Seattle. The road north, however, now runs further West, though the older road is maintained for local traffic as 527. St. Edwards Park is now a State Park.

In 1946, a swamp in Kenmore, unused for anything for many years, attracted the attention of three high school friends united after World War II. Jack Mines, Reg Collins, and Bob Monroe built a hangar in the swamp, and purchased a single plane, an Aeronca Model K. Over the years, service would increase in both volume and respect, and today, Kenmore Air is one of the largest seaplane operators in the world, and they are still based out of Kenmore, WA. The managerie of planes, dozens upon dozens of them, on the lot by the road is one of the richest sights you'll ever see.

In 1978, a science-based naturopathy university named Bastyr built itself in Kenmores southern outskirts. The university was started as extensive new legislation at both the state and federal levels had made times for natural medicine turbulent. With the National College of Naturopathic Medicines departure to Portland, Washington state legislators were threatening to suspend all licensing of naturopathic professionals as no college any longer existed in the state. A series of determined NCNM graduates understood that a school firmly built on scientific principles would not only save licensure in Washington, but grow respect for naturopathy nationwide. In the words of Dr. Mitchell, one of its founding fathers, "It was built on the best visions of what a really high-quality naturopathic institution could be." Far from being a stereotype, Bastyr sought full accredation and a scientific basis, and in my personal experience, also created one of the most helpful and down-to-earth professional climates I have ever found anywhere.

For many years they fared well with no city government, growing in population, wealth and serviceability, though they were recognized by the post office as an address, but in 1990, a bill by the Washington Legislature known as the "Growth Management Act" created development committees. These development committees told Kenmore that they would either start a city government, annex in to a neighbor, or let the county decide. The GMA also created a massive bureaucracy for the rezoning of land that leaves abandoned malls unused for decades and creates a major shortage of land for the kind of manufacturing and industry that any state but Washington would love to have. The GMA even, according to a farmer from Stanwood I spoke to, forces paperwork to be filed and consultation with bureaucracy to be made before any field larger then 10 acres can be tilled or planted. By 1998, against the will of its citizens, Kenmore was a "city," though it had been the size, stature and utility of a city for many years.

Despite the fact that Kenmore was built by individuals doing their thing and giving, voluntarily, to the communty, the State had to slip their greedy hands in to it. They forced Kenmore to do the "right thing" and waste tax dollars that never needed to be spent hiring people who never needed to be hired. And all in the interest of "Growth Management."

Sources: (In order of usage)

The public displays at Log Boom Park, Kenmore, WA

Kenmore Air Harbor Inc., "history"

Bastyr University, "At A Glance: Founding of Bastyr University"

Reagan Dunn, son of former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn (R-8, till 2006), with regards to Totem Lake Mall and other underdeveloped or abandoned commercial properties. (GMA)

A farmer from Stanwood, WA with approximately 100 acres of vegetable growing land (GMA)

Image: Public Domain, official logo of city of Kenmore, click here for link.

Guest Post - Roy Sanders is Magic (and other discoveries at the CHoA Autism Conference)

Yet another guest post from our good friend Walt Guthrie on the "social sciences." Enjoy!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wasn't expecting much from this year's CHoA Autism Confernce that was held last Saturday.
Boy, was I surprised.
Who knew that Roy Sanders had magical powers?

But I'll get to that.
Let's take the events of the conference in chronological order.

First up was Catherine Rice, a behaviorist from the CDC, who was there to give us the obligatory What-Is-Autism? opening presentation.
The talk actually touched more on issues of classification than anything else I have seen so far in these types of events. In the course of her presentation, she inadvertently raised a couple of interesting points. First, until 1980, the DSM classified autism as a type of schizophrenia.
Now here's a question (one that I didn't actually ask): In 1979, WAS autism actually a type of schizophrenia and in 1981 it WASN'T schizophrenia? The implication from Rice, of course, was that this is an example of how far the understanding of autism has come. But, as my numerous public questions to "experts" make clear, the classification of autism, even today, is divorced completely from empirical evidence. James McPartland, in my questioning of him, admitted that the use of the word "disorder" in the classification of ASDs was purely definitional.
If autism, or any word, is only whatever a designated authority structure says it is, then that's what it is. If autism is defined as schizophrenia, then it's schizophrenia. And if it's defined as a disorder, then it's a disorder. And if it's defined as two parts from this column of symptoms and three parts from that column, then that is what you have.
If you believe that the evidence points to the moon being made of cheese, then upon arriving on it, you may be forced to admit that no, the moon is not made of cheese. If you DEFINE the Moon as being made of cheese, then upon discovering that the orb revolving around our planet is actually composed of a different substance, you may be forced to admit that it is not, in actuality, the Moon.
If autism,as defined, is different from autism as experienced, then it's pragmatic utility as a useful term, even for the "science" of behaviorism, is questionable indeed.
Which was brought more into focus by Rice's second tidbit. She declared that there are those with autistic traits who are not counted as having an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. She compared it as the difference between neuroses and psychoses but then didn't really touch on it again.Yet, given how much of her presentation was related to doing counts of "ASD" cases in the general populace and whether or not the rate of autism is rising, this would seem to be highly pertinent Let's follow this line of reasoning. All autism is a disorder (thus ASD). Some people have autistic traits but, they are not disordered. So now, at least according to Rices' brief explanation, we find out that, a little bit of autism equals no autism at all.
Now, why not the easier explanation of: some people have autism and they're fine with it? Is it because that interpretation would be injurious to the autistic population? Or would the real victim of such an interpretation be the behaviorist money train for whom every diagnosis is a ka-ching?
I asked Rice, what the methodological procedure was for labeling the entire autistic spectrum as disordered (taking into account that she doesn't consider autistic-lites as part of the spectrum). It was at this point that Roy Sanders, the Medical Director of Marcus popped in to shut me off.
Hmm.

Next up was Felissa Goldsmith, a child psychiatrist from Marcus
Dr. Goldsmith treats a PowerPoint presentation like a teleprompter. And that's not a compliment.
There was little new here. However, there was such an underlying contempt for autistic kids in her talk that I had to check with Linda later to confirm that it wasn't just me picking up that vibe.
To give just the most egregious example: Goldsmith suggested more than once that parents should be encouraged to mourn their children's autism like a death. And to do this on special occasions like birthdays and Christmas. This easily was the most sickening thing I've been exposed to all week. ("Daddy will be down in a moment, Timmy. He's mourning the child he wanted that you'll never be.") This is the advice you'd expect to come from a monster and I said as much.
I asked Sanders, if this was the official policy of the Marcus Center. Boos from the audience. He curtly dismissed the question as inappropriate.
Well, it's not like I was the one who brought it up.

Dr. Michael Morrier, from the Emory Autism Center, gave a somewhat uneven presentation on ABA that ended up focusing on how his people do it over there. I want to say some good things somewhere and it might as well be here. As I told Morrier after the presentation, he is the least offensive behaviorist I have ever encountered. When asked about his center's use of aversives, he replied that they don't use any.
Giving Morrier the benefit of the doubt, if I was forced to send a child anywhere for the application of ABA, Morrier would probably be my choice.
Still, even if he seemed more of an actual human being than any other behaviorist that I have ever personally met, he still was, after all, a behaviorist. At one point, talking about instilling eye contact as a habit in children, he observed that one could be TOO successful. If children make eye contact all the time they become creepy staring machines. And Morrier noted that regular run-of-the-mill kids don't make eye contact all the time either. Instead, they do it 63% of the time. (Or something like that number, I neglected to make a note of his actual percentages and all the figures that follow in this paragraph are approximations of his actual numbers.) Morrier was quite explicit that the goal was to get the autistic kids to make eye contact at EXACTLY the same percentage of the time as normal kids. He even talked about making up the gap (as if this were some sort of missile crisis from the 1960s) between the two groups so that children who begin training at age three are 14 percentage points behind in eye contact percentages and those that begin at age 4 are 28% behind.
Morrier never felt the need to explain why a random sampling of non-autistic kid's eye contact percentages (or any other behavior) should serve as the golden mean against which all similar autistic behavior should be measured. There was no suggestion that it might be possible that regular kids might be indulging in too much eye contact and perhaps should receive some therapy to tone it down a bit.
There was no evidence presented that, having trained children to achieve the same percentage of eye contact to non-eye contact, that these children were indeed receiving the same benefits from this activity. Presumably, eye contact is a skill that delivers information to those engaging in it and that the everyday children doing it were themselves benefiting from the activity.
Certainly a question that you might think should be asked is: do autistic children, trained to make eye contact, receive the same benefits as regular children naturally engaged in the same activity? Or are they merely being trained to pretend that they are not autistic? A previous speaker at the AAC made a big deal about how his research has shown that those on the spectrum tend to gain their information about people from studying mouths rather than eyes. Assuming that this is indeed the case, and that all these babies haven't had laser pointers slapped on their heads for nothing, then wouldn't you want to know if forcing a child to shift his primary attention from mouth to eyes will be accompanied by an increasing ability to make use of this information? Or, will the child be left in a worse position, forced to concentrate on areas of the face he is less equipped to easily decipher?

Finally it was Sanders turn.
During his presentation, Sanders literally sat on his hands and continuously kicked out his legs and pointed his feet which might have been adorable if he was a shy, pretty girl in a sundress instead a self-conscious middle-aged introvert seemingly hyper-aware of his own poor public speaking skills.
Sanders attempted to use his own personal situation to illuminate what parents in the audience would face and the things they should do to prepare for raising a child on the autistic spectrum. And, as might be expected, it was the same old, tired checklist, although this time it was wrapped in a droning awkward wallow of self-pity and look-at-me-I'm-a-martyr-for-raising-an-autistic-child self aggrandizement.
At the conclusion of his talk, I asked the question why, in the two years of this particular conference, which seems to be aimed squarely at the parents of autistic children, that they had not chosen to include a single adult or teenager who was actually on the spectrum. Someone who might be able to explain to the parents what their own children were actually experiencing.
Sanders was dismissive of this question as well.
I then asked why, with all the usual suspects that he was recommending parents consult, he had not included actual people on the autistic spectrum who could possibly contribute a valuable understanding as to why their children thought and acted as they did.
His response was that not all people who claim to be on the spectrum actually are.
Well, THAT'S awfully cryptic, Roy.
His meaning became clear soon enough, right after the meeting. And it was at this point that I discovered that Roy Sanders' has magical powers. For he revealed to me, much to my surprise, that I am not on the autistic spectrum.
Wait a minute, I hear some of you saying. Don't you have to take a bunch of intricate expensive tests and pay a bunch of money to get an autistic diagnosis? Well, yeah. That's what I thought. A major part of this whole four hour plus drone-a-thon I had just finished sitting through was about the importance of getting special testing. Nobody said anything about just dropping Roy Sanders into the room and having him magically deduce it.
But his magic didn't end there. He had an even more dazzling trick up his sleeve.
It seems, rather than being on the spectrum I'm a "schizo" something-something-something. I'm afraid I didn't catch the full diagnosis. DSM labels are like your kid's Pokemon monsters. What grown-up with a life really has the time to keep up with them all? But I invite Roy to publicly post his diagnosis to this group so that I might be properly discredited as an autistic advocate in a public forum.
This later part was all relayed to me as he walked briskly to his car, making so little eye contact with me that he practically called out for a session of ABA and Christmas day parental mourning.
I'm sure you can imagine my internal dialogue:
"Huh? What? What are you doing? You can't walk away now after dropping that on me! I'm going to need counseling. YEARS of therapy! Preferably behavioral because that's science! I need to come to terms with this diagnosis! This changes my entire life! I need to know that there's hope for me and that I can live with this schizo-whatever-whatever and still have hope for a happy and productive life!"
Perhaps I'm being unfair. After all, was not the magical diagnosis enough, and, in his quick retreat, he sure seemed like he had some place he needed to be. Perhaps, and I'm only speculating here, Saturday is the day of the week he reserves for mourning his own adopted child's autism.
And, of course, declaring me off the spectrum was probably an easy call. After all, if I am on the spectrum, it's not like Sanders or the Marcus Center are in a position to make a buck off of it.

In reality, his is the game pseudo-scientists play all the time, employing the magical intuitive powers that their credentials supposedly convey to conveniently discredit their adversaries.
Sanders was explicit that if I continue to pursue matters as I have that I will soon find myself barred from meetings such as this one. How much easier that will be if he is in a position to use his special magical insight to claim that his critic doesn't have standing.

I have spent years now arguing just how untenable the behaviorists' and their allies position are. I have shown you how they can't answer the simplest of questions.
Sanders, being the stupid man that he is, thinks that if he bars me from the meetings that he will have won. If it happens it will instead be a complete and total vindication for myself. I have, since my early days in Bob Morris' group, argued that you can't do business with these people. Nonetheless, in the time since then, I have treated them as the scientists I know them not to be. I have asked them to justify their uses of simple words they use everyday like "disorder" and those from our community who have attended these meetings have seen their complete inability to do so. What more do I need to do to show their essential fraudulent nature?
When I am barred (and i think it is a matter of when rather than if) I will have demonstrated, once and for all and for everyone here in the autistic community to see, that the behaviorists and their allies are unwilling to engage the autistic community in any form of real dialogue or debate that does not at first begin with a servile acknowledgment of their superior knowledge and authority in all matters pertaining to us.

I was asked, after the meeting, why it was that I couldn't be nicer. Bob Morris was nice. And they repaid his niceness by treating him with contempt and running the clock out on him.
The people charged with fixing us, hate us. Loathe us. Talk about us as tragedy, a collection of deficits and disorders. They encourage parents to MOURN when their children are identified as us. They think the best that we can ever be is a crude approximation of them. They compare us to animals. They compare us to AIDS. They compare us to cancer. They compare us to death.
And in doing all this they enrich themselves.

The time for nice, from me, or anyone, is past.

Way, way past.

Walt Guthrie

Alki: Coyote and Raven Talk

Totem Poles at Stanley Park, Vancouver, BC, by Peter Graham. Use permitted under CC 2.0G License

Coyote: Yes we did!

Raven: What did you do?

Coyote: We've done it!

Raven: What have you done?

Coyote: Change is at hand!

Raven: Change to what?

Coyote: We fought the rich!

Raven: You fought for what?

Coyote: We stood up to the special interests!

Raven: Which ones?

Coyote: A new bright era has dawned!

Raven: A bright era for whom?

Coyote: The future looks bright.

Raven: Bright for what?

Pioneer Square, 1907. Public domain, author unknown.

I would recommend Mourning Doves "Coyote Stories" for a traditional Plateau Indian characterization of the character of Coyote. I've read the book myself and loved it. I don't know of a single excellent source like this for Raven, being something I was more raised with, but this site seems to have some reasonable content. Professor Nichols site from Pittsburgh State University also seems to have some solid coyote background.

Al-ki is a traditional Salish statement of skepticism.

Thatcher the Wrong Comparison for Palin

Eva Peron at the Casa Rosada Expired copyright, source unknown.

One was known for her mastery of statistics and facts, the other for her combativeness and passion. One was the "Iron Lady", the other the symbol of her nation at a time when it was losing itself. One rose at a time of practical problems, declining economies, overweened labor unions and eminent possible wars (one of which could not in the end be prevented) with Argentina (sic) and the USSR. The other at a time when her nation, let alone its practical issues, didn't even know who it was any more. So why do we always compare Palin to the wrong great leader?

Thatcher is one of my heroes, and indeed, she is the hero of many. So is Evita. They are totally different people, and when one considers who these great leaders really were, one realizes who really is the model for Palin.

Let's think about what Palin has done well: she put fear in to lawless oil companies sufficient to get them to actually keep their contracts with Alaska, she cleaned house in Juneau of great corruption (something that, in many places like Chicago, never occurs) in a very short amount of time, she inspires people even now with her life story and the very kind of person she is, and it is through her EMOTIONAL actions, her pointing to values, illustrating grotesqueness of character and thought rather then particular points of policy, that she takes power to the degree she does. Palin is all heart, and all America. She would not govern by bullet points and statistics - higher values suit her better. And just as the European elegance of Evita suited Argentina at a terrifying moment of decline, Palins rugged indivdiualism, honor, antielite anger and religious fervor represent America at a time when, for every reason imaginable, America is losing its very identity.

The fact that Evita was on the left-wing while Thatcher was on the right probably doesn't help, but nonetheless, the most talented political citizen of the United States today has much to offer, and it's not exceptionally like Thatcher.

Confusion, Clarity and Responsibility

Taken during Heatlhcare Speech. Public Domain, work of Executive Office of the President of the United States employee Lawrence Jackson.

I was talking to a friend over the phone about Mass-Transit today and he just kept on saying, "Expert studies... Expert studies... Expert Studies...." I would ask him questions about the studies and this same refrain would commence again. "I won't debate you." Right, like the kind of Expert Studies that Brain Scientists once used to claim African Americans were too inferior to have equal rights...

There's a problem with the reasoning of trust. Actually, there are several problems:

1) You don't know if the person was actually promoted based on merit.

2) You don't know if the school he was educated at or the circle of friends influencing him has been systematically skewing all who listen to them.

3) You don't know if his intentions are good, and when you give him immense power based on "expertise," you also invite the corruption that comes with power, thus it becomes less likely that his intentions are good. "Perhaps, Maybe, Someday" my friend.

In a democracy, voters are solely responsible for the decision they make at the booth. If an expert cannot back up what their "expert opinion" gives you with reasoning and evidence, we should discard their claims on the grounds that 1) they clearly aren't interested in educating the American people and 2) for all we know, their opinion may be bigoted, biased or corrupt. We are responsible for our decisions, which brings me to another subject.

The democrats wrote a health care bill many hundreds of pages long. Now let me ask you, what voter has time to sort through several hundred pages of revised on a continual basis legal mumbo jumbo? And now, they complain (including Obama[footnote below]) that people have misrepresented what they wrote. They may or may not be true, I don't have time to look at the bill and even if I did I would probably have to read it several times to completely understand it (the Supreme Court perhaps may take two times to understand it) but the fact is, they are the ones who made it too long for the American people to read. Thus they brought these interesting times on to themselves. If they are unwilling to make Washington accessible to the voter who is responsible for it, the voter must hold it against them, or we will have a tyranny of those "in the know." Just like a student who does his homework perfectly but is unable to turn it in must receive a zero from his teacher, regardless of whether the dog ate it or not, for the teacher knows that it would otherwise be in the students best interest to make the homework extra tasty!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnote:

I invite you, my readers, to inspect this piece of evidence yourselves. If you believe I have erred in my use of it (I'm human too believe it or not) feel very free to speak up:

"Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple." Paragraph 4 from top-page 4 of Obama Health Care Speech, New York Times reprinting (page 4 given for ease of reader analysis.)



Revision 3/17/2009:

I have decided to remove one of the two images in this post. It wasn't that good.

Guest Post - The Irate Dog

A real live Englishman has been kind enough to write a post on English culture for this blog. Tom Jardine-Smith is a good friend of mine and quality journalism student in England who I've stayed in contact with over the past year or so, debating, contributing, exchanging guest posts and getting to know one another on BlogCatalog. As you will later see with the sheer number of tags on this post, he really has covered all the bases and in a fantastic way.

In addition to his current blog, Thomas Bobs, he used to run the Irate Dog.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

British Culture, and Where to Find It

When Jeremy asked me to write another guest post for him I was of course delighted. Through the BlogCatalog we have debated on many things; well, mostly politics and God’s existence. But here we have something completely different. British Culture! Enjoy.

Visit my blog for more: http://thomasbobs.webs.com

British culture is, in many people’s views, one of the richest in the world. I’m not talking about Pop here. There’ll be no references to skinny Oompa Loompas who think they can sing because that isn’t culture, that’s a horrifying disappointment. When I say we have a rich culture I am referring to a fantastic variety we have; from people who actually are pretty good at singing to those who can do pretty awesome things with a city wall and a can of spray paint.

That is not to say that we are the masters of Culture; a vote announcing us the official “Most Yobbish” country in the world would reveal that much. But we are proud of it none the less. Sometimes, unfortunately, for entirely the wrong reasons.

No talk about the British and their culture can be said without mentioning our Empire. For example there are a great many people in my country who are still proud of our now ex-British Empire which, in 1922, covered over 13,000,000 sq miles - a full quarter of the Earth’s surface.

Personally, and with my predominantly left-wing mind at work, I find the idea of an Empire cringe-worthy. To go to an entire continent (i.e. Africa) and label the entire population as “animals” and ‘uncivilised’ was, in my view, despicable and I would like to grab this opportunity to apologise on behalf of my country to anyone who’s family has the words “slave” in their history.

However, (and there must be a “however”) I also believe strongly that if it weren’t for us effectively owning a quarter of the planet we wouldn’t be nearly as diverse in culture and demographic as we are today.

In the last few hundred years our country has grown in other ways; not just geographically. We have learnt to respect other nations and, most importantly, we have learnt to laugh at ourselves. An American comedian whose name I’ve annoyingly forgotten said recently that “that is a very advanced thing y’all do”. And it is. It is a sign of a matured and laid back society. We don’t take ourselves too seriously anymore. The majority of us don’t have faltering hopes that the ‘once great Empire will rise again’. That isn’t what we’re about anymore.

One of the hardest questions I ever had to answer during my college studies was this; What is ‘Britishness’? I imagine this is a much easier question for foreign people to answer but, as a British citizen, I don’t have a clue. I would be tempted to sway towards the traditional politeness and sense of ‘good manners’ but let’s be honest, that’s not really the case anymore. Not when you look and see the sorts of prejudiced hatred of ‘immigrants’.

So perhaps ‘Britishness’ is our political system? Unique in the world for being completely and utterly mad. We have no written constitution and the law effectively changes after each and every judicial decision. Our Prime Minister effectively holds Parliament by the balls if his/her party holds a big enough clout. Our electoral system has been proven to be unfairly weighted in the larger party’s favours. And our Queen is the head of State but ‘Her’ government could, if it wanted to, over throw her at any time. Why don’t they? Because she’s a shell of power anyway; little more than a tourist attraction. There hasn’t been a threat to sovereignty coming out of Buckingham Palace for a long time and I doubt there will ever be again.

Maybe ‘Britishness’ is the NHS. Yes, I mentioned the NHS is a guest post for a right-wing American. I imagine if I said the same thing in some places in the US of A I’d have signs depicting me as Hitler scattered about. But I truly do not understand what the Americans have against the NHS. It is a medical marvel. Free at the point of use (mostly). The saviour of countless lives; including Steven Hawking who, I was delighted to find out, apparently became American over night when anti-Healthcare reformers thought his American-accented computer was his actual voice. Hilarious.

In short, British culture is a combination of our nation’s age, a generally progressive nature, and immigration. And I wouldn’t have it any other way. Thank you.

African America

A montage of 9 great African Americans by Therock, public domain by composition of original photos

I love this country, and I wonder how much of the country I love was really made by these wonderful people.

They dwell in the Inner Cities of all 50 States and the rural lands of the South. They have a distinctive accent, distinctive cooking, distinctive arts and music, distinctive ways of looking at people, and a history different from any other group of people, both immigrant and native, in this country. They don't know exactly where they came from, and their exact ancestors, having had their geneology erased by the net, but they know the basic idea, and what the ship captains wrote over the blurry half-erased pencil. They have been mistreated, abused, and hurt, and yet, many of their light still shines from every corner of the continent.

When they were finally allowed in to the cities, the cities collapsed. People see them as a threat, see them as hostile, dangerous, and yet, some of the kindest most wonderful people I've ever known have been African Americans. Some people see them as ignorant, and yet I've seen them far better informed about the things a citizen in a democracy needs to understand (elected officials, movements, parties and factions...) then those who silently hold such views. Their view of business, government and other people is very realistic. They do not have the luxury of idealism or happy ignorance. But when it comes to faith and the church, these Christians are filled with more hope and wonder then anyone else alive at the promise and majesty of our beautiful God. They are liberal, often seeing the free-market economy as cruel and corrupt, and those who support it even worse, and yet they value family more then almost anyone.

During the dark days of Jim Crow, these "victims" used radio, starting with WERD Radio here in Atlanta from 1949 to 1968, the church and the neighborhood organized from jazz bars and dance halls and hangouts of every kind to "fight" for their freedom. They wouldn't settle for anything less then "this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'" (Martin Luther King Jr, I have a Dream speech.) I've heard that when Elvis first started to perform, people called his songs "nigger music." That music is now called ROCK! And I'm sure they had colorful names for Blues, Ragtime and Jazz at one time too.

White europeans who come to this country often can't understand America. They see it as hostile, threatening, out of control, ignorant, stupid, violent, cheesy and sleazy, a nation of criminals, weirdos, obssessive fools and religious fanatics. White people in this country stereotype Blacks the same way sometimes; the irony of the similarity makes me wonder how much of what makes America a distinctive nation, a distinctive culture, a unique place with unique ideas comes from these people.

Family Ties and the Cheapening of Humanity

Vitruvian Man, by Leonardo Da Vinci, public domain

Right now I'm trapped in Fort Collins, CO. Every Greyhound route in to Washington State, to see my parents, is closed. I'm here seeing my grandparents on my way back from Atlanta and desperately want to see them, but mother nature has intervened, so I must spend more time with my grandparents.

I've been thinking about family, among the most natural and essential of human unions. There are fewer relationships that define us more profoundly then family, and family in turn is defined by sex. Man and woman come together, join together two households, give birth to children, who in turn are brothers and sisters, and the brothers and sisters of the man and woman are aunts and uncles. Even if no children are had, sexuality itself is more then powerful enough to create a sacred brotherhood -and sisterhood- among two houses.

The first relationships you have are family. Your parents, your brothers and sisters, your grandparents. There are even very close friends who, after some time, almost become part of the family, adopted brothers and sons, sisters and daughters, but these only carry in themselves - their relatives are still, for the most part, outside. Your family teaches you a way of seeing the world, a way of seeing life, rules, regulations, ways of punishing and regulating yourself, morality, honor, ethics, and the way you categorize all those outside of the family in to your thousands of relationships you keep made for every person in the world in your mind. Family can create, and family can destroy, family can sow love and hate. A peaceful family makes for a more peaceful community, and an unpeaceful family leads to a destructive community. When family members separate themselves from each other, you can see it in the eyes and actions of the victims, both seperated and seperator. And when family roles and rules are broken, the anger and antagonism can carry through town.

Sexuality, also, is a very definitive part of our nature. It's the source of many of our dreams, many of our symbols, much of the way we see the world. It's the basis of many emotions, and it itself can conjure up every feeling, thought, and attitude in the human character. It makes us our best and our worst, and everything in between. When you drown out the emotion related to sex, you drown out the emotions period, harden your heart, deep freeze the world before your eyes in to a palace of ice, with statues of all those near you holding still in front of your eyes.

Adultery divides households, families, people. It is the breaking of a sacred trust between man and wife, or wife and husband, a lie, a betrayal of affections, a stoker of jealousy, a maker of hellfire. It can also pit children against their parents, and make human honor, a vital part of our nature, worthless against the breaking of the most important promise anyone ever makes. It degrades all involved in it, and cheapens sexuality, making it little more then either burden, hyper-personal, or entertainment depending on the attitude of he or she involved. The family is cast out of the mind of the transgressors.

Premarital sex is a cheapener. Those who partake in it will find less loyalty, less love, and less romantic fire with whomever they marry. It too cheapens sexuality, making it hyper-personal, a burden, or entertainment, removing the human face, removing the family ties, cutting away alliegance, loyalty, neighborhood and romantic love.

As you remove the honor, sanctity, and ritual in sexuality, you increasingly convey that a major part of our nature really isn't worth that much.

Note:

Before I even mention homosexuality, I want to point out in anger and all grumpinesss that nothing I say should ever be taken to in any way, shape, or fashion excuse those who hate, murder, destroy, oppress, manipulate, lie, steal, fire on federal agents, be inhospitable or sow the seeds of discontent out of homophobia. These people have done what homosexuality will do, and much more severely, by methods far more abominable, hateful and destructive. They too have broken ties, cheapened relationships, and created a disposable, hypocritical, judgemental attitude towards their fellow man that destroys all real community. The fact that they did it with anger, guns, contempt for all things humane and honorable, and cruel lies makes it, indeed, worse then a simple weakness of the flesh, for with the flesh it is only the ends that are an issue.

Homosexuality is an understandable mistake, like the kind that all of us make as we walk through this life, and though I hope we can work through it with them, and there's always a suspicion that within all of us both desires exist, even if we can't, they still are fellow human beings, every bit as deserving as everyone who has ever screwed up with their finances, raising their child or their education, or anything else that important to your life.

Now then:

Incest is a clear break of family authority, family respect, and proper relationship. It breaks sacred bonds, and mixes one kind of love (Agape) with another kind of love (Eros) that are often contradictory to each other. All of us need a balance of both of these in our life. The love pertaining to sexuality comes with it's own set of conditions, dependencies and expectations that make the love of a mother, father, brother, sister, son, or daughter impossible. Needs bring us close but they also create insecurity - add too many together and the result is oppression and no room to breathe. It creates a dilemma, as love has been cheapened, but the risk of birth defects in an incestious child is very high, and to leave would also cheapen love, relationships, and trust and loyalty in the future. Further it prevents the bond between families, distorts gender roles with a pre-existing status within the family, gets a person more in your mind then they need to be, and creates antagonism and insecurity among relatives.

Homosexuality is a confuser. It creates antagonism and insecurity among relatives. It confuses by breaking the traditional roles of gender, removing the balance of genders that creates clear hierarchy and authority, and balance within the house. It also makes establishes deep bonds within families difficult, as for the males no daughter is gained, and for the females no son is gained, for either house. Sometimes homosexuals seem to take the role of the opposite gender, distorting the individual to balance out the collective. It also leaves the homosexuals in the dilemma of either continuing this clear break of family mandate, or going back to straight sexuality with a cheapened view of erotic love. I'm still not entirely sure what the solution to this issue is, but I see their dilemma, and advise all those considering such a lifestyle to find any way possible of avoiding it.

We, America, are missing family ties. Superficial families make superficial friends, superficial friends make superficial towns, and superficial towns make a world where no one can depend on anyone else, loneliness and silence spread to any space in which they're allowed, and the human being himself is devalued to being an object, an animal, a customer, a worker, a product, a dollar amount. We are made to love, respect, listen, learn, talk, improve, teach, and be our brothers keeper, and yet now we sit in cubicles, even in large offices as apart as can be, and see outsiders as a nuisance. We try to avoid burdening each other in all possible ways, and see only the harm that we do to each other, until finally, we hate humanity itself. With our cheapening of sexuality, we have cheapened ourselves and all of life. The damage is done, but hopefully we can avoid running up the bill further.

Helping the Elderly and Eliminating the Home

WWII Morale poster, source: Northwestern University Poster Library (via wikimedia), public domain.

Nursing homes weren't as common in the past. The elderly used to be an important part of communities, and you can still see this in many books written from a previous time.

My Grandma has told me about the people in her neighborhood who fix things around the house, make her meals, drive her places she needs to go, especially at night, and are available if she's in trouble. Her church is always there for her, providing her a tight web of connections from which she can draw every form of support, and in exchange, she uses here substantial finances to take good care of the church as well, and can lend her support and aid of every sort that she is able to the people around her. She's 86, has been in a major car accident, and has very limited energy. But she's kept her house.

She still lives there, just as she did when she was young, and people still visit her from around the neighborhood. It's a friendly neighborhood, upper-class, in a large city where most people know a decent neighbor of their neighbors. She's lived there almost her entire life.

She has told me many times that the biggest reason she has been able to stay in her house is because people help her.

Now to business. A society that utilizes people for 40 years and then discards them when they are no longer of use to it will, in the end, lose it's humanity, it's individuality, it's respectfulness and lawfulness, it's spirit and cultural soul, it's inner strength, and it's touch with any deeper emotional connection among human beings. A society that does not value those who have worked for it, lived for it, loved for it, and in some cases, fought in wars for it, even sustaining injuries, will, in the end, value no one. If we burn whatever is of no use, we will be left with ashes, no loyalty, and no dignity. These people provided what you have, why do you deny them a small portion of it?

What do they do in nursing homes? They make food, they clean, and they check on people. Nothing they do in a nursing home has to be done in a nursing home, and very little of what they do in most nursing homes requires a paid professional. Now, I understand the burden of boarding your grandmother in your own house (though I also see the beauty of it, having three generations of a family in one place together, the young benefiting from the wisdom and care of the old, and the young taking care of the old) but as a community, each and every one of us by ourselves, we can take care of just a little bit of what each and every one of these beautiful, valuable citizens and people need to stay independent, healthy, and in a way, productive, while enriching our own lives through true community and relationships that can last forever. Even something as simple as helping an old man who has trouble up a staircase can, even, save a life, a limb, or the health of a man with osteoporosis or serious disorders of that sort. Merely feeling like they're able to ask for help can keep these people out of homes with disrespectful employees, low standards of living, and isolation from a real, balanced, diverse community, and destroying the finances of a family that must pay for care that, honestly, it usually doesn't need.

I'm not saying that every single person can be kept out of a nursing home, but these people have given their lives, their labor, their love, for a lifetime to all of us around them, and continue to give even today, and just helping them occasionally when they need it will make them feel like they can ask for help. And our society as a whole will benefit not only from their presence, and their lives, among us, but from the better attitude created by actually taking care of people. With that attitude comes respect, reverence, dignity, honor, all the things that you see none of in our human-hating modern world.

Why the Confederate Flag?

Civil War Monument and Cemetery in Owingsville, KY. Attribution conditional Fair Use license by C. Bedford Crenshaw

You look out at the great sacrifices of the past, those who have come, fought and died for family, land and what they valued, for the old and the young, giving their lives when they had barely begun for a home they would never see again, entire generations massacred, their blood trampled in the wine press. Proud flags flying high over the hills, strong spirits screaming loud through the valleys, young men in their prime, following orders from generals who drive up death tolls because they don't understand that the protective formations they were taught so long ago are killing their men in greater numbers now. Deaths by the thousands, thousands of unique individuals destroyed from the earth, cast to the uncertainty of the cold grave with bullets in their chest, broken bones, agonizing infections and tears of terror and rivers of blood dripping down their face as they look up in to the eternal sky for their final moments on Earth.

It's no wonder that such a thing would leave an imprint on a people. And it's no surprise that those who lived took back both horror and pride at their ordeal and their survival. It is true that it has not been forgotten, though it is untrue that people are bitter - that's something Yankees like to think. But there is a proud rivalry, and like it or not, people down here think of themselves as American AND Southern at equal levels.

It is true that to some people find the Confederate Battle Flag offensive. It is also true that it stands for many things to many people.

To me, this symbol stands for the following: standing up for yourself, especially local vs. national, the cultures of the Southeastern United States, both refined and otherwise, rebellion from oppression, and standing up for the weak against the moneyed interest of Northern Industrialists, and a better, more honest America. There are two groups of people who object tot this symbol.

Addressing the first group: This symbol also stands for History, and who Southerners are as a people, and that's where I think some people, though they do not realize the source, object to it. Some people would erase the past. This is especially common among the white, educated wealthy Southerner who doesn't want to be associated with redneck land, slavery and past abuses. They would take all the pain, all the death, the agony, the abuses, and throw it out, but they don't realize it runs in their blood, and they don't realize that it's a complete package. You can't have a past and have no pain, you can't have a future and have no values, and values are rooted in the past as they have to be. You can't stand for something - and destroy yourself so someone doesn't get angry at you or feel hurt.

Some people would lie, and demand that others do so. The minute they here a criticism, an idea they don't like, they demand an apology, surrounding themselves with yes men. They demand conformity, comfort, and what isn't theirs. They don't care what's inside the dish, they never did and never will. To them, there's no value to anything that can't be seen and therefore doesn't touch their petty hearts. As we lie and lie and lie, our enemies become clouded in fog, our up becomes down, our down becomes up, our anger becomes passive aggression, divisions become permaneant as people are too afraid to express them, and they pass them on to their children and their friends to express themselves the only way they can. Lawfulness becomes a joke, and the individual becomes condemned to a spiral of delusion, deceit, and paranoid back watching.

But there's one other group, those who have memories of their own, and those who believe they are standing up for them. These memories are sad, and true, and I deeply regret what has happened to those people. But to allow these racial terrorists to steal symbols that stand for the South, good and bad, is to let them win. See, to let them steal our values, our past, our lives from us by the inevitable rubbing out that accompanies this silencing is to ennoble them, to promote them, to give them free space in our hearts and minds, in our memories and in our soul. You take the symbols, the analogies, the stories, the way of living, and you push it out of public sight, along with those who still cherish it lovingly delivered to Satan for his evil use. It is to give them, our Satan, Southern history, to give them Southern culture, to give them the South, along with many of the people who reside in it.

You can't destroy everything just because of a flaw, for if you did, the fires would burn the entire Earth to ashes, for there is nothing that is flawless on Earth. There is still a lot that is beautiful about the South: the millitary tradition, the sense of honor, the hospitality, the delicate style and refinement of Southern art, architecture and design, an extremely open society that includes people much more readily then it excludes them, the sense of history and the deeper side of life, and a quiet stubborn strength that will not submit to anyone, under any conditions, often to the aggravation of Dixieland itself!

Those whose character is destroyed have no values, no roots, no sense of history or depth, no idea of who they are. Maybe they can discover it, but that takes years, years wasted, years lost, years never seen again. Why waste the youth of our children over pettiness? Especially since they may well turn out exactly like we did anyways.

We can't just abandon our past. It is part of us, and we are a product of our past more then anything else. The Confederate Flag will continue to be the standard of this website, for now and the future to come, exactly because I hope to promote its use as a symbol of the South and Culture in general.

Is Sexism Bad?

Male & Female Hansi (Chinese Characters) side by side, with archaic Japanese meaning "Husband & Wife" or married couple. The female character (left) is a nurturer as the artistic aura of the image conveys, while the two characters that symbolize masculinity (right) are a hand holding a hoe and a rice field, the laborer. Courtesy of Wikimedia user AnonMoos.

No one asks this question, but many extremely successful men and women are sexist against the other gender. The reasons that, as far as I can tell, are given for Sexism being bad are mostly flawed. See, we assume that because it has some similarity to Racism (so does the tendency of airlines to charge seniors and kids different prices then adults, and for that matter patriotism) it therefore must be bad, but racism has no basis in the human character and no function in tight knit relationships.

To clarify, by "Sexism" I mean the tendency of people to hold the other gender, or its' perceived attributes, in contempt. I do not mean the tendency to discriminate in the workplace, sexually harass, or worse. These things are acts of Greed, Lust and Violence, are against human rights, law and public safety, and should always be illegal. The Sexism I mean is simply believing that the other (masculinity or feminity, or men or women) is inferior to your own. In other words, Sexism in your mind.

The reason I believe Sexism could be healthy is because it allows you to define yourself and have deep root in your own character, rather then a character imposed from outside. Assuming they practice sexism, masculine women and feminine men tend to look down on man and woman, while masculine men and feminine women tend to look down on the traits, femininity and masculinity, as masculine women and feminine men are criticized for not complying, and must hold their own against society and try to balance themselves, while feminine women and masculine men are defined within those traits and fight those who fight against them. I have no scientific studies on this, but my own personal experience seems to validate what my reason contrives.

It also creates a hierarchy of dominance within the family, preventing fights and working towards the happiness of all. You will have to be careful how you choose your mate, of course, but once you have selected one who is willing to be inferior, and wants to be taken care of, the rest should be easy. Further, as long as you are not trying to force this on someone who is not willing (which never works anyways) there really isn't a moral crime in it, as some people are genuinely weaker in character and want a big strong papa or mama bear who can take care of them. Avoid embarassing them in front of their friends, of course, but otherwise it seems mutually beneficial. I know a lot of strong families have stayed together this way.

Does this actually mean you have legitimate reason to look down on the other gender? No. But then again, can every country in the world really be the greatest?

Sex, Virginity and Raunchiness

Adam & Eve by Domenichino , Grenoble, Musee de Beaux Arts, courtesy wikimedia

Ah the good ole SVR! How thankful we are for thee. You break our hearts, intoxicate our minds, dominate our lives, give us wives and children and bequeath on us one of the greatest single pleasurable moments of existence. You are, in many ways, the essence of the flesh. We were born as a result of you and, for many of us, die inside through your obsession or are destroyed in horrific relationships seeking you. You are a humbler, a destroyer of dignity, something that sinks us to our lowest moments and we cannot open the door to let others see us in our horrific, grotesque perversions - but we're smiling anyways.

Some of the stupidest things people do as a result of sex. Walking the rails on cruiseships, crude indignified jokes, trouble with the law, pick-up lines, referring to genitalia by pet names, humiliating yourself in public places, submitting to strange satanic rituals, or, in some rare cases, even letting someone suck your blood or lock you in a cage. But sex can also be the center of true love, an almost mystic, magical experience between two people who truly love each other. It can be the deepest, most powerful relationship you ever have, something that builds you, strengthens you, defines you.

It can also be a cheap joke with the laugh on you, as denoted by the marker and pancake syrup on your face. I suppose lust can be an advertiser, something that forces you to get to know someone better and thus forge that true relationship, but it is a hard road, a painful road, one that I would not wish for anyone. Yes, there is a better way.

I know it is unfashionable to speak of monogamy in this day and age. Maybe that says something about this day and age. That close relationship can exist outside of marriage, but it is rare, and the fact that you have not been given to anyone else before does help in all ways. Marriage is about, more then anything, loyalty and sacrifice, and it is from great sacrifice that great commitment is forged. We live in a very superficial time where dignity is a non-issue, but a great joy comes from it, and I wish for those who read my blog a better way of life.

If you've already been engaged in raunchy behavior, and have lost your cherry, don't fear. Beyond the fact that it won't help, it is NOT impossible to find that deeper bond, it just becomes more difficult. For those who have not yet done such, I advise you to continue your current good behavior and look for love, not lust, in those you date.