a pithy primer on perfunctory primate pack politics

I have a question. When gas is $4 everyone blames Obama, but now it's under 3 and shouldn't those same people be praising him? Since, like, they think he's in charge of making the prices or something.

- @BDCThug (Twitter)

Well, you see, @BDCThug, you've made a common mistake. You are expecting there to be a consistent and rational line of thought behind the widespread Obama hatred. You are imagining, perhaps, civilized human beings, dressed in fine clothing adorned with pocket watch and cravat, reasonably discussing their beliefs.

Picture instead a group of rabid chimpanzees, beating their chests and flinging poo. The rational cerebrum that human beings possess is only used after the fact to justify this animalistic primate response, but it is not utilized to the point where they might realize how irrational and inconsistent they are, because then their entire belief bubble would pop.

This is not to say that there are not a host of perfectly good, valid and rational reasons to criticize and mistrust Obama -- in fact, many of them would apply straight across the board to ANY U.S. president -- but rather that most people seem to find it nigh impossible to articulate any of them, choosing instead to parrot whatever talking points the television has spoon-fed them this week.

So, when Barack Obama saluted the troops while holding a coffee, THIS MARXIST MUSLIM HAS NO RESPECT FOR OUR HEROES, but when George W. Bush saluted the troops while holding a dog, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE PRESIDENT?!?! HES A GOOD AMURCAN!!! USA! USA!

How does this relate to the price of gas? Well, when the price of gas went up, the television told the people that Barack Obama must be to blame, and so by gum he was to blame. Then when the price of gas went down, the television had moved on to a completely different and unrelated reason to hate Obama, and the people (who have the collective memory span of a hummingbird on methamphetamines) certainly would never remember to make that connection themselves.

But In The REAL Real World

People who talk about "the real world" fail to consider that that the world they believe to be real is a world that is almost entirely generated and created by the actions and mindsets of human beings. Who are capable of different actions and alternate mindsets. "The real world" is a meme in the classical sense of the term, an idea that exists to perpetuate itself. In talking about the existence of the "real world," they help to reinforce the idea and keep it alive a little longer.

On Hating Everyone

I hate everyone. But it's not that simple. I'm a complicated man (like John Shaft) so there are plenty of people for whom my emotions are more nuanced and detailed than just mere hate. I may love them too. Love and hate are not actually mutually exclusive. They often go hand in hand.

There's two kinds of reactions one gets when they say they hate everyone:

1. A shocked, hurt look. "Why... why do you hate me???" Obviously, I hate you because you ask dumb fucking questions like that. Okay? Now go slink into your sulk-hole and leave me alone.

2. A broad grin, possibly a thumbs up. "Oh, me too, me too! People fucking suck!" Me and this second stripe tend to get along famously. It's easier to love people that hate people. Is that irony, Alanis? You fucking moron?

The thing about hating everyone is that it's pure, and fair. Most people are very limited in their hate. They hate people of a different race, or a different sexual orientation. They hate people from different countries, or people who cheer for different sports franchises. They hate people with different politics or different religions. What a bunch of assholes. Hating everyone, on the other hand, is mathematically equivalent to loving everyone, and a fuck of lot easier to accomplish.

Loving everyone? Now that's hard. Because most people are stupid and annoying and entitled and helpless and rude and inconsiderate and thoughtless. If you can actually manage it, you might be an evolved soul like Jesus. Who was brutally killed. By people.

Batmans and Robins and Rankings

Dick Grayson might not have been the best Batman. Damien Wayne might not have been the best Robin. But, Dick and Damien together were the best Batman and Robin, with the Bruce Wayne/Tim Drake pairing as the second best Dynamic Duo. Number three, Batman One Million and Robin the Toy Wonder. The Bruce/Dick partnership, as classic as it was, pulls in at number four. Number five might be Bruce and Damien, or maybe Bruce and Carrie Kelley.

Earth Hater Heart

I've come to you today to preach the gospel of hate. Hate gets a very bad rap, doesn't it? It's about the one thing everyone can agree on, that hate is bad. Bad, bad, bad, so very bad indeed. Not like love, noooo. Love good! Hate, BAD!!!

Is hate a bad thing? So much of today's hatred is fueled by ignorance and pre-conception and clinging to old ways and beliefs, that it certainly seems unarguable that hate is bad. Racism, homophobia, sexism. Ignorant hate is terrible.

But not because it is hate. Because it is ignorant. Hate itself is a powerful motivator for change and it always has been, and presumably always will be.

We created medicines because we hate being sick.

We created vehicles because we hate walking everywhere.

We created society because we hate being alone.

Love? Love doesn't change a thing. Love accepts everything, just the way it is. If love had its way we would still be protoplasm floating without meaning in the primoridal soup. It's because of hate that change exists.

I don't know any of you, but I hate you all. And it's wonderful.

Maleficent trends

The movie Maleficent which opened recently seems to be an interesting confluence of a few recent unfortunate trends in modern pop culture storytelling. I'm thinking about it right now, so I will record these thoughts. The two trends in particular are the "dark re-imagining" of fairy tales, and the perceived need to explain villains away. Let's explore, shall we?

The DARK RE-IMAGINING of a CLASSIC FAIRY TALE
Alice In Wonderland got it. Little Red Riding Hood got it. Snow White got it TWICE in one year. Now it's Sleeping Beauty's turn. The DARK, GRITTY "re-imagining" of a fairy tale Disney property. This one is so ironic it is practically a cure for anemia. Because if you spend like five minutes doing the knowledge, you find out that fairy tales were FUCKED UP. Dark? That's not even the half of it. Read some of the original works sometime. Does the wolf eat Red Riding Hood in the end? Yes! Does Sleeping Beauty get raped? Yes! These were the prevailing myths of their era, and like any era's myths, reflective of the time they came from. And that time was FUCKED the FUCK UP to the FUCKED DEGREE.

And then, in the last century, Disney cleaned up all these gruesome, grisly, quite frankly disturbing stories into something that was "suitable for children" -- so out went all the violence, and the rape, and the murders, and the fucked up unhappily ever after endings, and the entire story of Bluebeard (because just TRY fitting THAT into the Disney formula) and in came the bright colors, and the catchy sing-songs, and the cute comic relief characters. And to entire generations who couldn't be bothered doing the five minutes of knowledge mentioned above, those ARE what fairy tales are. Not gruesome time capsules of a far less civilized era. Cutesy, and magical, and princess-erific.

Now, in this century, with the culture's obsession with DARK and GRITTY, those cutesy colorful sanitized sing-along stories have no place. They seem strangely irrelevant. So instead we now have the wholly modern "dark re-imagining" that is entirely ignorant of how very dark the originals' imagining could be in the first place. Maleficent falls squarely into this trend. Go back and read Charles Perrault's Sleeping Beauty. Then watch Angelina Jolie ham it up with enhanced cheekbones against a green screen. I'm just saying.

The SAD BACKSTORY of a CLASSIC VILLAIN
Ah, villains. They don't make them like they used to. Time was, you could just be deliciously evil and chew up scenery for the sake of being deliciously evil and chewing up scenery. Now every villain has to have a thoroughly dumb origin story that EXPLAINS why they're so deliciously evil and prone to chewing scenery. Darth Vader is sad because he misses his mommy. Hannibal Lecter is sad because Nazis ate his little sister. Boba Fett is sad because his dad got his head cut off. Dracula is sad because his wife is dead. The Wicked Witch Of The West is sad because... I don't remember, actually. It's been a long time since I read that book. My point is, everyone is sad, sad, sad. So sad! Maleficent is just the latest victim of the "needs an explanation for the evulz" trend.

Now, I'm not against villains with well-rounded, fully-sketched out characters and a clear motivation for their villainy. Magneto, for example, is a villain who cannot survive without his ties to the Holocaust, and specifically being sad because of said Holocaust. Frankenstein's Monster was always infused with tragic motivations for his monstrous deeds. But Darth Vader, man? Hannibal Lecter? Come on! Can't evil just be evil for the sake of being evil? Especially in stories that aren't meant to be realistic psychological studies of human nature but are intended as pure escapism? Just let them chew the damn scenery already! And now we have poor Maleficent, seemingly the last of the classic melodramatic evil mold, given a backstory that explains why she too is sad, so very sad indeed.

On second thought, it's just as well Bluebeard has been utterly forgotten. Because otherwise he'd probably be next in line with a dark re-imagining that explains why he, like his beard, is so blue.

Cogito Ergo Some?

I've boiled down what I know to "something seems to be experiencing something." The first something is me, or my mind, or my soul, or my ego, or my consciousness, or whatever. The second something is everything else that I seem to be experiencing: all of it.

Except that I am not actually a THING, a static noun, I am a verb, a motion, a wave; and all that goes double-plus for what I seem to be experiencing. It is a multitude of things that are not things, breaking off, coming together, interacting in infinitely predictable yet also infinitely novel ways.

Another problem with the idea of boiling it down to two somethings (or two some-not-a-things) is that there is actually only one thing. And, of course, that it is not a thing at all per se.

Plus: the very use of the verb "to be" is always suspect, hard as it is to avoid. (See?)

So... I don't actually know ANYTHING, do I?

Two Americas

America was founded by religious nuts looking to get away from the religious nuts in their original countries. This double whammy of religious nut-ism has led to there being functionally two different Americas today: the one that was founded by religious nuts; and the one that was founded as an escape from the influence of religious nuts. Today these two Americas are often called "conservative" and "liberal."

Love, and the Axe

Kids, I'm going to impart some wisdom to you that no one ever imparted to me and I had to figure it out for myself. Maybe I can pass it on to someone who can be saved the trouble.

Life is finite. Anyone, ANYONE, that is not willing or not able to love you for who you are, must be cut out of your life or have their impact on your life minimized to the greatest possible extent. Anyone. Your parents. Your children. Your wife or husband. The mother or father of your children. Your oldest childhood friends. Anyone. At. All. Must be cut out of your life if they cannot love you for who you are.

I'm not saying to be mean about it. I'm not saying to be melodramatic. You don't have to hate them, or be angry with them. You don't have to say horrible hurtful things to them. You don't even necessarily need to let them know they've been cut out. Just, cut them out. If it hurts them, that is not on you.

Life is short, and then it is over. Surround yourself with people that love you for who you are. More importantly, love yourself for who you are. Life is short, too short for anything else.

Astrology Made Sensible

It's real simple. Everything is cyclical, and 99% of free will is an illusion. The same patterns keep playing out, like a fractal on a treadmill. By and large, people born at THIS position in the cycle are more likely to have THESE traits and go through THESE events, as opposed to people born at OTHER positions in the cycle. Now, there's also a lot of random noise, and the 1% of free will that does exist is by nature unpredictable, so even the best and most accurate astrology can never be anything more than a series of guideposts. In ancient times, when things were less complicated and individual will had less power, the patterns were clearer, clear enough to mark off by the stars they saw in the sky. But like the story of the finger pointing at the moon, they confused the stars as INDICATORS of what position the cycle was in with the stars as the DETERMINATOR of what position the cycle was in. And most people are dumb and uneducated, and 99% of free will is an illusion. Which brings us to today. And so ends today's lesson.