Lupe Fiasco

Here are the verses to Lupe Fiasco’s song, “Words I Never Said.”

I really think the war on terror is a bunch of bullshit
Just a poor excuse for you to use up all your bullets
How much money does it take to really make a full clip
9/11 building 7 did they really pull it
Uhh, And a bunch of other cover ups
Your childs future was the first to go with budget cuts
If you think that hurts then, wait here comes the uppercut
The school was garbage in the first place, thats on the up and up
Keep you at the bottom but tease you with the uppercrust
You get it then they move you so you never keeping up enough
If you turn on TV all you see’s a bunch of “what the f-cks”
Dude is dating so and so blabbering bout such and such
And that aint Jersey Shore, homie thats the news
And these the same people that supposed to be telling us the truth
Limbaugh is a racist, Glenn Beck is a racist
Gaza strip was getting bombed, Obama didn’t say shit
Thats why I aint vote for him, next one either
I’ma part of the problem, my problem is I’m peaceful
And I believe in the people.

Now you can say it aint our fault if we never heard it
But if we know better than we probably deserve it
Jihad is not a holy war, wheres that in the worship?
Murdering is not Islam!
And you are not observant
And you are not a muslim
Israel don’t take my side cause look how far you’ve pushed them
Walk with me into the ghetto, this where all the Kush went
Complain about the liquor store but what you drinking liquor for?
Complain about the gloom but when’d you pick a broom up?
Just listening to Pac aint gone make it stop
A rebel in your thoughts, aint gon make it halt
If you don’t become an actor you’ll never be a factor
Pills with million side effects
Take em when the pains felt
Wash them down with Diet soda!
Killin off your brain cells
Crooked banks around the World
Would gladly give a loan today
So if you ever miss payment
They can take your home away!

I think that all the silence is worse than all the violence
Fear is such a weak emotion thats why I despise it
We scared of almost everything, afraid to even tell the truth
So scared of what you think of me, I’m scared of even telling you
Sometimes I’m like the only person I feel safe to tell it to
I’m locked inside a cell in me, I know that there’s a jail in you
Consider this your bailing out, so take a breath, inhale a few
My screams is finally getting free, my thoughts is finally yelling through

How can anyone not love this album? These lyrics exist. Yeah a black rapper is smarter than you, even though you were subliminally raised to think that was impossible (A hat tip to lil Wayne on that one, and the fact that all the images you ever saw of black males were overwhelmingly negative).

Maybe instead of thinking of ways to trick your professors into giving you a passing grade or taking enough Adderall for an A, (I’m just as guilty as anyone), college should just be spent listening to Lupe Fiasco. We wouldn’t know as much about calculus, but the world would be a little less ignorant, a little less racist, and a little more thoughtful (And hopefully even a little more pro-Palestinian).

Here’s an interview with Lupe Fiasco being awesome.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhKC6zz885UUs3E0xx

Sorry for the rant. Today is a passionate day.

Donald Trump Could be the Next President of the United States of America

I have a friend who lives in a house with three roommates. They decided to look for subletters recently. I don’t know what reasons were behind their decision to seek more roommates, but in any case they decided collectively to seek one or more additional tenants.

Now, one incumbent roommate, we’ll refer to her as Barbara, found a subletter fairly quickly. My friend greeted this news with enthusiasm; why wouldn’t she, her rent just decreased by 20% in her mind. But Barbara had different ideas. Her logic worked to rationalize that, since she found a subletter, she no longer needed to pay rent. There would still be four roommates paying rent, just like before. In her mind, she did her part, no one had to pay MORE, and so there was nothing wrong with her living rent free from that point on.

It is FAIR for Barbara to continue paying rent while she lives in the same house, and to split the rent five ways instead of four, saving everyone money.

But Barbara is not concerned with saving her roommates money. She is concerned with saving herself more money. She will say to her housemates, “Find yourself a subletter, than you won’t have to pay rent, either.”

Barbara denied her housemate’s an opportunity for increased financial flexibility, in favor of greatly increasing her own. And then she rationalizes this by championing her own ability to find a subletter. Does this sound familiar? It should. This is how the rich keep the poor poor. They do not take from the poor. They merely keep the poor where they are, and profit from them.

They rationalize this oppression by saying, “Stop complaining and get a job.” Find your own subleaser.

If only it were that easy. If only the real world had a level playing field like my friend’s housing situation. My friend can, in fact, find a sub leaser and stop paying rent if she wanted to.

The real word is far harsher. Say you grow up in a low income family. You didn’t choose to be poor, this was just the situation you were born into. You probably live in a low income neighborhood. You have access to less quality education. You can’t afford to go to college, nor are you educated well enough to succeed if you could. Without a degree, only low paying jobs with no opportunity for advancement are available to you. Say you are of average intellect and creativity, and you don’t really stand out in any way. How is it possible for you to attain “The American Dream?” You can probably hold down your low paying job, you might even be able to support a family if you are extremely responsible with your money and life choices.

But God help you if you make a mistake somewhere along the line. If you become a parent before you’re financially able to support a child. If you resort to criminal activity as an alternative to starvation. If you develop an addiction you can’t really afford to have. If you become sick, or disabled. If any of these things befall you, by your own imperfections as a person or by random chance, your options dwindle. Welfare can help you, but social safety nets are increasingly under fire by people like Barbara, who will say that America is the land of opportunity, that if she did it, why can’t you? She will tell you to stop whining and get a job, and point to examples of “rags to riches” Americans who overcame what you’re facing. Without considering that perhaps those examples of “great Americans” were incredible people with some combination of remarkable creativity, intellect, or determination.

And to add insult to injury, Barbara implies that she has those qualities, and that is why she has a nice job, and a German car, and her kids go to private school.

Barbara grew up in a middle class neighborhood. Her family wasn’t wealthy, but they could afford name brand cereal. She received a quality education, and even though her intellect and creativity were only average, she was able to get good grades in school because her parents expected her to. This, as well as her family’s ability to afford college, allowed her to attend a decent university, the University of Minnesota. She worked hard in college, and graduated with a degree.

She was not without some hiccups along the way. She developed a dependence on the drug, Adderall, and had to take a semester off and spend time in treatment. Her family was able to afford to put her into a treatment facility, and she recovered. Her friends and family called her “brave” for overcoming her addiction and earning a degree.

She became pregnant at one point, but was able to afford a safe abortion. She said it, “Was the hardest decision I ever had to make.”

She made friends in college and one of them set her up with a great internship right after graduation. She called this friend a whore behind her back.

Within a few years, Barbara was making more than 60,000 dollars annually. She credits her success to hard work and determination. Her parents are proud of her. “She’s overcome so much.”

If you’re Barbara the sky is the limit. If you’re poor, the limit is the sky.

This myth that the playing field is equal, that anyone can be successful, that if you’re great you’ll be rewarded, is deeply tied into our subconscious. So much so, that a large section of this country believes in taxing the rich LESS in proportion to the poor. They expect us to believe that the rich having more money to spend will result in that wealth trickling down to the poor. That cutting funding for social safety nets will help the poor. Because not having the option of government assistance will force them to seek the American dream.

But what can the poor say about this? They have no voice, no representation. And since when do they have time to make political messages? They have to work three jobs just to avoid starvation.

While the poor get their meager incomes taxed, the businesses people like Barbara own are getting tax breaks. They say these tax benefits are “funding innovation.” It’s a reward for ingenuity. As if there is no ingenuity to be found in the poor classes. It all comes back to the rich rationalizing that since they are rich, they are inherently better than poor people. Social Darwinism. It certainly is a comfortable feeling, that if you’re successful, you are because of your own merit, not the random chance of you being born into an upper middle class white family.

Oh yes, not being white puts you even further behind the eight ball. Good luck getting employed if you have an afro, or a very dark complexion. White employers associate these traits with violence and crime. If you’re a minority race, you better cut your hair and act like Al Roker or Mario Lopez, or you’ll be deemed too dangerous and different to find quality employment. In other words, you can be successful as a minority race, but it’s even more important for you to have a college degree, and how successful you are is unfortunately tied in pretty closely with how white you act.

There are some affirmative action programs designed to make up for this imbalance. But Barbara opposes these, too. She says, “If they really want equality, they should have the same shot as me. Nothing should be given to them.”

And then Barbara will say that we need to “secure our borders,” because otherwise cheap Mexican labor will take all the jobs away from hardworking Americans. Which jobs? Not Barbara’s job; you need to speak English and have a college degree for that.

No matter how serious politicians say they are about tightening up border security, isn’t it odd that illegal immigrants just keep coming? Almost as if those with money and power see some sort of benefit in hiring people that work for less and don’t require fancy add-ons to their employment like health insurance, wage increases and maternity leave.

Yeah, Barbara hires illegal immigrants. Oh, maybe she doesn’t. But the people she hires do. And she saves a pretty penny. And guess what? The poor actually don’t benefit from this.

But Barbara will say she didn’t take anything from these poor people. They don’t have to pay more rent because of her hiring illegals.

Barbara doesn’t see what they’re so pissed about, either. After all, she does volunteer at a soup kitchen.

It’s a dog eat dog world, she says. If she can save 300 dollars a month, she will, even it comes at the expense of others. Especially when these savings are institutionalized.

The Republican budget proposal includes 6 trillion dollars worth of cuts over the next ten years, with much of those savings coming by completely overhauling Medicare and Medicaid, which provide assistance to, guess who, the elderly and poor, respectively. Also in the proposal is a reform cutting corporate and personal income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, slicing the top rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. This will cost the government trillions in tax revenue.

This accomplishes three things:

1) Makes the poor poorer.

2) Makes the rich richer.

3) Does not solve the budget crisis.

This is real.

Independent Thought, Pesticides, and ADHD

Conspiracy theories are almost always idiotic. Surely the Watergate scandal gave credence to many crazy theorists; it was proof that the government really did go behind people’s backs and wasn’t just capable of being corrupt, but truly was. However, I never give conspiracy theories much thought, even though it is amusing at times to imagine them containing even the smallest nugget of truth.

While I like to stay grounded in reality, I do like to theorize, so the following is my attempt at a marginally plausible conspiracy theory. It has to do with several things I have strong opinions about, notably American laziness, over diagnosing of mental illness, and thinking independently. Here it is.

There was a study I looked at recently which pointed out a relationship between pesticides used in food and being diagnosed with ADHD. The study found that out of 1,139 children, the ones exposed to byproducts of the pesticide were about twice as likely to develop ADHD than those who weren’t exposed.

In addition, it is increasingly simple to be diagnosed with ADHD. This could be attributed to a greedy pharmaceutical industry, or the need for people to deflect blame for their shortcomings (procrastination, lack of focus) and to seek medication for something that isn’t necessarily wrong with them, but part of their personality. With the latter example, I’m more or less also alluding to when people with colorful personalities are given medication to “even them out.”

But what if those were minor factors, and the most significant reason for the increase in diagnosing ADHD is that ADHD is simply on the rise in people. Or rather, it isn’t that there has been an increase in diagnosing ADHD, but an actual increase in people with it. And pesticides could be a part of that increase.

Now what does ADHD do to people? Well, it makes it very hard for them to focus. They may jump from activity to activity, conversation to conversation, and generally have very limited attention spans. And furthermore, it seems that in our globalized world, those with limited attention spans are being catered to. Newspapers are in decline, because fewer people want to spend the time to actually read an article. Pundits like Glenn Beck are increasingly popular. The internet is on the rise as a source of information, as well. Blogs are still rising in popularity. What do these factors have in common? They present news, but also what to think of the news that is presented. Old fashioned news was supposed to be shown in a way that allowed the reader/viewer to formulate their own opinions about the story. Now that emphasis is less and less important in the market for news. Writing a story about a bank robbery isn’t marketable. But writing one that places the blame on someone or something in a politically charged way is both juicy and extremely marketable. Maybe a journalist would say that Obama’s tax increases are driving more and more people to crime, and to robbing banks in particular, and that this represents the sorry state of Obama’s America. Does this sound familiar? People have such short attention spans these days that hardly anyone even bothers to look at their tax forms and realize that their taxes have been cut under Obama (34% of Americans believe their taxes have increased under Obama. 95% of working people have had their taxes reduced).

But infotainment, as it were, has prospered in this era of ever accessible information. Glenn Beck himself claims to not believe all of what he preaches, and admits that the words he says have a price on them. The more outrageous his statements, the more money he makes. And yet Americans eat all of this quasi news up. In our hectic schedules, it’s far easier to be told what to think, than to actually think.

I remember when I was a kid, sitting in the computer lab and typing up some sort of writing assignment. After you had printed the project, obviously you would exit out of the program and shut down the computer. Those were our instructions. I remember looking around and hearing kid after kid raise their hand feverishly into the air to ask, “It says ‘are you sure you want to shut down!’ Do I click OK??” Basically any wrench thrown into the plans of these kids, no matter if that wrench was insignificant as a simple yes or no, threw them into a panic.

I’m not sure what created this phenomenon. Perhaps it is that so much of K-12 education is memorization and not actual critical thinking skills. Perhaps it is that there is such an emphasis on the what, as opposed to the why. Imagine these scenarios:

Okay kids, I want you to add 1+4+5+3+7+3+5

Okay kids, I want you to add up the ages of the 7 kids in this problem and find the total, in order to gauge your ability to perform addition.

The first scenario is what I’ve been talking about. The kids may very well be able to add those seven numbers together, but when they are given a similar problem later, and not told the exact steps, they may not be able to complete the problem. They know how to complete the process, but they don’t understand the overall objective.

In the second scenario, the kids are taught what their objective is; to find the sum of the seven ages. They may not succeed at first, but once they figure out that to find sums, you have to add up all the numbers, I would guarantee they would be more successful than the kids in scenario 1 in solving future problems. They might also find different ways to come to the same conclusion. Perhaps they can eyeball the average age and then multiply that by seven. Or add in clusters. The important thing is that they are learning how to problem solve.

The kids in scenario 1 are being told what to think.

The kids in scenario 2 are being taught how to think for themselves.

Perhaps the kids in these scenarios have a high propensity towards ADHD. Can’t you imagine a teacher not even bothering with the second scenario, seeing this hyperactive kid who can’t focus, and saying, “Okay kid, it’s not hard. Just add these numbers up.” The kid completed the problem, the teacher didn’t have to go through the arduous process of getting an ADHD kid to understand the broader objective behind a math problem, and everything seems fine, right? Well the kid basically had someone else do the problem for him. He might know how to add, but he doesn’t understand situations where addition would be needed, and he doesn’t understand figuring out problems himself.

Now this kid, let’s call him Jimmy, because hypothetical children are always called Jimmy in my mind, grows up. He was taught to write essays in 5 paragraph form, and he can, but he doesn’t understand why that organization is useful in expressing his arguments, he would never bother trying to think of a more useful essay format and he often writes very incoherently. He knows the scientific formula, and can perform it, but he couldn’t tell you why it’s important in coming to scientific conclusions, and he’ll never apply it to real life. He can follow instructions in building a model airplane, but there is no chance that he could come up with his own ways to make the airplane better. Jimmy has a job, and does what his boss tells him, even if what his boss says leads to lower productivity. He doesn’t know the difference between whether what he’s doing is inefficient, wasteful, smart, or that if he made some slight alteration he could save his company millions. He’ll tell you he’s just trying to do his job.

Jimmy probably doesn’t care about the news or politics, nor does he follow them. Now if I was a political campaign manager, or ran a news company, wouldn’t it be easier and more beneficial for me to cater to people like Jimmy than to play the game the old fashioned way? I could shout from my podium something like, Obama isn’t an American citizen, knowing that statement will make news, despite it being totally untrue. When it makes news, Jimmy hears about it. He doesn’t care enough to look deeper into the issue; I am who formerly were his teachers and his bosses, telling him what to think. That broad, untrue statement about Obama’s country of origin becomes what Jimmy knows about politics. And certainly any foreigner doesn’t belong in the white house, so Jimmy pledges his support to me. Maybe the injustice of a foreigner in the white house stirs up emotion within him. So maybe he even goes to rallies. Jimmy becomes these people.

Going back to the conspiracy theory origins of this essay, I suppose I should state my original hypothesis. That being, if pesticides in food cause more ADHD, and more ADHD leads to less independent thought in children on through to adulthood, could there be a link between the use of pesticides and susceptibility to being manipulated by corporations and politicians? Would it not be advantageous, from a political and economic standpoint, to create a nation of unfocused drones who would rather have others tell them what to think than to think independently? Wouldn’t it be easier to tell them what to buy, how to act, who to vote for?

Basically it’s advantageous for those who rule, for their citizens to not think independently. Parents don’t want their children to think for themselves, either, they want to think for them. No Billy, don’t go adventuring in the woods, you’ll get hurt! Who cares if you might gain valuable life experience. Just because there is a slight chance that Billy might learn about new things and have to react instinctually and in ways he hasn’t been formally instructed in, doesn’t override the potential danger. I’m sure most parents would like their kids to think for themselves, but it simply can’t be put above the child’s own safety, because no parent wants to see their child in danger.

And if Billy is ADHD, that gives even more incentive to the parent to keep their kid safe. I feel this is a trend with the current generation of parents. They want to give their child every opportunity. They don’t care about whether Billy learns how to apply mathematics, they just want him to be able to do it, so he can get straight A’s, and go to a good college, where he can get a business degree and makes lots of money in his life, so that they can retire comfortably. The fact that Billy is hardly a person is secondary. He has the skills to function like a person, so lacking the ability to actually be one doesn’t matter.

I recently took a class designed for student leaders (I’m not one; I had to take it as punishment. Long story). One day, when studying ethics, we were given a scenario where a man, whose wife was dying of cancer, had to make a decision on whether he should break into a lab and steal a potential antidote.  We were asked, would you steal it? To my shock, about half the class said no. They did not consider that the wife would certainly die if they didn’t steal; they were concerned with breaking the law. All their lives, they had been told that stealing is wrong. They never delved deeper into asking why stealing was wrong, they just accepted the conventional wisdom that stealing is bad. So let’s delve deeper. To steal rattles the foundations of a stable society. If stealing was okay, then it would be impossible to run an effective business. Thus, any enlightened society would make stealing illegal. It shouldn’t be allowed because, if widespread, it creates anarchy. The surface value about stealing just says it’s bad. But would isolated theft in times of life or death situations truly upset the very foundations of a functioning society? I would say probably not, but that isn’t something I can know for sure. If someone were to say that the rhetoric behind stealing being accepted in times of life or death can easily be stretched by criminals and eventually lead to anarchy anyway, that would be a way in which someone could independently come to the conclusion that stealing is wrong under any circumstance. But the fact that half the class couldn’t find a difference between stealing for profit and stealing to save a life is the value of independent thought. Their reasoning all centered around stealing being wrong, and them having a firm commitment to never breaking the law. I’m not saying that everyone who said they would steal in the scenario is an independent thinker, or that everyone who said they wouldn’t, isn’t. But this situation does shed light on the fact that a lot of people wouldn’t think for themselves and would actually put the law above their own family in life or death situations as a result.

Isn’t that a scary thought? But again, isn’t that advantageous to a government? If putting pesticides in food leads to more people putting the law above their own families, couldn’t you see the rationale behind a government giving the go ahead to putting mind altering chemicals in food? If people place their loyalty to the law and not their family, then that could feasibly reduce crime.

But if you turn your own mother in for committing a crime (Assuming it wasn’t against another family member), then what is the value of being a family? If your allegiance lies with the government and not those who you love, then that strikes me as traitorous. The government does a lot of good things for people, but it didn’t raise you, it didn’t give you identity, it didn’t bring you into the world. And I think most people, thinking independently, would think the same way.

I know this essay has become rather pompous, as it might seem as though I am saying that I am capable of thinking independently and no one else is. I assure you that this not the case. I grapple between thinking for myself and for other entities just like anyone. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of independent thought out in the world. Albert Einstein was a great independent thinker. I find a lot of comedians think independently. Those who invent and create generally have independent minds. Are they pompous, or are they rare gems in a sea of conventional wisdom?

But isn’t the allegation of pomposity partly what makes independent thought so rare? If someone came up to you and told you to reject conventional wisdom and think for yourself, you’d tell them to get real and stop being a self-important asshole, dirty hippie.

But if it comes down to being considered an asshole or thinking for myself, I think the answer is pretty obvious. And I hope I don’t have to tell you which it is. See what I did there?

My actual thoughts on indie/hipsterdom that don’t involve mercilessly bashing them behind baseless rhetoric and played out cliches

I must apologize for my rather outlandish accusations against the hipster phenomena. I wrote a poem about them once on this very weblog, lambasting them for revolting against the mainstream in a completely self-serving way. I’ve decided it’s important for me to reconsider these sentiments, and to approach the hipster revolution more thoughtfully. What created it? Why has it become a lightning rod for criticism? How can hipsters and humans live in harmony, together? I believe I may have a hypothesis that could explain a lot. To illustrate what I’m saying more clearly, I’m going to focus on the music aspect of hipster culture as representation of the movement as a whole. You might not agree with that, but bear with me.

I, personally, have always been against the mainstream. Perhaps this was because I felt I wouldn’t be accepted in the mainstream, and thus I identified with counterculture, and at a very early age (And I must point out that this is one of the central tenants of supposed hipster culture; saying you were there first. Critics of hipsterdom love to accuse hipsters of this tactic, whether or not it was meant as a tactic or is simply true). It has always been hard for me to like what everyone else likes. Hell I hated Barney & Friends when I was a toddler for that very reason. Does this make me a hipster? That would depend on your definition (It certainly made me an ornery little bastard), but if that did make me a hipster, then I am one by birth and genetics and haven’t become one to seem better than anyone, as hipster critics like to think.

I now do a radio show sporadically throughout the school year. Before each show I select a playlist of 6-8 songs to play during the show. Recently, some friends of mine became enamored with the new OneRepublic album and gave it to me. Now, OneRepublic is a band typically listened to by angsty teenagers, and since the world is full of angsty teenagers, the band is quite popular. A few of their songs play at the grocery store where I work. I listened to some of the album, and found that one of their songs, All the Right Moves was particularly catchy, and also had that lush, epic quality you sometimes hear when bands take themselves too seriously and throw a bunch of instruments together. I love that, for whatever reason. I love having several simmering, soaring melodies come together, however campy they may be, to create a truly memorable song. This is what is referred to as a guilty pleasure song in many circles. Why guilty? I suppose because the target demographic is generally younger than you are, and it’s like playing with a toy when you’re 9 years old that says recommended for ages 6-8. I have no problem playing a so called guilty pleasure song, because to me that reveals a charming innocence in people. That the reason they like the song isn’t because of how people will perceive them, but because they genuinely like it.

Anyway, I was about to submit this song as part of my playlist, until I became informed that All the Right Moves is played on top 40 stations. When this is the case, the song moves beyond guilty pleasure territory and into embarrassment territory. Because the song was out of my target demographic, and beyond that, was the most popular song on the album, I was legitimately embarrassed to play it on the air. Why? Perhaps partly since I don’t identify as being able to fit into the mainstream, and thus would be somewhat of an imposter listening to it. Imagine a geeky 13 year old listening to Rihanna while playing World of Warcraft. That’s a legitimately funny image. That’s how I would feel playing an angsty top 40 song on the radio.

I’m wondering if maybe I’m not the only one who thinks in this way.  Maybe hipster culture rejects the mainstream not because they feel superior to it, but because they are insecure in their ability to fit into it. I feel that could very well be the core of hipsterdom. But no hipster would admit to that. They would point to the rationalization aspect, where hipsters claim to reject the mainstream and embrace counterculture because the counterculture is more authentic, not because of any sort of insecurity. I mean, who can deny the way that pop musicians are manufactured nowadays?( I almost hesitate to write this paragraph, simply because I doubt any supposed hipster would admit to such an insecurity) By embracing musicians who weren’t manufactured, and rose out of obscurity, seemingly by merit, the hipster sees him or herself as more authentic. This masks the self-doubt and replaces it with a newfound confidence. Which might lead to a conversation like this:

Hey have you listened to Weezy’s new album?

Wayne Carter is a creation of the media and corporations. You should listen to Beirut, it was formed by one guy in his bedroom using influences from Eastern Europe and Balkan folk music.

You are such a snob!

And you listen to bad music.

There lies an exaggerated representation of the tensions between mainstream and hipster culture. Those in the mainstream suspect the hipster to be, to put it bluntly, full of shit. And that notion has some credence, since the hipster is masking their own insecurity with a self-righteous bravado (Again, certainly not true of all hipsters; this article is merely a hypothesis). However, in a lot of cases the hipster truly believes that his or her music is legitimately better. And since it comes from purer origins and is less influenced by money or record labels (At least initially), they have every right to think that. Particularly when the mainstream continues to generate music that no one thinks is ‘good.’ ‘Good’ meaning well crafted, meaningful, sung well etc. You need not look further than Ke$ha or Soulja Boy to find examples of this. These artists do not succeed based on creating good music (And they would not claim that themselves most likely), but by marketing themselves properly and creating melodies that are catchy, stay in your head, and sound amazing when intoxicated. And who is to say that music isn’t allowed to be that way? But when this type of music exists, it lends additional credence to hipsters claiming their music to be ‘better.’

However, it must be noted that often the music of hipster culture is sometimes considered ‘good’ based on the reputation of the genre, more than the actual song. Sometimes a song is considered great despite awful vocals, weak instrumentals, repetitive lyrics, and a complete lack of mel0dy. But the song is ‘great’ because it sounds like nothing ever has before. Now the song is ‘innovative’ and ‘groundbreaking.’ To be perfectly frank, I would rather listen to Chris Brown any day than absorb that kind of garbage. And of course, I’m talking about the New York based band, Battles, who compose songs that sound like they are sung by Disney squirrels and have absolutely no substance to speak of.

Moving on, Indie music was a commonly thrown about term from oh.. 2004-2008. The term originated with bands that weren’t signed to record labels and released their music independently. But when those bands became popular, with the hipster movement gaining strength and social networking websites plus youtube allowing additional exposure for new artists, those bands were in fact signed to labels and did not release their music independently. So indie became a genre, albeit perhaps the most broad, vague genre that has ever existed. To those who described the indie genre as ‘full of whiny vocals, distortion and acoustic guitar,’ others would bring up dozens of legitimate ‘indie’ bands that did not come close to matching that description. That is why in many people’s estimation and my own, indie music is considered dead. This is why, up to this paragraph, I have not used the word ‘indie.’ Just to clarify.

A disturbing trend is when a hipster band moves into mass popularity, such as Kings of Leon, and its original fan base cries foul. No matter what sort of music the band will now produce, it will never be seen as nearly as pure as the music it first produced, because now its ‘popular.’ Mainstreamers see this concept as total bullshit. If they’re the same band, you should be happy that you witnessed them rise to mass appeal and stardom. But to hipsters, this marks a betrayal. The band has crossed over from being one of them, to being a part of the culture that they don’t feel they can fit into. They say the music becomes worse after this transition, and maybe sometimes it does, but it isn’t about the music anymore, it’s about abandonment. Have I myself experienced this feeling? Admittedly not, but I will say I found it extremely easy to tear Use Somebody to shreds after hearing it on KDWB.

So let’s review. My theory is that people become insecure in their ability to fit into mainstream culture, and reject the mainstream in favor of hipsterdom. They then create rationale for their rejection of popular music culture based around the quality of music being better in hipster culture than in mainstream culture, which can be a valid point, given the examples of Ke$ha and Soulja Boy. This however is a mask of their true insecurity (No matter how much they truly believe in their music), which those in the mainstream culture may view as being fake, snobby etc.  When bands that originated in hipster culture become popular and market themselves towards the mainstream, there is a chance that the hipsters who initially supported them will feel resentment and abandonment towards the band.

By now you may be wondering what my point is. It starts with the thought that perhaps society can be a little more accepting of hipsters. I suppose I’ve noticed how hipster bashing, as it were, has become increasingly popular, particularly in America. They are easy targets, because they appear purist, elitist and self-righteous. But if my hypothesis is right, and I by no means am guaranteeing that it is, they are simply insecure about their ability to fit in, and are merely trying to disguise that weakness by gravitating towards a culture that feels the same way. The hipster culture is merely a means of gaining confidence for these people, and there is merit to a lot of hipster music that does stand in contrast to some popular top 40 acts.

But hipsters themselves should be more tolerant, as well. Just because something is popular, doesn’t mean it’s ‘bad.’ There is plenty of popular music today that is just as good as prime hipster fare. In a lot of cases, that is a large part of the reason why popular music is popular. And rejecting something simply based on it being too popular is very irrational, stubborn, and will surely lead to missing out on music that might otherwise turn out to be very quality. For me, I would have missed out on that one OneRepublic song had I continued the ways of my stubborn past and insisted on only listening to M83 and the like. So yes, my hipster brethren, I like a OneRepublic song that is played on the radio. Shoot me. It’s okay to like music based on the culture around it, if that’s your thing. It’s okay to like music because it’s catchy and sounds great when you’re wasted. It’s okay to like music because it originated in some kid’s head after listening to Balkan folklore, just as much as it’s okay to like a band because the lead singer is hot, the bass guitar is awesome, or the lyrics are thoughtful and politically charged. I feel like this whole tension over hipster culture versus mainstream culture has a lot to do with people being intolerant of the reasons that people like certain types of music. My two cents is merely this: shut the hell up about why you like it, who is going to judge you for liking it, why it’s better than what other people like, and focus on just liking it.

How, Socialism?

Albert Einstein wrote an article entitled Why Socialism in 1949. In it he, naturally, advocated a socialist form of government. I myself have long dreamed of living in a socialist society, but have become more aware by the day of that impossibility considering where I live, The United States of America. For whatever reason, the article sparked in me a series of questions I felt impassioned to delve into. What has caused socialism to become so unpopular in our culture? What has made it synonymous with the concept of anti-Americanism? What steps can be taken to someday institute socialist reforms in America? So many questions, but luckily, I had time.

Let us begin at the root of the problem: capitalism, and the corresponding desire for massive amounts of wealth. It is a desire of the people of capitalist societies to accumulate such wealth so as they can afford any good, service, and lifestyle they desire, of whatever quantity. It is a selfish notion, rationalized with ideas of supporting ones family, seeking the American dream, and living a comfortable lifestyle. We are adamant against losing the possibility of not attaining such wealth that we can move beyond what is ‘comfortable.’ We feel that opportunities are missed when we don’t attain such wealth, that we don’t ‘get’ all there is to ‘get’ from life. We are brought down by the notion of the American dream, which is to us a completely economic notion and one inherently married with capitalism.

Americanism, and its like-minded cousin, patriotism, are rooted in mob mentality. In America, we tie in this concept of the American dream with being American, with being patriotic, which is a value supported more in groups than individually, particularly after 9/11. To not have the possibility of achieving an ‘American dream,’ is un-American, unpatriotic, and unsupported in our culture. Therefore, any system of governance which limits the ability of an individual to accumulate infinite amounts of wealth is scorned with vengeance.  When in solitude, it is unlikely for an individual to reflect on their patriotism, and to necessarily cherish it. In groups, however, it is profoundly taboo to demonize, or to understate the importance of, patriotism in any way. To champion it is to gain instantaneous support; therefore it is tacked on to other issues. Once the label of patriotism is applied to an issue, the issue’s opposition is stuck in the position where it can’t utilize the same label, and risks additionally being ascribed as un-American.

What is it that makes patriotism such a cherished value in our society? When the concept of ‘love of one’s country’ is brought up, we as Americans are conditioned to accept that idea as infallibly good. Part of why patriotism is so beloved is that people like something to unite under. They like that a large umbrella such as national pride can override smaller scale disputes among us. That people on opposite ends of political spectrums can put aside their differences in moments of national tradition.

I had an experience in middle school that might shed some light on the origins of patriotism, and why it has gotten out of control in our society. I played the trumpet, and sometimes had disputes with my fellow players. Sometimes I sat behind others who I felt I had more talent than, or scoffed when demeaned by those better than I. But when we played together, and we really played well, I felt such a rush of pride and felt infinitely united with my fellow band mates. My disputes with the others melted away, and it was a profound and great feeling to experience. That feeling went unspoken, however, and if it was indeed felt by my fellow band members, I couldn’t say. But imagine, if you will, that after we had played our song so triumphantly, that I verbalized all that I had felt during the song; the pride and unity I felt with the band. Perhaps some would agree with, and empathize with that notion. But what if someone else in the band articulated that they felt a stronger sense of pride and unity than I had? That is precisely what patriotism has become in America. One cannot dismiss the feelings I felt playing that song as any way negative. So instead, in competition, others jostle for who had the most pride, and the most unity. Perhaps then the trumpets make claim to having the most band patriotism. The Saxophones then say they have more. The fundamental feelings at the core are infallible, so they cannot be undermined. But what if the clarinets don’t wish to partake in the chaos and make no claim to being the most patriotic? Then surely when a dispute arises between the clarinets and another faction that claims the utmost patriotism, the clarinets are deemed unpatriotic.

Here we have the most fundamental problem in our culture; that since patriotism is a universally admirable trait, everyone must be in competition with one another in order to have the most of it. Everyone must play the same game of, “I’m the most patriotic, I’m the most American,” because it is political suicide to be passive. So on one hand, we have “the American dream,” which centers around the old American notion that anyone can achieve anything; the rags to riches story. And we have formed that story into meaning, “Anyone can achieve insurmountable wealth, and everyone has a right to try, no one can stand in our way, and to hell with helping anyone else achieve the same because it’s a dog eat dog world; if I’m stuck helping someone else that just puts me further behind in achieving the dream.”

And here is socialism, which has been tied to Communism (And if you don’t believe they are basically the same then you’re un-American!) Communism has been seen as un-American since the 1920’s. Prolonged efforts have been made to root out communists or potential communists, as their profound anti-American tendencies are seen not as docile ideological differences, but as a threat to the way of life we enjoy and that we demand be preserved. This was further enhanced by our chief world rival of the 20^th century, the Soviet Union, being communist. As we united against this enemy, we came to accept the propaganda against the U.S.S.R as common knowledge, ingrained in our culture. Surely to question criticism against a military rival would be at best taboo, at worst treasonous. Now being a communist meant being a traitor.

Then there’s freedom. It is firmly tied with patriotism, but is used strategically in opposition to socialism. Americans believe we should be free to engage in whatever we please in our pursuit of the American dream. Socialism stands in that path, and, so the rhetoric goes, freedom is limited. Essentially, socialism is tied in with being against the American dream, unpatriotic, and traitorous. A political candidate can’t touch the subject without being labeled all three of those things. And as Americans become more and more lazy in their acquisition of news, they are more and more willing to not think critically about an accusation of being a socialist. If Barack Obama wants to limit free enterprise in any way, that’s limiting the American dream, and to limit the American dream is to be unpatriotic, and to be unpatriotic is to be a traitor, and to be a traitor who supports limiting free enterprise in any amount, is to be a socialist traitor who hates freedom. It is now impossible for a political candidate to experience any political success without supporting and increasing the powers of capitalism and big business, because to attempt to limit those powers at all is to risk becoming the clarinets.

Clearly this can only be bad for America. The gap between rich and poor will widen, and the power of corporations will only increase. As corporate power increases, so too does their influence on lobbying and subsequently the legislature. This patriotism rhetoric may soon run our country. Anyone or any group against the capitalist hegemony will be branded as un-American, a label that few can recover from. There has become a McCarthy-esque state of fear among us, whereas in the 1950’s the label of death was that of communist, so today is it being labeled un-American.

Alongside the lust for wealth is the lust for power, but are they one and the same? Often the two go hand in hand, after all, the rich generally hold most of the power in a capitalist nation. But the tide is turning towards the rich controlling those in power. Corporations now have no spending limits in support of a political candidate. Thus, rich corporations can funnel infinite amounts of money towards the campaigns of political candidates who are likely to support them, and big business in general. In this sense, power is becoming obsolete. You can no longer truly have power without the influence of wealth. Barack Obama rose to power in large part due to a very well-funded campaign. He could not succeed on his message alone; he had to market his message. So it has now become, in essence, impossible to run a successful campaign for political office without the aid of substantial wealth, meaning that capitalism now has an inordinate effect on who we elect to our government.

What can be done to counteract this? One scenario is that the quality of life in America becomes so unbearable due to an overabundance of greed, pollution and limiting of ideas, that there is a final backlash against capitalism. When would this happen? Would it ever happen? Would the power of corporations prove too mighty a foe?

I believe there is another way to create socialist reforms in our society. This option is for those who resent capitalism to mobilize and organize with extreme efficiency and with a strong purpose, and to move beyond simply whining on youtube and facebook. Actual political organizations have to be formed, and they can lend no validity to an accusation of being un-American. They must form a comprehensive thesis on why the sustainability of our nation, our world and the human race, is more important than the possibility of acquiring limitless wealth. But they must make this message simplistic and accessible; they must make it relatable to the average American. They must not appear pompous or self-righteous. The must not enlist help from a current socialist nation; they must be entirely American in their ideology and their influence. They must approach their message with humility and common sense. They must refrain from attacking individuals, in fact, they should almost entirely focus on what needs to be done to improve the situation, rather than what is wrong with it. They need to instill the difference between paying workers based on the value of the product they produce and paying them based on their minimum needs and what the job market dictates. They need to emphasize that religion does not equate to morality, and that to build a truly sustainable nation and world, logic must be paramount.

What does logic have to do with this issue? It is the only thing that can save us from ourselves. Without logic, feelings of lust and greed will go on unchecked, and lead to the manipulation that the patriotism rhetoric has produced. Human beings are still animals; we have not evolved so far that we are immune to our instincts. Only by a strict system of logic can we sustain life on this planet for much longer. When faced with a proposal to either have a society with a few rich and many poor, or to have a society with fewer rich and the rest living comfortably, most people with a rational common sense would pick the latter. We know this is the right choice, but individually we all, covertly or not, wish to attain that great American wealth. This is instinctual, and this urge must be suppressed, for it is, left unchecked, going to lead to the downfall of mankind far earlier than any of us would like. We can’t leave these problems to a future generation, although that is our tendency. We know, or should know, that our selfish pursuit of limitless wealth isn’t good for our world. That being selfish is inherently a negative quality. But we engage in societal procrastination, by which we don’t take action to correct what we know is potentially dangerous behavior until it becomes an immediate need. We see the world slowly crumbling around us (Seems like we’ve had quite a few massive earthquakes lately, and more and more nations are producing nuclear weapons; when will one be used next?) and we may agonize over the state of things. But for now we have our own selfish desires and problems to deal with, and until the planet falls into such disrepair that we can’t go about our daily lives as we wish, we’ll continue with our own desires and problems. But by the time we aren’t able to go about our daily lives as normal, it may be too late to revert the damage we have done.

It may already be too late, and our fate is sealed. The world is a delicate ecosystem, and we have abused it and harvested it to no end. Think about the notion of life. In order for life to exist, the stars must quite literally align in such a way that if a trillion solar systems were formed (And the chance of a solar system forming is close to infinitely impossible) there would need to be trillions upon trillions of more solar systems to be formed before a star which is the absolute perfect size, produces the absolute perfect amount of heat, to provide to a planet the perfect distance away, which has the perfect type of magnetic field to provide safe haven for sophisticated life forms to exist for a prolonged period of time. Now think about how precious planet earth really is. And how, quite possibly, it isn’t completely perfect in harboring life. Perhaps the window of time in which our ecosystem is inhabitable isn’t as long as we think; maybe around 4 billion years (Which is when the first bacteria were believed to have existed on our planet). Maybe the magnetic field will weaken to a point where earth is uninhabitable in a few hundred years. We can’t assume that our ecosystem is perfectly suited to us, and much less can we assume it indestructible.

We certainly aren’t helping! We are constantly, and continuously, polluting, drilling and deforesting, all of which could have dire impacts on the earth’s sustainability. Perhaps removing so many metals, oil and other materials from the earth can eventually mark a shift in its sustainability. Perhaps damaging the ozone layer to a certain point makes it impossible to go outside without risking immediate skin cancer. Perhaps removing so many trees from our forests will reduce the amount of oxygen produced to a point where there isn’t enough air for our rapidly growing population to breathe.

And why do we abuse our ecosystem in this way? One reason is to meet the needs of our ever expanding populace here on earth. Another is business. We cut trees for the lumber industry (As well as others), we drill to meet the demand for the oil industry and the market for metals, and we pollute as a byproduct of the energy industry, as well as the manufacturing industry.

Would socialism help? It certainly couldn’t hurt. With less free enterprise the demand for goods that derive from our planet might drop a little. But socialism wouldn’t be lessening the world’s wealth; merely redistributing it. What it could do is lessen pollution’s impact on the planet; with less incentive to make money, companies might be more inclined to appeal to customers by being environmentally friendly. The main benefit of socialism would be a decreased emphasis on the acquisition of wealth, however. Knowing that becoming infinitely rich isn’t a possibility might lead people to value different things in their lives besides money. And that’s the step that everyone must take before we can truly thrive as a society. We must cross the line towards accepting that we won’t attain infinite wealth. It isn’t an easy proposition. To cede that possibility is extremely difficult. I myself grapple with it. I have advocated socialism for some time now, but deep down I still have aspirations towards being filthily rich, and that, even in a socialist society I’ll become famous through something or another and attain great wealth. But I must commit to not aspiring to such grandeur. Only then can I be certain that I’m not a contributor to the problem.

Now this whole issue begs the question: do I love my country? I’m inclined to say yes, if only to gain support for the ideas in this essay, and as I have insinuated, a political idea cannot survive in America when it is known to come from a source of anti-Americanism. With that said, however, I must say that I have respect for the principles this country was founded on. The founders attempted to create a nation immune to the tyranny of an individual leader, as well as immune to the tyranny of the majority through a system of checks and balances, which were fairly ingenious at the time. Certainly there have been ups and downs with the people acting tyrannically (slavery, prohibition) and the government acting as such (Japanese internment, Dick Cheney’s belief in the unchecked power of the executive branch), but overall the system of government has held up fairly well. It seems as though individuals in government are aware of this tedious balance and hold fast to the constitution in order to preserve it. I have few qualms with the way the government operates, besides the economic aspect, and I do have an admiration for the origins of this country. I think, through the evolution of capitalism, and the concept of rugged individualism (Which bore the rags to riches concept), that we have strayed from being an enviable society towards being a destructive and aimless one. But I believe the one problem to be capitalism. I love this country, because I care enough to want to fix it, which I most certainly do. Is it fixable? That’s a more difficult question, but one who’s answer will be apparent only when an attempt is made.

A Case of Mistaken Priorities

Via Gmail (God I love it), I received a link to a CNN news story involving a man who was arrested for breaching airport security to give his girlfriend a kiss.

Yes, CNN is employing the principle of infotainment in making this a significant story, but the details of the incident reflect a more pressing concern I’ve noticed in American society. That is, that our justice system has no common sense.

First of all, upon the man (Haisong Jiang, 28) ducking under the ropes to kiss his girlfriend goodbye, the terminal he had passed through had to be shut down for hours, and thousands of passengers had to be rescreened. It delayed several flights.

Jiang breaching security

Now, I know the airport was just following protocol, and I know, I know there are inherent flaws in American airline security. Every stand up comedian in the world knows that. But couldn’t the security personnel who witnessed Jiang ducking under the rope have simply deduced that Jiang was doing the duty of every good boyfriend, and simply kissing his girlfriend goodbye before going on a flight? Was he endangering anyone, really? Could they not have simply rescreened Jiang and not thousands of bystanders? I mean, honestly, if there is a breach such as this, that doesn’t mean that the terminal must be shut down. And what logic is followed by rescreening everyone that had already passed through? It’s one guy!

If that’s not humiliating enough, Jiang was later arrested, and although his conviction was minor, he is required to pay nearly 700 dollars in fines and do 100 hours of community service. The article notes that Jiang is finishing his Phd at Rutgers (Wow what a threat to society), and from my own experience of being in college (albeit for a far shorter time, for a far less significant degree and at a far less important school) I know that 700 dollars is quite a bit to swallow.

Basically his life sucks right now. Really, really hard. Should he have known not to mess with U.S airline security? Of course, but he’s Chinese, so there perhaps was a slight language/culture barrier at work.

But here’s the part that is the most off base, and shows the greatest deviation from common sense. Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, a Democrat from New Jersey (Where the incident occurred), is trying to pass a bill that would increase the penalty for an intentional breach of security to a 10,000 dollar fine and up to 10 years in prison, in reaction to this ‘incident’. Lautenberg stated to Jiang before Jiang was identified that “You’ve committed what essentially is a crime.” Soo even you, Fred R. Lautenberg, can’t definitively say there was a crime committed? And you want to substantially increase the penalties for it, knowing full well the man meant no harm?

Another part of the bill includes mandating the use of more security cameras in airports. I have a feeling that security cameras are plentiful and where they need to be in U.S airports, and requiring additional cameras sounds frivolous and costly. But you know everyone is going to vote for any measure that says that, because “That’s just the cost of freedom.” And, “You can’t put a price on our nation’s security.” Securing freedom has now surpassed our nation’s children as the one thing you can never vote against without being labeled a commie traitor.

There is a bias on the part of CNN, of course, as the article notes how Jiang is “doing research on a cure for glaucoma, cataracts and other eye diseases.” It also throws in how Jiang would like to, as part of his community service, work, “at a hospital, soup kitchen, medical clinic, something like that.” CNN is obviously trying to play up Jiang’s good character and innocent intentions.

But the moral of the story is how, in the interests of “ensuring our liberty,” the United States will gladly throw away common sense and human decency. And what can you say against that, without being labeled as not caring about our nation’s safety? 9/11 really fucked up our culture; thanks a lot Bin Laden.

Religion: Is Everyone Right?

I was working at the place where I work, which I refer to as GPE (Greatest Place on Earth). During the Thanksgiving break, I was required to work 31 hours in 4 days. I’m sure many of you have to work more hours on a regular basis, at more grueling jobs. But you get paid more, I’m sure, and you don’t have to spend that time listening to the endless prattling of a 17 year old psychedelics enthusiast who I will refer to as Ronny Sifkind. He is a coworker of mine, and was scheduled for almost the exact same hours as I during this time.

Anyway, he was going on about this chemical that the brain releases during the dream state called DMT. I didn’t listen to much of what he said, as I generally attempt to block out most of what comes out of his mouth. But I was nevertheless mildly intrigued and looked DMT up on Wikipedia the next week.

In addition to Wikipedia, I came across an overview for a book called DMT: The Spirit Molecule by Rick Strassman. All of the following is conjecture and its basis is assembled from those two sources. It isn’t conjecture because I was lazy and didn’t look at more sources, it is because so much about this molecule is unknown.

It is found in some plants, and is naturally produced in the human body, albeit in trace amounts. It is speculated, and not confirmed, that DMT contributes to the visual process of dreaming. In South America, there are tribes that ingest DMT as part of psychedelic rituals. In other parts of the world, it is smoked in a synthesized form. It is considered extremely illegal.

What produces DMT in the body? It is hypothesized that the mysterious pineal gland is what creates natural DMT in the brain. At 49 days after conception, this gland releases DMT into the body for the first time. When someone dies, there is a massive rush of DMT.

So what can we glean from this? Perhaps human consciousness is derived from the production and release of DMT. Perhaps people do, in fact, have “souls” and “spirits”, which enter the body at 49 days and leave when that person dies. Perhaps consciousness is a form of hallucination produced by this molecule. Strassman makes the claim that the rush of DMT at death is responsible for people’s so called “Near death experiences.”

It is also speculated that people who have tried DMT can experience a whole lifetime in a span of ten minutes, simply by means of hallucinating. This leads me to wonder what association time has with consciousness. Could the massive release of the molecule at death create an afterlife in that person’s mind, which time would have no bearing on, seeing as that person’s consciousness had ceased?

Think about dreams. In them, no new information is available to you that wasn’t in your awake state. Dreams are based on reality. Could it be, then, that if someone truly believed in a heaven, or a hell, that they could very well enter that place in their own mind? Could a Buddhist hallucinate another lifetime as a different being? Could a Muslim extremist encounter 99 virgins in the afterlife? Perhaps what happens when we die follows the same pretense as Santa Claus; if you believe it, then it’s real.

All speculation, of course. But a (Quasi) scientific theory is more palatable to me than something involving the supernatural. Just something to think about.

Eugenics – Primed for a Comeback?

We all know how eugenics became associated with Nazi Germany after it had been widely popular in the early part of the 20th century. Therefore, most will scoff at the notion. Everyone has a right to reproduce blah blah blah. And maybe I’m spinning my wheels with this theory, but bear with me. What about encouraging social responsiblity in the form of selective eugenics? I call this theory SRFOSE. Or Senor Fose, for marketability purposes.

Because listen, we all know people in our lives who should not be allowed to pass on their genes. It’s just a fact of nature. But let’s be specific so as not to exclude people whose genes have anything, even the slightest thing, to provide to society. And let’s not make it anyone else’s decision. It’s up to you. Let’s take a quiz:

Do you have a debilitating genetic disease, such as Huntington’s, or the Rocky Dennis disorder?

Are you incapable of succeeding at anything?

Do people often tell you, “My God, I hope you never have kids someday,” ?

Are you repulsive looking?

Do most people in your family not live past 50?

Do you have a cruel, sadistic personality (Be honest)?

If you answered yes to three or more of these questions, I would say you are a prime candidate for Senor Fose. Don’t beat yourself up over it, you’re doing the world a service by not reproducing. And you’re doing your potential children a service by not bringing them into the world as genetically disadvantaged beings.

Now, no one is forcing you to not have kids. That’s not what I’m about, and that’s not what Senor Fose is about, either. But anyone who would want to have kids with you is obviously genetically deficient, as well. So do the world a favor, and spay/neuter yourself.

Clarifying Common Misconceptions: Bro Girls vs. Bro Prey

This has nothing to do with Facebook. This is real life, dammit.

I’m sure you’ve all experienced a bro girl or two. And I’m sure you’ve likewise encountered many an underclasswoman following at the heels of a group of surly bros. Are these two one and the same? No. No, not at all.

For bro girls are simply female versions of bros. They enjoy sports and beer and yelling at sports games. They are often obscenely muscular, which is the telltale sign that you’re dealing with no average womanfolk. Steroids aren’t out of the question for bro-girls, either, so beware of violent mood swings from them. They are dressed most often in gym attire and school affiliated sweatshirts. With that said, I don’t intend to demean bro girls; they are confident women who oppose normative, patriarchal gender structures.. in favor of emulating, to some degree, their bro counterparts.

The other group falls into the category of, what I have termed, “Bro prey.” Bros feast on these women like big obnoxious lions do gazelles. Bro prey are often blonde, of below average intelligence, and usually dress as provocatively as possible, in order to attract the most obnoxious bros available. I surveyed a sampling of two dozen bros and determined that they will select their prey based on the following factors, in descending order:

1) How many cups of Powerade they are able to carry at once. Legend has it that some examples of bro prey can carry up to four cups at once.

2) Titties (That’s bro for large breasts).

3) Submissiveness. Bros don’t like bitches that talk or think.

4) Bitch ain’t gonna cheat (This is bro for faithfulness).

5) Bitch ain’t gonna complain (If she doesn’t enjoy watching sports for at least 3 hours a day, she shouldn’t complain, and should commence sandwich making).

6) Sandwich making ability (See criterion 5).

7) Openness to sex with multiple partners (But no dudes cuz that’s gay and shit).

Those were the top seven. After that there were a few responses ranging from “Don’t cost money,” to, “Hot mom.”

I hope this was as enlightening for you all as it was for me.

For further reading, loyal reader and Bro researcher, Paul, has provided his insight into the matter:

Hans,

First of all, bros love to help their fellow bros get laid, and many times this has resulted in a “pig roast.”

Pig Roast- A threesome with two bros and one girl.

This is essentially rooted in the homoerotic tendencies displayed by most of the bro race.

Additionally, bro girls carry gatorade, not bro prey (unless serving a bro). This is because they partake in sports. Most of the bro prey have developed eating patterns of not low fat intake, but low food intake (which nutritionally does not make much sense).

Finally, you might want to specify that the criteria for a bro prey to become a girlfriend of said bros.

The gazelles are for one time feasts.

Love,
Paul

These are good points. I was not familiar with the concept of, ‘Pig roasting,’ however, it certainly seems viable given the aforementioned homoerotic tendencies of bros. Paul, the distinction you were making between carrying Gatorade and serving bros is a valid one. I would counter that my intention in the original posting was that bro prey were rated on their carrying ability of Powerade in order to yes, serve bros. However, it is true that bro girls themselves often consume large quantities of Gatorade, and having a sizable carrying capacity for said Gatorade would be advantageous for them.

Yes, gazelles are, generally, for one time feasts. Bros have a long standing philosophy of hitting it and quitting it. Bro prey, however, do have a tendency to desire the company of bros; it is in their nature. Furthermore, bro prey that satisfy the criteria I posted would certainly be engaged in intercourse, likely once. But as any bro will tell you, “Pussy is pussy.” This could result in multiple night stands. Or the bro could designate his prey for sexual servant status, in which he will engage with her sexually until he is bored or she becomes pregnant.

A very interesting study, indeed.

A Study in Facebook Etiquette: Part Two – Ohhh vs. Oooh

In the second part of our series, we come across a phenomenon that is astoundingly simple, yet often misused. And that is the distinction between Ohhh, and Oooh.

Oooh, or any extension of it, including Oooooooh, and occasionally Ooooh, generally means, “Oh, is that so,” with a somewhat mocking but mildly impressed conotation.

You would comment, “Oooh,” If you saw Brian Cocke listed as, ‘in a relationship.’

You might say, “Ohhh..,” to a picture of this man, which is fitting because he appears to be saying, ‘oooh,’ himself.

Paired with elipses, ohhh means, “I am noting how awkward this picture is, and establishing my superiority over the person (s) depicted by tearing them down.”

Ohhh also means understanding. It could mean a  joke had to be explained to you, and to show your humility as well as to signify that the joke was eventually understood, you respond ohhh.

It can also mean mild disgust. If Brian Cocke is particularly repugnant to you, you might comment Ohhh to him being listed as, ‘in a relationship.’

There can be various misuses. Were you to comment, ‘oooh,’ to a relationship ending, that would be viewed as rude and somewhat creepy.

It’s probably not wise to comment, ‘oooh,’ to a picture that  is provocative on any level.

I said after part one, that this section would be about the etiquette of Facebook notes. Well maybe I’ll do that next time.