I got it baaad, got it baaad, got it baaaad…I got shot by teacher!

       I have been an applicant to quite a few universities, and have attended several different post-secondary schools for junior college, undergraduate classes, graduate programs, and continuing education courses, and let me just say that I am not surprised that the people in positions of authority just “blew off” the students as they described in the article. (see link below) University professors and administrators are essentially running amok with their unchecked power and privileged positions, so that the students, who are essentially customers and paying astronomical amounts of money to attend these places, get routinely treated as vermin, unworthy of any dignified interaction, or even truthful discourse when approaching some of these egotistical people.

       Now, we have yet another violent act committed on an educational campus. Let me unequivocally state that the lady is very likely unstable and should have her day in court, but the culture of unchecked authority, megalomaniacal educators, and the attendant prestige bestowed upon faculty and administrators for basically succeeding in getting a career that is more often than not a glorified socialite, are putting students and others at risk with their demonstrable failure to act upon claims, complaints, petitions, and other actions that the students and applicants bring to their attention.

       I don’t believe that tenure should be revoked completely, but there should be a review every few years, and students should have more of a voice in the decisions to extend tenure and the contracts of other administrative staff, especially if because they are so secure in their positions, that they routinely fail to take action on pressing issues that need to be addressed, particularly when they are brought forth by members of the student body.

       Colleges and universities are increasingly showing thier true nature to be little more than a racket. Similarly, other major institutions are displaying the same characteristics of those mafia entities that were wielding unchecked power during prohibition. We can also see these traits in the health care industry, government, and the coterie of financial institutions that have absconded with much of the wealth of the majority of gainfully employed Americans.

       This incident is what I feel should serve as one of many examples of why democratic control should be rested from the people who adorn the apices of our power structures, and nestled into the hands of the people, in whose interest most of these institutions are purported to be operating. If the purpose of these organizations, like the schools, are to benefit people by improving the sum total of their knowledge, then the people should have direct control on how the administration of these organizations are conducted. It is time to strip the aloof and pompous class of their illegitimate authority, and use the time most Americans spend in church on Sunday or watching sports, to instead, participate in actively coordinating the functions of institutions that serve the public interest more in our favor.

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35420396/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

Internalized Globalization

A response to the curiously rare impromptu displays of passionate commentary and their gender specific leanings of Howard Stern’s sidekick Robin Quivers

             Have you ever noticed that Robin always comes to the defense of a woman who is seemingly being victimized because of sexism, but she eschews any defense on the basis of charges of racism especially when levied by a male? It is a great example of how she knows full well that her eggs lie in the basket of feminist privilege, and not the favorable access provided to underrepresented minorities or in identifying outwardly with such racialist classifications.. She can check two boxes on a demographic report which makes her type more favorable for employers, and her battles fought in the workplace are limited to the defense of women, because she has a more valuable solidarity with white women who socially are protected by knee jerk reactions due to the view of them being  damsels, who need the responsible protection of all mature members of society, whether stated overtly, or done because of adherence to mores. Howard displays this action often, especially when there is an issue with Lisa G. There is not a likewise action by Robin in favor of maltreatment of ethnically underrepresented men in workplace situations.

            Men still have to develop a unique and valuable skill in order to be loved, adored, and appreciated. Women just need to be somewhat smart (and not always), play the social game, and be relatively attractive, (and not always). This is why we see more women in administrative positions in the workplace. It is unfathomable that a man of equal education and intelligence couldn’t do Lisa G’s or Robin’s job, but it is cheaper, more beneficial statistically, and less risky to hire women for these administrative jobs than to offer men opportunities and financial self-sufficiency. We have seen increasingly these positions filled by women in every federal bureaucracy or private corporation because men are more likely to challenge authority and require that power proves its legitimacy on a daily basis. Women don’t do this as often. When women challenge authority, they do so for different reasons, like a desire for more sensitivity shown towards the feelings and needs of the woman in her predicament, or for a respectful deference towards her efforts, abilities, and presence in the environment, which men, even powerful men, do largely because of social training, but women rarely if ever challenge the actual structure of power. Moreover, men do not get nor demand these kinds of very trite and inconsequential rewards.

            It is in this way that women as a gender are more submissive, not in the stereotypical way that some Asian cultures are depicted, but in their lack of motivation to challenge the power structure of a system from which they directly benefit, but that simultaneously ostracizes many others, namely equally capable men and boys. The feminist dogma allows them to rationalize their achievements as more inherit intelligence, but at close examination, we can see that there is a systematic attempt to diminish the nature of men to require authority to justify itself. This is done by preventing the access and upward mobility of men in the technological and service economy. There are no programs for men only nor any access and training programs for young boys. Oprah doesn’t trot off to Africa or Central America to build schools for disenfranchised boys who are equally the victims of oppressive regimes, and the legacy of colonialism. What is even more shocking is that hardly any one says or does anything about this disparity. Female circumcision is decried as brutal, but male circumcision is seen as a “medical necessity”. Only in a society that hosts a war on boys and subsequently men who survive boyhood can these actions be seen as normal.

            It is time to wake up and see that the global corporate financial power structure is using the battle of the sexes as a way to prevent a mass uprising and revolution of its corrupt system. Until men are brought into the fold through educational opportunity, and a status as rational thinkers, we will continue to see the words “male” and “sex offender” to be promoted in the media as justification for latent fear of men to grow and continue to fester. As long as men without power must first prove that they aren’t a threat to authority, which is subtly sanctioned by a woman’s gracing a man with her presence through marriage or social interaction, our world will continue to move towards this fascist corporate system with capital and economic growth fleeing to the location that offers the best deal for de facto slave labor. Internalized feminine values make for a extrinsically docile populace.

Robin\’s News 02/04/2010

Artie mad about Lisa G\’s reporting

Artie mad about Lisa G\’s reporting part 2

Robin on Ali/Frazier

Robin on Ali/Frazier part 2

The Kids Ain’t Alright.

     It’s kind of funny for me to see this protest and demonstration occurring at the University of California campuses now because in 1992 during my freshman year in college, I tried to stage a protest and boycott of my college’s clubs and student organizations due to the offensive mascot of the school (an Apache), and it’s woefully stereotypical yearly activity of beating a war drum for 24 consecutive hours as to mock the culture of the native American tribe for which the school’s mascot was named. I was ignored and ostracized from my academic department, and subsequently identified by the faculty as one who wouldn’t be considered for any benefit of having attended the school through issuance of recommendation letters or invitations to symposiums on graduate study and professional opportunities. The friends I had, in retrospect, were only concerned with graduation, the perfunctory socialization one receives in college, and securing social and financial standing–cultural ills and divisive inequalities be damned! How absolutely regretful some of my classmates must be now, that they not only didn’t heed the warning of my naive example, but that the course of their lives was being constructed by someone other than themselves?

 

       This protest is too little too late, because after my experience in institutions of higher education with the diverse demographic group that is now the constituency of American university education, I have found that most of these, albeit studious people, are simply vacuous, selfish, servile, consumerists, waiting to buy into, or in effect, rent their independence within society from the financial-governmental-military complex. They will try to trade on what they perceive as knowledge gained in university, or social skills honed, to participate in a worldwide corporate culture of greed, and self-aggrandizement. Now that the lifeboats are full in our corporate state, metaphorically speaking, the high authorities of all institutions across the spectrum are trying to prevent entry and, maintain their own positions and that of their closest allies and relatives. The silly students and most of their haphazard parents couldn’t, or didn’t care to see this trend formulating, which has been building since 1980. We as a culture have continued to procreate wantonly, lead atomized lives fearful of organization, and have been heavily dependent on superstition to explain our predicament. We have abdicated our inalienable rights for a hot dog that can be bought at a local convenience store 24 hours a day. Now, we are seeing the consequence. There is no reason for anyone in government from Obama on down, nor is there a reason for the corporate structure to do anything to benefit the people. They know they can give us spoiled meat and contaminated blankets, and we won’t say anything. But, if someone jeopardizes the dreams of our most self- interested youth to enter the upper tiers of society, then this younger sector of society will react because their whole identity is contained within the idea that they deserve, or are better than their societal counterparts. The only difference in this mindset and those at the highest levels of power is the fact that the former hasn’t yet attained the authority to act in a similarly brutal manner. There are too many people in the world who want to live the American dream. Therefore, as is done in the stock market, one must manipulate the activity, information, and accessibility to the stock or commodity in order to displace all of the small players and preserve the large amount of profits for the insiders. The same is happening not only in our educational system, but in all sectors of our organized society.

The Feminist Swindle

    In American and western nations, the dating culture bleats a popular mantra. “It is easier for a woman to get laid than it is for a man.” This statement makes a lot of assumptions without offering much evidence to support it.

     I wouldn’t say that it is easier for a woman to have sex than a man. Maybe in the USA or western nations because of the cultural brainwashing that Christianity and feminist shame have promoted about sex, but in plenty of countries in the world, it is by far easier for a man to get what they want,  be it sex, a relationship, or marriage. The US has a mass psychosis about sex that it needs to resolve.

 

     The author Ariel Levy laments about women using sex to wield power in her book “Female Chauvinist Pig”. I haven’t read it, but I surely hope she isn’t an apologist for feminism. Because this is exactly what the unforeseen byproduct of the political movement is. Remember Newton’s third law. There are going to be women who just aren’t interested in getting a graduate degree, but when the feminist cause is simplified so they can understand, it often translates as “I can do anything a man can do!”

 

    Regarding sex, the assumption is that a man can have sex without stigma, emotional attachment, & responsibility. But only women can make money by doing this. So it becomes an easy way for women to make money. As long as these academics and socio-political activists refuse to focus on the economics that underlies ALL of these problems, we won’t get anywhere. Women will still want to be strippers, because they make more easy money by doing it, and men will still seek out these types because it’s easier than playing the moronic social dance of dating,  that has devolved into a mutual display of acute neuroses, rather than developing a psychologically mature bond. Without the socio-economic need for mating, the romantic replacement can’t stand. Its neurological basis is fleeting and transitory, only our economic needs persist, and that is a fundamental necessity that created the marriage ideal in the first place. It is still relevant today, although it is hidden among the plethora of romance novels, movies, TV shows, and cultural taboos.

     Feminism has hit the jagged rocks as it has run aground at the shore. Its flagship charge of equality has increasingly fallen on deaf ears when the social trends are closely examined. Men have no benefit to getting married. A man can have children within marriage or outside of the union and his role remains unchanged, namely that of the monetary provider. Men aren’t recruited or promoted within the Universities as viable students to the degree that women are, and this is seen by the inclusion of female only resources, and female based courses of study which contradicts the supposed purpose of Title IX, an equal opportunity at participation and access. Just because there are only men on the college football team doesn’t mean every man can play football or wants to play football, but every man is painted with the same brush of male domination.

 

    In my opinion, our society will suffer a massive drain of men to other countries and opportunities to self actualize their masculinity, as long as women’s values are seen as the de facto social values of the USA. If it is okay for a woman to remain career focused and unmarried, then the same is true for a man, but often in US society, unmarried men are seen as losers, playboys, or just unable to attract a mate. No one would dare say that about a woman in the same situation. Hence if equality was the goal, all we have created is an equal but gender specific stigma that is attributed to the way in which men and women choose to live their lives.

The Media “Madoff” with Sanity

 

 The irony isn’t lost on me concerning the news coverage of the Bernie Madoff swindle. The disgraced former securities investor is accused of stealing over 50 billion dollars of the savings and investments of many privileged charities and private investors through an old fashioned “Ponzi” scheme. The peculiarity lay in the image of a recent news reporter standing outside of a courthouse awaiting word as to whether or not Mr. Madoff would have his bail revoked, thus barring him from returning to his upper west side penthouse. The criteria upon which to judge this revocation is determined by whether the accused is a flight risk or poses a threat to the community. Now this gentleman is accused of stealing incredible amounts of money from presumably hard working and honest people. I reiterate that the crime is that he stole the life savings and charitable funds from many trusting investors, most of whom had developed personal relationships with the accused. This act is apparently not threatening to communities. Moreover, since the alleged crime is one of theft, of money mind you, and apparently since Mr. Madoff is such a nice person, he would never think of using some of his ill gotten gains to disappear, preferably to a nice third world country with no extradition treaty. The question I posit is, how doesn’t this meet the criteria for bail revocation?

This man has stolen more money that any small time hoodlum ever could by robbing liquor stores and mugging unsuspecting old ladies on their way to church. Yet, most of these petty types of criminals are shuffled into the jail system quicker that you can say police brutality. Many times bail is denied, and these accused assailants must await their day in court while remanded to a detention facility. This disparity is absurd. The extent of Mr. Madoff’s actions will be felt for years if not generations, and will affect directly and indirectly millions of people in society. This is due in large part to Mr. Madoff’s need to entitle himself to a lifestyle that he couldn’t afford to support by working in the traditional manner. The same motivation that influenced him, lies within the petty thief or small time hood, and yet while Mr. Madoff pays for his lawyers and bail with the exact money which he is accused of pilfering, other crooks, without the access to the level of larceny he enjoyed, sit and await trial in jail. These thieves are usually represented by some jaded or fresh faced public defender, with an exorbitant amount of student loans who probably took the job because they barely made it out of law school and couldn’t get recruited on a fast track to a partnership with the firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. This poor sap’s attorney is probably half drunk from the previous night’s revels, and is gearing up for another night on the town. No doubt in search of more would be model/actresses to fool into a one night stand at the promise of a safe life in the suburbs and the prestige that goes along with being the wife of a Doctor/Lawyer/Cop/Entrepreneur, who really knows how to make money and invest it wisely. This is all done of course to support the lifestyle to which she aspires and will soon be the one to which she is accustomed, upon the filing of her divorce papers for abuse and irreconcilable differences, but I do digress.

The tragedy in the buffoonery of these two distinct treatments, which is perfectly symbolized by the Dartmouth graduate standing in the freezing New York city wintry weather to report the facts as she sees them, is that, not one time has there been mention made of the ridiculous system that encourages the behavior of all parties cited in this article, including my facetious references. The simple fact that I conclude is that people are of the mistaken belief that money equals intelligence. We accept, as a culture, that if one has made money then that fact defines ones perspicacity. But, when one looks at that generally accepted belief through the prism of the wholly ridiculous behavior described within this article, we can attest that this calculation just ain’t so.

Mr. Madoff’s victims trusted a man with their money based on the emotional security that he provided, by portraying confidence through interpersonal communication, and yet street corner crack dealers and pimps don’t have access to the social circles that Mr. Madoff exploited. If they did, I am sure they would be more than adept at convincing people that they could hold their money and return even more than they gave, if these kind and very beautiful people would just wait a while.  Is there something to be understood about the nature of our American culture through the fact that even though, similar acts are committed by these two examples of criminality, we allow one affirmative access to perform these crimes on a grand scale, and the other is relegated to relatively small scale street crimes? The prejudices that we overtly or passively accept, that consciously or unconsciously pervade our thinking, tacitly assert that; just as long as the criminal has access and, is a bit more sophisticated in his approach, he is able to avoid the harsh retribution that one would receive if they are barred from entry to this corporate class. Additionally, we use aspirants to this corporate class to haphazardly defend the small time crooks while promising to the social climber entry, access, and reward, once their indentured servitude has expired in part, with reconciliation of their student debt.

It is even more indicative of the lunacy in our American culture when some of the corporate class victims of Mr. Madoff’s shenanigans, find the possibility of living in the strata from which they were previously protected by their wealth so harsh, that choosing death is better. So much for the idea that making the right decisions being why one becomes successful.

Lastly, back to the television journalist braving the winter cold to report the failed processes of our justice system. Although she is educated, and representative of the corporate class herself, she sees no insightful ironies contained within her activity to add to her report. Therefore, I determine from this farce that we, as the American people, seem to be under the delusion, that freedom and democracy means striving to win the lifestyle lottery, while finding acceptance for being smart because we are successful, comfortable, and have money. All performed with the least amount of introspection, critical analysis, and skepticism possible.