It's All Fun and Games Until Someone Loses A Life

It all started with "Duck Hunt". Before the release of the classic NES shooter the most popular video games revolved around non-violent activities like Pac-Man eating blue ghosts and Pong tournaments. Then Nintendo released the still reigning king of first person shooters (FPS) and the world of video gaming was permanently changed. Millions of innocent American children spent hours in front of their televisions assuming roles as dealers of pixellated death, their minds warped from the cheap thrill of massacring countless ducks. And we wonder how things got so bad.

Of course the  success of Nintendo's avian death simulator brought about many imitators, each hoping to outdo the other until at last they devolved into grotesques that rewarded players with bonuses for shooting opponents in the genitals.  Ever since "Duck Hunt" generations of this nation's youth have been only able grasp the concept of death as an expression of 1's and 0's, not as the physical act of life leaving a body. It is this disconnect between the virtual and the physical worlds that drives a bunch of mentally deficient, emotionally unstable, mommy-coddled man-children to view society as an outlet for their vengeance for being socially awkward creeps, shooting movie theaters and schoolhouses with impunity.

Backed by unfalsifiable and inarguable anecdotal evidence,  everyone from President Obama and Vice President Biden, to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA acknowledge what the Army has known for years; if you want to turn someone into a conscience-less killing machine, there is no better tool than video games.

These political paragons assuage fears that the root of this societal violence stems from a massive systemic inequality pervaded by a violence obsessed culture whose myopic goal of making money renders the concept of respect a quaint notion. Good thing too, I won't have anybody bad-mouth the dual pillars of this nation. Greed and violence have led us this far, and I'll be damned if some squishy liberal ideal like income equality causes us to abandon them now.

Still, I'm not sure if these proposals penetrate deep enough into the world of gaming, a dark and insidious culture to be sure. Think of the delusion-sharing adventures of Dungeons and Dragons, how long til they deem us all orcs and unleash their nerd-rage on society? And what kind of violent, militaristic messages are being sold to our children in games of Battleship and Stratego? Which is to say nothing of Risk, and it's teachings of strategic conquest, which could lead to whole city clocks being unceremoniously annexed into Kamchatka.

No, dear reader, banning video games does not go near far enough to keep us safe. We must ban all violent or objectionable distractions whether they be board, war, or head games. America's streets will be filled with the nation's youth once again, as children play with their official government sanctioned cup-and-ball toys in front of their houses, tossing and catching in beautiful synchronicity.

We must work towards a society where we so severely limited out children's minds they can scarcely imagination an alternative to their highly-structured grey-scale lives, let alone performing such a transgressive act like blowing away their friends with a semi-automatic second-amendment protector. It is only then that we will be safe from the scourge of mass shootings that plague the soul of this nation, and people will be truly free.

...Injustice For All

Almost five years after the 2008 crash and still not one person has been jailed for the massive and systemic fraud that was rampant among the big banks before things fell apart. Frontline is airing an episode about Obama's DOJ never even attempting to prosecute those responsible for the damage to the economy. Millions of families have lost their houses in the crash. Millions more stand to lose theirs in the future, despite meager assistance from the government.

While Europe is wracked with anti-austerity protests and widespread unrest in response to proposed cuts, pundits like Glenn Greenwald wonder why American's remain passive and apathetic in the face of such blatant corruption. The question perplexes the world: Why do Americans stand for such inhumane and degrading treatment by those in power?

Some feel that Americans have been made soft by a consumer culture that allows them to purchase their happiness, leaving them wanting nothing save for the next opportunity to score a sweet deal on a Slap-Chop©. Others suggest a national case of Stockholm Syndrome, where Americans have been held captive of a two party system for so long that they now willingly go along with the agendas of the duopoly despite neither party serving the interests of common people. Other crazies blame water fluoridation, flu shots, and measles vaccines.

To the world abroad, complicated conspiracy theories might seem like reasonable means to undo the knot of American apathy. But America is a simple country, and the roots of its dysfunctions are rarely complex. The simplest answer is usually the correct one, which is why Occam's razor is the preferred problem-solving tool, not just because of the mental clarity that comes from the sweet bite of the blade. America likes the abuse. Lady Liberty is a cutter.

Americans put up a public façade of indignation when news of these scandals hits. They play the part of shocked bystander as the depravity of the elite is laid bare. But behind closed doors they enjoy how little and weak they feel in the presence of such massive wealth. There exists an erotic thrill from knowing every man has his price, and it excites the mind knowing that if paid enough, it could be any of us wearing that gimp suit.

America didn't always harbor such kinks, she wasn't always such a wild-child. But after a stint as understudy to an empire, she decided to go it alone, declaring herself independent from the paternal bindings of Britain. In the intervening years America worked out her daddy issues by shaping her image to stand as a stark contrast to button-down and stodgy ol England. She was wild and free, ready for exploration and exploitation.

A national mythos was created around the ideal of a lawless new country where a man was only limited by his hard work, and possibly injuns, but never the meddling hand of the government. These views were meant distance America from England's influence, but early years spent in her father's church left her praying at the same altar as her European forebears. So she tithes to Mammon to bring success, and she works hard for her money.

In a society where the Calvinistic notion that only hard work leads to success combine with capitalistic definitions of success that are only measured by net worth, it makes sense to view the extremely rich as more than human. Their ivory tower lives are so far removed from our reality they might as well be gods, full of power and majesty. And fifteen car garages.

The American dream rests on the premise that we all have this latent power within us, and that with faith and dedication one day we be will rewarded for our hard work. We will receive the blessing of cash that will transform us from the filthy working poor to into rich super-humans, the pinnacle of our inhuman evolution.

But until that day comes, the rest of us are just alpha-primitives toiling in the substructure, our net worth and societal value totaling just above zero.  Who are we to attempt to apply our fallible human laws to the actions of such supreme beings? Our justice system was never designed to subject our social betters to the same rules as the rest of us.

Besides, everybody loves a rebel. Americans like to dream of the day when it is them flouting international law. We all salivate over the idea of living on a stack of money so high, only God could judge us.

When the latest scandal breaks and international headlines are awash in the gory details there exists no pity, here in the US, for the rubes who got taken for a ride,! but only a hollow dissatisfaction that we ourselves were not involved in such a clever ploy.  We do not begrudge the massively rich for being morally bankrupt, after all what purpose do morals serve when trying to make money? Instead we accept the current situation as the natural order of things. We smile as we smell the glove, and dream that one day it might be us getting our rocks off without recourse by slapping around the American public.

If God's vision for equality didn't intend a separate justice system for the powerful and wealthy, then why did He provided them the wealth to buy immunity from any wrong-doings, real or imagined? And if the markets were crashed by a bunch of rich bastards on a mean dollar kick, can we really blame them? Don't we want that hit in the wallet just as bad? Isn't that what they tell us?

Rush 'N' Wisdom

Rush Limbaugh is a troll. Correction: Rush Limbaugh is King Troll. His whole persona is built on spewing out absurd viewpoints specifically designed to provoke violent, irrational responses from his listeners. His nonsense is an infection traveling across radio waves, which if untreated causes the listener to mindlessly repeat half-baked theories, defending them as immutable truths; sacred and profane. Nothing about the jowly Goblin King of political personalities should ever be taken on face value and, as a safe measure, anything associated with him should be avoided at all costs, lest one end up as a "ditto-head".

Still, there are times in his mad ramblings that Rush manages to verbalize some of the essential truths of the American experience. And when he does so, he does it with a blinding clarity . It would be a disservice to not just my readers, but to Rush himself, if I let these moments pass without mention.

The latest example of Rush's political sagacity occurred last Monday, on MLK Day, a day when we as a nation honor and remember Dr. King's legacy of non-violence. It was on this day Rush suggested that if John Lewis and the other participants of the march from Selma to Montgomery  had been armed they would not have "been beat upside the head" by the state and local police. Rush, with his superior logic, has discovered the singular fault of the Civil Rights Movement: a lack of firepower.

If only the Little Rock Nine  had been packing heat, there would have been no need to call in the National Guard to keep order. They could have integrated themselves, and if parents or students had an issue with it, they could catch a face full of hot lead.

Imagine the look on the bus driver's face if he asked Rosa Parks to move to the back of the bus, and instead of staying seated in silent protest, she pulled out her snub nose .38 and told the good man where he could shove it.

Think of the turgid fear that would grip the soul of the white man if he saw 250,000 heavily armed protesters storming Washington,  flooding the national mall, led by Dr.King in a non-violent march for equality. By any means necessary.

The cruel truth that Rush has uncovered is our rights are only secure as long as We the People are willing to defend them, and it is only the existence of the Second Amendment that allows us the means to defend those rights.

Any time social conflicts are solved by any means other than from the barrel of a gun, it is an affront on the Founder's vision for this great nation. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA understands this fact all too well.

Think of all the people that could defend their freedoms, if they
just armed themselves. In states where gay marriage remains illegal, a same-sex couple that wanted to be wed could simply show up at the courthouse, flash the steely glint of a Desert Eagle and demand to be married. There would be a vast empowerment of women everywhere as they shattered oppressive glass ceilings with gunfire. The INS would be hard-pressed to carry out the anti-capitalistic practice of deportation when faced with an armed and angry immigrant population. Equality is every person armed to the teeth.

So while I normally think of Rush Limbaugh as a bloviating windbag whose words are more odious than fresh-cut offal, I've got to give the old boy credit on this one. He's figured out how to give power to the politically dispossessed in this country and his plan is brilliant in its simplicity, let them use guns.

F*ck Wit MLK Day (And Everybody's Celebratin')

Monday was the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's march on Washington and his now-famous "I have a Dream" speech,  which itself took place on the 100th anniversary of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. This year is 150th anniversary of the event. On this momentous day Barrack Obama was inaugurated into his second term as President of The United States. He was sworn in using the same bible King held throughout the day of his historic march.

There was much national pride surrounding  Monday's events as Americans marveled at what progress has been from just 50 years ago that a black man could be elected president not just once, on some sort of lark, but twice and by a larger margin than enjoyed by either Dwight Eisenhower or G.W Bush in their respective reelections.

It all seems so surreal, the long national nightmare has ended; racial equality has been achieved. The American dream has been fulfilled. People are celebrating in the streets.

Lincoln and King must be looking down from heaven, smiling upon it all. Jesus, too. And George Burns, as God. All have to be pleased as America shines bright, a city upon a hill, a beacon of equality to all the world.  A black man as president. King's Dream is alive.

Some fringe thinkers might not see it that way though, the malcontents. So insecure with their own lives they will seek to dismiss the good works of others, always looking for a fault. They'll complain about any perceived injustice, regardless of context.

These cynical swine would have you believe the president's use of MLK's bible was a a cheap ploy to get Americans to sympathize with the president. They'd tell you that by associating Obama with a such an iconic civil rights figure–and on such a grand stage–that his staff is trying to get him a free pass for whatever unconscionable giveaways that may occur during his next four years. Those who would say such things are fools.

It is this type of person that would seek to dismiss the similarities between the two men by pointing to the President's use of drone strikes as proof of his violent foreign policies, the type of policies Martin Luther King argued very much against during his protests of the Vietnam War.

These detractors like to claim to a conflict of interest is created when the president's chiefs of staff come from, and return to high-raking positions in the financial sector. As if it is having solid relations with Wall Street that prevents Washington charging those responsible for the 2008 market crash, and not part of a reasonable progressive policy to keep America  from being mired in the past, to her keep moving forward and to focus on restoring her economy.

These people do not appreciate the nuance and subtleties of that go into crafting political policy. There is no understanding of how heavy such decisions weigh on the president's mind. These purists cannot fathom how a good man can commit such "evil" acts. They degrade Barrack Obama for doing a tough job. Such is the life of the American president.

For those not so naive to think in absolutes, there exists an acknowledgment of the burdens of such responsibility. There is acknowledgment that  no easy answers exist. A president is presented with difficult decisions when under assault from a faceless evil.  Dr. King would understand this, he was a reasonable man.

 As a student of history Barrack Obama is very much familiar with the concepts of passive resistance and their use against unjust systems. At the acceptance speech for his Nobel Peace Prize the president stated, "I know there's nothing weak – nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King." He president is correct in this statement, and Gandhi and King are examples of the quiet strength needed to be committed to non-violence.

America's role as sole world super power does not often make a strict adherence to pacifism a tenable approach to foreign policy. A stance of non-violence would only show weakness to our enemies. Attempting engage in negotiations with these terrorist leaders would only signal that their tactics work, and further embolden them.

There are times when military action is the only option not just for the safety of America, but for the safety of the world. President Obama understood this when, accepting his Nobel, he said,

"But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by (Gandhi and King's) examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world"

Evil exists, and if allowed to fester it will spread like an infection. Drone strikes are the white blood cells keeping the infection in check.

President Obama does not want to order unmanned drones strikes. He's not happy per se that sixteen year old American citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was vaporized by an American Hellfire missile. He's certainly saddened that he's had to designate all military aged men within a vaguely defined theater of conflict as "militants". He gets just plain bummed when he thinks of the unprecedented number of people he has had to charge under the Espionage Act. But again, these are the tough decisions a president must make to keep his country safe. Dr. King would understand this, he was a reasonable man.

The Honorable Reverend would understand how far this country has come on a myriad of social issues. I'm sure he would be thrilled at the freedom homosexuals are allowed as they can openly serve in the military. Dr. King would see a latina Supreme Court Justice and his heart would swell with pride. He would be excited about Obama's brave "evolution" on gay marriage. No doubt he could appreciate the wisdom in leaving such a volatile matter to be decided by the states.

As a social crusader, The Good Doctor might be a little disappointed that people of color lost a historic amount of household wealth in the 2008 crash, and probably a little disappointed again when he sees the increase of the the already large wealth gap between minorities and whites. But Obama shouldn't feel too bad, you can't win 'em all. And he would have totally had that one in the bag as well, if wasn't for those meddling Republicans .

Martin Luther King was a wise and understanding man. He felt that only means of affecting real change was via non-violent resistance. He felt the use of violence to resolve conflicts only led to more violence, on this point he was unequivocal. But surely he could recognize the position President Obama finds himself in. Surely he could acknowledge the truth that, as a world leader, sometimes you just have to undertake the solemn task of picking a name from the disposition matrix, and then giving the order to blow the evil bastard to hell. Peace is not an option because violence is all those savages understand. That's just a sad fact of the world. Dr. King would understand this, he was a reasonable man.

On the dawn of Barrack Obama's second term as president let us not gripe and complain about all the allegedly terrible acts our government has performed. Instead let us look forward, and be glad that we have a president who is a living testament to Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality. Let us be happy that the use of drone strikes are authorized by a man who holds in such high regard  the works and words of King and Gandhi.

That America has given such unprecedented executive power to a mindful constitutional scholar, and not some bloodthirsty nut like Mitt Romney, I believe is reason enough for Dr. King to be proud of this nation. As an African American male hailing from a low-income background, Barrack Obama's rise to the presidency stands as proof against the rumors surrounding the death of the American dream. The first black president was sworn in using Martin Luther King's Bible. The American dream is very much alive. Its finger rests softly on the trigger. Heavy is the head...

'Damn, That Doctor Flipped That Burger Hella Good For Me': The Decreasing Value Of A College Education

If everybody in the ghetto had a PhD, you'd say 'Damn that doctor flipped that burger hella good for me!'

We're through the looking glass, people. The post-crash economy is looking nothing like the pre-crash economy, and with corporate profits at the highest levels since 1900, you can bet that isn't going to change any time soon.

People defend faltering economic policies by pointing to quite a modest decline in unemployment numbers. They claim that the employment situation is getting better, that jobs are being added, and soon the economic landscape will be back to pre-2008 levels. Jobs are being added alright, but the raw numbers belie the situation on the ground.

By mixing unemployment numbers from every state into a giant slurry to achieve a national average, a blanket number is created that hides the fact that some areas of the country have experienced solid job growth while others have been flat-out Tafted.  Plus, raw employment and jobs numbers make no distinction about the types of jobs that have been created, as if a job as McDonald's is equal to a job at Boeing.

Truth is, the majority of jobs created in this post crash economy have been closer McDonald's end of the spectrum. Recent research suggests that up to 58% jobs that are being currently created were considered low wage (paying $13/hr or less). And if you're hoping that your college degree will provide anything resembling a career, think again, your college degree is hardly worth the paper it was printed on. This is doubly true for any liberal arts major.

I grew up with my baby boomer parents reassuring me that a college degree was valuable in its own right, regardless of major. After all, they were part of a generation who went to college for essentially free because the government felt a higher education was valuable to society as a whole. No one believes that any more. Higher education is a luxury many Americans can no longer afford.

Even if college was more affordable who would want to waste the time and effort for a degree that isn't going to help find a decent job, let alone career? A PhD in Arthurian Legend isn't going help much for your job as a fry cook. An engineering degree won't help much when no one is hiring engineers.

The future of American jobs lies in the service sector, so you might as well start practicing your polite smiles now, kids. And remember, experience frying food now will serve you far better than anything you learn in school.

Plans for Immigration Reform Serve No Juan

When it comes to immigration policy in this country there seem to be only two points of view that produce any resonance. The first point of view holds that given the strength of the American economy, illegal immigration is inevitable and that we should somehow work towards a program to allow most current  and future immigrants a path to citizenship, or to at least establish residency. The other point of view says we should deport them all, or at the very least make conditions here so unbearable for them that they are forced to self-deport.

During his first four years in office President Obama has chosen the latter strategy, deporting 1.4 million immigrants, good for a 32, 886 a month average. For reference G.W. Bush averaged a meager 20, 964 deportations a month.  That's quite an increase, especially for a "Kenyan Muslim Socialist" who supposedly coddles terrorists and immigrants alike.

With an unprecedented crackdown on whistle-blowers, vast expansion in the use of drone warfare, and a revolving door between the chief of staff and the financial sector, immigration joins the list of Bush-era policies the President has put on steroids. And yet "progressives" and Democrats hardly bat an eye, demonstrating why Glen Ford referred to Obama as "the more effective evil" By painting himself as trans-partisan and above the party politics, the president can frame his policy choices as products of compromise and effectively escape criticism. But that strategy won't earn him much space in Taft's Old Bed, no sir.

We here at the blog (read: just me) feel neither of these policies effectively address the full extent of these issues. Not only that, but we feel that the whole notion of deportation is anti-American (read: anti-capitalist). We have a simple solution that would not only solve this country's immigration problems, but also spur us pampered Americans to work even harder. We reject the deportation of immigrants, and in its stead we recommend their importation.

The American economy is built on the idea of free markets, and unfettered growth. We are told that the only responsibility of a publicly held company is to maximize a return on its investments for its stockholders, to ensure maximum profits. But how can a company effectively maximize profits, if the American government enforces the monopoly that Americans have on jobs located on American soil? Simply put, they cannot.

Competition is as American as apple pie, or fabricating reasons for war, and has always been vital to a strong economy. So why should the jobs market be immune to the competitive churn that exists in every other market in this country? This only serves to make them fat and lazy.

The importation of immigrants for all types of jobs, not just for menial labor, would strip the American worker of their entitled mindset and force them to prove the validity of American exceptionalism. And in doing so would not only strengthen American resolve by making them truly earn their paycheck, but it would also lead to increased corporate profits, and in doing so, lift the flagging economy.

If America is to continue its role as a world leader into the 21st century, it must make a serious commitment to undertaking tasks that might reduce any and all economic and political drag. Anything less is to waver on the razor's edge, which would mean certain doom for this proud nation.

So please, contact your local representative and tell them that you will back them loyally and vociferously in their attempts to bring about a true and meaningful reform to the current immigration policies. We cannot succumb to the entropy of comfort. Instead we must suffer through crucible of change if we wish to forge the country the founders envisioned.