Is Rick Astley consistent in his song?

The question that most concerns me here is, is Rick Astley consistent in his song, "Never Gonna Give You Up"?  The way to prove that he is, is to start by assuming all his lyrics are true, and then see if there is any contradiction in holding them as all true simultaneously.  Let's see (there is a little license taken here with the lyrics):

Statement #1: Never gonna give you up and never gonna let you down.
Statement #2: Never gonna both run around and desert you.
Statement #3: If I'm never gonna make you cry then I'm never gonna let you down.
Statement #4: Never gonna give you up nor hurt you.

For those of you who know symbolic logic, this would go as follows:

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)

Assume they are all true:

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)
       T           T                               T                 T

Fill in for the last statement:

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)
       T            T                              T                 T      F

G and H must be false:

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)

 TF   T         T                              T                 T  F F F

D must be false:

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)

 TF   T  TF   T            F                 T        TF   T   F F F

R can be True

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)

 TF   T  TF   T  T   F  F                 T        TF   T   F F F

And C can be True

~G dot ~D / ~ (R dot D) / ~C horseshoe ~D / ~ (G v H)

 TF   T  TF   T  T   F  F    FT         T        TF   T   F F F

And there you have it - it is definitely possible that all these propositions can be true simultaneously.  

WE CAN TRUST RICK ASTLEY!!!

And you've been officially RickRolled!

A Defense of Occupy Wall Street's Lack of Agenda

Something I've heard a lot about, since Occupy Wall Street formalized in the streets about a month ago, is its weakness due to its not having clear objectives.  This blog is to argue that this 'weakness' is in fact its greatest strength.  We should not desire that the movement have clear demands. 

A week ago, I listened to an interview with the organizer for Occupy Humboldt State University.  For weeks, tents have been stationed outside the classroom I teach in, and a sign reads "Join the 99%".  The organizer, a veteran in his early thirties and student at HSU, argued that Occupy Wall Street is not putting out demands because it's not about that.  Such demands might weaken the movement by alienating people.  The idea of the movement is to include - to bring people into dialogue and thoughtful critique, to generate ideas for resisting corporatocracy.  Since leading the movement on HSU's campus, he said a multitude of young people have approached him, unaware of the reach corporate America has and the injustices prevalent on Wall Street.  The Occupy movement constituted a space for them to meet and talk and criticize and develop a more thoughtful and informed opinion.  This has been the movement's greatest strength - it literally appeals to 99% of Americans because it isn't Democrat or Republican.  It is not Communist.  It is not labeled aside from generating critique of our socio-politico-economic situation.

There are important theoretical justifications for Occupy Wall Street's not having a defined objective.  According to Alain Badiou, "It is better to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent."  This is to say, for too long liberals have busied themselves with the hard work of taking action within a structure they'd like to re-think.  This has led to the closing off of a truly radical break.  It has also made their liberal actions tolerable and non-threatening to the State.  To take a stance on corporate personhood, for instance, usually involves signing petitions and writing letters to Congress.  A whole plan, modeled on similar campaigns, can be googled and carried out.  The State (the Supreme Court, the Congress, the President, the CEO's) already knows that there are inherent contradictions and injustices in corporate personhood: such injustices are recognized as existent.  The campaign to right those wrongs from within the system, keeps the system in tact.  It prevents a true rupture or radical break from the framework that made corporate personhood possible in the first place.  Even if corporate personhood were to be made illegal, this would be a minor victory, for the political framework has not been altered, and corporations will gain their power in other ways.

Zizek argues that we must become "aggressively passive".  That is, if we focus too much on actions and give up a theoretical critique of our situation, we will be "passively aggressive."  Our aggression will amount to no fundamental change.  If we were to retreat and do nothing, focusing our energies on theory and knowledge, the time will more likely become ripe for serious change.  It's strange to refer to the Occupy Wall Street movement as one that is passive because people are getting arrested and beaten, but this movement is fundamentally about passivity.  It gets its strength from its non-violent nature, and it's demand to set up a public space for people to come in and talk, learn, argue, criticize, become challenged and to challenge, to theorize, and to imagine.  It is doing the work that true progressives desire - a forum for radical change.

The time is not ripe for an agenda.  First, consciousness must be raised.   

I Want - A Video by Anita Magaña

Here is a video my wife, Anita, when she was a film student at UC Santa Cruz.  It's really well done and powerful.  Check it out!


I Want from Anita Magana on Vimeo.

Logic is like Aikido?

Follow this thread of conversation on facebook. 

 

Wall Photos

 

• Person A: I think this teaches a great lesson. God cannot control, nor should we allow those ideas to be taught in schools.

  Person Y: I believe Christians have just as much a right to have God in schools as other religions.
• Person B: Including Atheism. Which dispute their best efforts, Atheists have become exactly what they despise. Ironic, isn't it? :)
• Person A: I repeat, no religion in schools.
• Person Y: That would make the muslims angry.
• Person B: Ah, but by forcing out Christianity, and enforcing secularism, you accidentally enforce Athiesm. Ironic still.
• Person A: How do you plan on supporting ALL types of religiion in the public school system?
• Person B: So why does Atheism win when 75 of America is Christian to some degree?
• Or why does the magical explosion that randomly happened and tossed matter all around that Los magically formed Earth that just magically created water tat magically created Bacteria that magically transformed into complex creatures that magically created legs that magically got smarter that magically became monkeys that magically became humans? All of course due to some really lucky mutations. Right. That one wins.
• Person A: How does Atheism win? If you remove religion from schools, that idea alone does not teach Atheism.
• Person B: That's a nice story, but you may have left out a few scientific details.
• No. I simplified it. In the end, there is a lot of luck involved. So much luck that it requires some... Faith... To believe in it.
• Person A: Which idea of creation do you support?
• Person B: Instead of that direction, Alex, answer this. Do you hate theists? I am asking honestly.
• And follow that with do you like Richard Dawkins?
• Person A: I will answer that with, I have a bible, and I do not own a Richard Dawkins book. Do you have to use the word hate? Why would I hate someone because of their beliefs?
• Person B: You seem to hate theism. You want it stamped out of your life. You want your angry minority to get its way while the majority bends to our will. Take Christmas. It has a unifiying energy that people used to come together as a community and ...celebrate. There is a secular and spiritual aspect. But Athiesm wants to smash tradition and silence the religious, forcing us to remove all indications of it from the Schools... But a pagan holiday, like Halloween, which most Christians enjoy cause they made it fun for them too, is ok..... Do you get the hypocrisy that is felt by us and how some of us feel bullied?
• That was "your" will.
• Person A: Dude, I think you're making quite a few assumptions about my belief system. Not only that, you're telling me how I feel about religion. If you give me a chance to defend myself from the judgements you've created, we could have a productive debate.
• Person B: Defining yourself as an Athiest sets the tone. Like it or not, after reading hundreds of articles and listening to a few dozen lectures from Athiests, there has been a consistent pattern. Heck, the term "freethinker" alone starts a pattern ...of nsult, indicating that I, as a believer in a God, do not come to such a conclusion through rational thought. But Alex, I am all ears. I would be delighted for a fresh non-judgemental, non-hateful viewpoint. One that isn't trying to bully me into submission and call me stupid for believing in God. I might die of shock, especially after hearing he prominent Athiest Dawkins say that religious parents should be charged with Child Abuse for teaching heir kids religion... But I'll be glad to hear your views :)
• Person A: After hearing your consistent attacks on everything non-religious, and judgments of atheism, I will decline your offer.  Just remember, nothing has been proven on either side.
• Person X: Violence in schools has nothing to do with God. It has everything to do with shitty, irresponsible parents that allow, if not encourage their students to be anti-social.
• Person B: So I present what I see, and instead of manning up and showing your side, you throw up some feel sorry for me comments and run off? Really? That certainly is your loss I guess. So I will only hear from bullies I guess.
• Person B: BTW, you call me attacking. How is telling you I feel bullied and attacked by Atheism an attack on Atheism? Isn't that a bit of a logical fallacy?
• Me: I teach logic at Humboldt State University and there are all sorts of fallacies going on here: the whole section on simplifying the big bang theory and referring to it all as magic is a straw man; "by forcing out Christianity, and enforcing... secularism, you accidentally enforce atheism" is begging the question and it equivocates because secularism in schools doesn't entail atheism necessarily; "do you hate theists?" is a complex question because, given that his answer, to the negative, was followed with "You seem to hate theists," it seems that you were really asking, "Why do you hate theists?" which is a complex question fallacy; "But Athiesm wants to smash tradition and silence the religious, forcing us to remove all indications of it from the Schools" is a straw man and a slippery slope; As Alex never described himself in this thread as an atheist, "Defining yourself as an Athiest sets the tone" is an attack against the person fallacy. Fallacious arguing like this, unfortunately, makes for an emotional impact but doesn't do well in changing minds.
• Person A: Finally, a voice of reason.
• Person B: Awww, look. Someone came and ran to your defense. :) How cute!
• You do know though, by starting with "I teach logic..." Oh never mind... You might not get the irony :D
• Me: These last two comments: Red Herring Fallacy

 

I present this thread in order to argue that pointing out logical fallacies is a bit like Aikido.  Aikido is a Japanese martial art that is designed to help practitioners defend themselves while also protecting their attacker from injury.  Click here and you will be directed to an official Aikido site.  Now, I am not a practitioner of Aikido.  Thanks to the generosity of the Northcoast Aikido dojo, I will be learning soon.  So, I say that to make sure it's noted that I am writing this article according to a crude understanding of Aikido.  I have been to one training session, I've witnessed a number of demonstrations, and I've talked to close friends who've been practicing a long time about it.

 

My idea, though, is this: pointing out logical fallacies is a bit like Aikido.  It's a way of defending yourself, to move with the motion of an agressor, while affording that aggressor the best opportunity possible for redemption.  In this scenario, Person B has entered a debate that he feels passionately about.  You can feel it in his comments - the fact that the Big Bang Theory is taught it schools and the Christian Creation Story is not makes him very angry.   He feels that scientific theories base themselves on as much faith as any theory, and the fact that they are favored in schools is the result of dogmatism and bullying.  In a general sense, Asian Philosophy does justice to such feelings.  In Buddhism, the anger and passion associated with Person B's ideas about how science should be taught can be located in a general craving and desiring of the mind.   His frustration stems from his wanting so badly for his religious views to be taken seriously in scientific circles, and they are not.  He grasps for explanations and justifications for his unmet desire.  He lashes out with aggression - so much aggression that Person A is stopped cold of interacting with him.  Person B has beat him down, ended their dialogue, and in so doing, abruptly ended any chance at redemption.  Any semblance of healthy conversation is over.  Person A is left abused, Person B is left alone.

 

The idea behind Aikido is that you recognize the suffering endured by your attacker.  It is such suffering that has led him to resort to violence in the first place.  You stand up for yourself - if you bend to the will of Person B, you will be left broken, and he will be left alone.  The idea is to meet your aggressor, to mold the yang of his attack with the yin of your peacefulness.  Upon meeting, you give your attacker respect by taking seriously his attack, you block his punch, you bend his wrist, you throw him off balance, and you force him to roll away from you.  When he gets up, he is not injured, and he is not alone.  You are still there, ready to do it again if necessary.  He now has seen his attack wound up, combined with a different kind of energy, and displaced with care.  He has been taken care of - you did not break his wrist.  You also demonstrated that his attack is not constructive.  You will not take it, you will take care of it.  Ego bruised, perhaps, he now has the chance to be redeemed.

 

Pointing out logical fallacies is a lot like this.  I recognize the pain in Person B.  The way his argument escalated and the way it turned abusive and irrational so quickly indicates a deep-seeded anger, which is of course not a pleasant feeling.  To point out such irrationality is to take his arguments seriously, to block them, bend them, throw them off balance, and force them to roll away.  He might come back and bring on another attack.  You are still there with an arsenal of tools.  You mean no ill-will.  You demand a reasonable, respectful conversation.  Until it's provided, you will demonstrate the flaws, and you will remain there with him - a skilled adversary, but also a friend.  You can not force a reasonable discourse onto Person B, but through pointing out the illogic of the discourse as it is, you afford him the best possible way to redeem himself and his ideas.  If he is to proceed, he will need to defend himself with reason.  The attack will no longer suffice, for your energy is now co-present, and you mean him no harm.

Zizek-Inspired Psychoanalysis of a 53%-er

I wanted to do a bit of a Zizek-ian analysis on a sign help up by a "53%-er."  You can see the actual picture if you click here.  His sign reads:

I am a former Marine.
I work two jobs.
I don't have health insurance.
I worked 60-70 hours a week for 8 years to pay my way through college.
I haven't had 4 consecutive days off in over 4 years.
But I don't blame Wall Street.
Suck it up you whiners.
I am the 53%.
God bless the USA!

I I don't know if Zizek would agree with my analysis, but even if he wouldn't, it might shed some light on something important (hopefully!).
The 53% movement, by the way, is the conservative response to the Occupy Wall Street movement.  The premise behind it is that people need to take personal responsibility for their lot in life and work hard.  They assume that the We Are the 99% movement is comprised of people looking for free handouts from Wall Street or the government.  Instead of working to earn their money, they are gathering together and protesting with the sole purpose of taking what rightfully belongs to the wealthy, and stealing it for themselves.  I think this generally captures the sentiment.  Most signs held up for the 53% movement end referring to protestors as whiners or lazy bums.

An important place to start with this particular sign we are reading is with Zizek's concept of psychoanalysis, and ultimately with fetishism.  For Zizek, we begin a psychoanalysis with the assertion that there is no Subject without the Social - "the field of social practices and socially help beliefs."  Against the idea that we can isolate the subject and explore their individual experience, or their individual psychoses, we understand the Subject's trauma or neuroses within the context of external, actual social conditions.  In other words, we cannot understand this marine outside of the social conditions that gave him cause to write his letter.  This is often not how psychoanalysis is performed.

Zizek notes, with regard to the standard way psychoanalysis works, "Instead of the concrete analysis of external, actual social conditions... we are thus given the story of unresolved libidinal deadlocks; instead of the analysis of social conditions that lead to war, we are given the 'death drive'; instead of the change of social relations, a solution is sought in the inner psychic change, in the 'maturation' that should qualify us to accept social reality as it is.  In this perspective, the very striving for social change is denounced as an expression of the unresolved Oedipus complex... Is not the notion of a rebel who, by way of his 'irrational' resistance to social authority, acts out his unresolved psychic tensions ideology at its purest?  However... such an externalization of the cause into 'social conditions' is no less false, in so far as it enables the subject to avoid confronting the real of his or her desire.  By means of this externalization of the cause, the subject is no longer engaged in what is happening to him."

So, it's important to note that psychoanalysis is best performed with an account of social conditions and the subject's desires in relation to such social conditions.

In Late-Capitalism, as we find ourselves currently, Zizek holds that subjects will typically maintain a cynical distance with social norms.  It's likely this cynical distance is that which Lyotard was referring to in his musings about post-modernism: people see themselves as being past the grand narrative.  We no longer believe in the great stories of history's march towards perfection, or some such fairytale.  We see ourselves as critical thinkers, not swept into an ideology.  As Zizek scholar Adrian Johnston notes, "Subjects acquiesce to a system of rules, norms, and conventions (i.e. a big Other) only so long as they are somehow able to sustain a minimal sense of sane selfhood or individuality vis-a-vis conceiving of themselves as skeptics reluctantly going along with the run of things amidst a herd of simplistic, gullible believers."  This seems pretty typical.  Occupy Wall Street protestors see themselves as free-thinkers, individually taking a stance against the herd - those 53%ers or that Tea Party or the Republican or Democratic parties or those dumb red states.  Likewise, the 53%ers maintain their sanity by speaking out against a 'simplistic' group of 'whiners' and 'lazy bums' and 'dirty hippies' who don't really understand economics or Wall Street or those heathens who don't know god and are unwittingly led by the devil.  If they weren't such sheep, they wouldn't be out protesting.

When the marine notes that he works two jobs, it's with an attitude of cynical distance - as though he, through hard work, forded a way to become independent of the system.  While those in the herd complain, he works.  And whatever Wall Street does, he will work.  He sees himself as being independent of Wall Street's actions.  While likely seeing himself at a distance from social norms, in actuality, he has conformed very nicely to the current strategies of Capitalist Liberal-Democratic Ideology.  While surely maintaining a cynical distance from it in his conscious life, in his unconscious fantasy, he has found conformity bearable.  He has found the rough life of 60-70 hours a week and the uncertainty that comes with having no health insurance a bearable reality.  So, while I'm sure he would be offended if labeled a conformist (can you think of anyone who wouldn't be?), given his work-life and his acceptance of the status quo, he is absolutely a conformist.  Zizek investigates how this is possible, and it brings us to fetishism.

For Zizek, fetishism is not unique to this marine, but is a cultural neurosis.  So, as you read this, consider what you yourself fetishize.  Johnston writes, "Fetishists... deliberately and knowingly 'enjoy their symptom'... The fetishist is someone who can, whether through stoicism or sarcasm, tolerate the harshness and difficulty of daily existence: 'fetishists are not dreamers lost in their private worlds, they are thoroughly 'realists,' able to accept the way things effectively are - since they have their fetish to which they can cling in order to cancel the full impact of reality.'  However, if the fetish-object is taken away from the fetishist, this cynical facade of pragmatic realism disintegrates, plunging the subject into depression, despair, or even psychosis."

The marine is definitely a fetishist through stoicism.  He tolerates a terribly difficult life by distancing himself from any feeling of dependency and just working and working and working.  He is a 'realist' - the world is harsh and difficult and you can't count on anyone but yourself for anything.  He's come to accept this world as it is.  But that would be a devastating world to live in, so how does he tolerate it?  With his fetish, which is work.  He works like a madman.  It takes up his time and gives him little in return, but as he clings to it, his work takes on purpose and the harsh world becomes a bearable world, one in which he can afford rent and food.  Even as he comes home exhausted, he prepares himself for the next day's work because, as a worker, he can exist in the dog-eat-dog reality.

Now, imagine this proud man was diagnosed with cancer and he could no longer work 60-70 hours a week.  According to Zizek's assessment, his fetish-object, which is intense work, would be taken away.  His ideas about not wanting to rely on others for health insurance would no longer be held up triumphantly, but would be incredibly painful for him.  He may not change his mind about it, but without his fetish, he would not be able to pretend that the world was bearable.  His suffering would intensify, and his outlook would be depressing: "I can't afford to live in this world - I simply can't afford my medication."  And perhaps his outlook would change with the removal of his fetish - perhaps he would no longer be accepting of the status quo: Johnston writes, "The implication is hence that if the relatively small salaries and various little techno-gadget toys of today's late-capitalist subjects were to be taken away from them, their pretense to being realistically accepting of the status quo would be dropped immediately."  He would likely no longer see a justice in the dog-eat-dog reality.

Zizek is not recommending that we get rid of our fetishism.  He maintains that fetishism is an important coping technique for us in the face of Ideology.  But we need to maintain some self-criticism, and at times challenge the status quo.  Especially in light of such a grim picture depicted by the marine, why not challenge that type of harsh reality?  Why not face the tenuous structure of your lifestyle?  Seriously, one bad injury or sickness and this man's world is shattered.  It's completely reliant on the continuation of an insane workload.  Will he be able to maintain those hours when he's 50 years old?  And this really goes for all of us.  How do we maintain sanity when we learn about sweatshops overseas or we hear about rain forests being chopped down to make space for growing sugarcane for biodiesel to run our cars?  How do we keep our cool when we hear of oil leaks in the Gulf of Mexico when we know we buy food which travelled miles and miles and miles to get to our table?  What fetish object in our life makes it bearable?  And why has Occupy Wall Street taken so long to unearth?  We knew millionaires weren't paying their fair share.  What in our lives made it ok for their wealth to keep multiplying and multiplying at a disproportional rate to our own?  How have we tolerated lobbying for all these years?  Why did the breaking point take so long?  I think the answer is clear: money.

For most of us, money is the ultimate fetish-object.  Zizek argues just this.  Consider, the Occupy Wall Street didn't happen when banks were bailed out because absurd unemployment rates were just getting started.  Now people have not been working for a long time and their fetish-object, money, is looking more scarce.  Driven to despair, the people are taking action.  So long as we have money, and we can put that money towards investments that multiply it, life in late-Capitalism is pretty bearable.  We can live with growing disparities between the rich and poor, we can live with industrialization, we can live with globalization.  Granted, we maintain our cynical distance - we disapprove, we see ourselves as fighting the herd who would destroy this earth before giving up their gas-guzzling cars.  But however cynical we are, so long as we have money, life is bearable.  It appears that, if we are not to wait until a horrible crisis, revolution rests on psychoanalysis and self-criticism.

To the marine who is part of the 53%, your work ethic is admirable, but I sure hope we can do better than that.

Thoughts on 'Occupy Wall Street'

We are now weeks and weeks into a growing protest called Occupy Wall Street. This protest has spread well beyond the streets of New York. It started as a protest that had to fight for publicity - the media, primarily controlled by the institutions the protestors criticized, gave them little to no attention. Still, it grew, largely on the back of facebook and other social media outlets. People had the means to provide the story themselves, and they did with still images, blogs, and video. When the police started spraying pepper into the air, the major networks could no longer ignore it. It’s now a part of America’s story as unemployment remains dreadfully high and the facts we already knew are being distributed: corporations and millionaires avoid taxes through loopholes and pay a FAR less percentage of their earnings than, say, a family bringing in $50,000 a year. Millions of people have a bigger mortgage to pay than their homes are worth and still more have no medical insurance. The economy is a mess, and people are demonstrating their frustration at Wall Street - that institution, through their effective lobbying, guaranteed their bailout even as their irresponsibility wrecked our economy.

I want to think through some important features of this demonstration.

First of all, this demonstration is a repetition. As we’ll see, that doesn’t make it any less unique and important, and not therefore impotent in effecting change. One substantial protest that comes to mind is the protest of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington in 1999. As they are now, the big banking policies and the social consequences of such policies were passionately criticized on the streets. This protest is a repetition, signifying that when the streets of Seattle were brought back under State control, the critique was not, however, brought under State control. The call for justice and reform remained, emboldened even. I also see the protests and consciousness-raising with regard to Hurricane Katrina and the pathetic government response as an important repetition here. It further revealed the fragility of the State and helped solidify a critique in the minds of political actors (the people, not necessarily their representatives in government).

Philosopher Gilles Deleuze talks a lot about repetition. Drawing from Lacanian psychoanalysis, he argues that profound change comes about through repetition.

This is because, #1, repetitions do not indicate static sameness. Repetitions rather indicate the bringing forth of creative differences. That is, repetition, strictly speaking, is impossible. While we may use the same words to describe two repetitive occurrences (this being the Symbolic architecture), the repetition occurs under different circumstances that make it a more or less effective instantiation. The Seattle protests importantly focused on the World Trade Organization as it enslaved the people of poor nations through the means of debt and maxims of globalized economic policies, through the exploitation of their corrupted governments. It destroyed valuable habitats and it violently spread Capitalistic ideals against the will of the people. Today, the protest occurs as the local US economy is in shambles. The focus importantly rests on Wall Street and its exploitation of citizens of the United States. While a repetition, it engenders difference, and these differences become incredibly important.

This brings me to #2: As a repetition, we should be hopeful that our critique is not lost. People criticize the Occupy Wall Street movement for not having a specific goal. It serves more as a demonstration than a protest. This should not concern us. Often times, when lobbying for profound institutional change, the exact goals are never known, and that’s because, until the aftermath (until the State’s power is revealed as weak and vulnerable and open to a realignment), the old institutions reign. How can the goals of a radical movement be understood according to the old axis points? How can we explain the change we need according to the old lexicon? First, we need to deconstruct the Big Other (the State, the institution). The repetition serves to remind people that the State is not as powerful as it would have us think. When we see police act out, when we see arrests, when we imagine clandestine actions undertaken by the State, and when we see a strong counter-reaction from the self-declared “realists”, we will then recognize that the institution of Wall Street and two-party, lobbied, “democracy” exist only insofar as the people imagine it. The demonstration does not need an expressed goal yet - at this point it needs to reveal the State and Wall Street as a Paper-Tiger. The Wall Street bailout was not necessary (as we were encouraged to believe) insofar as we could have enacted profound institutional change. We could even rethink Capitalism. The real “goal” of the Occupy Wall Street movement will appropriately be defined in a literally New World. In Badiouian language, it will be a post-evental project. The “Event” will be the unprecedented shift in the political axis - an amazing change in the way we think economics and politics. Upon naming the Event and recognizing a profound change, subjects of that Event will go to work and define and work out the real project of the revolution. For now, as more and more dissatisfied citizens gather across the country, it suffices to say that this demonstration serves the sole function of revealing the points of vulnerability in the Big Other.

Does this demonstration constitute an Event? I don’t think so. But as a repetition, it effectively opens the space for an Event. We are in an age of Late-Capitalism. We know this because we are taught to despise revolution. Those people who would die for an ideal are simply insane. Why? - Because in Late-Capitalism, life is all that matters. Life is the highest ideal. And in Late-Capitalism, “life” means biological existence. We are asked to be satisfied with the fact that we are alive. As the discrepancy between the rich and poor widens and as people find their prospects for a good life diminishing, this call to be satisfied with biological existence is all that’s left to sustain The State. The conservative reaction to “We Are the 99%” beautifully embodies the ideal of life. In the “We Are the 53%”, poor people hold up signs which talk about how they work several jobs, 80 hour workweeks, they have no health insurance, they lost their homes, they are veterans and, after risking their lives, are thankful to have their low-paying job, even as it denies them benefits. They don’t blame Wall Street, they don’t want to re-think our political institutions. That is, they are happy to exist. This is the highest ideal. Those who are not satisfied with mere existence are labeled “Whiners” and are told to shut up. This is the truth of Late-Capitalism. When I read signs from “We Are the 53%”, I want to cry. Where is the critique of their situation? Where is their revolutionary zeal?

The fact that such a counter-protest exists indicates the effectiveness of the Occupy Wall Street campaign. The conservative response will of course be considered the “Realist response”, but it is a Utopian dream - an Idealist response that, upon seeing the State in its feebleness, clings to a nonexistent, unattainable stability. The State is ok. Wall Street is ok. The State will persevere. What they fail to recognize is that The State is never stable. As a repetition, the Occupy Wall Street is always brought out under different conditions, but always poking holes in The State’s machinery. We are reminded with this protest that profound change is imminent if we continue the fight.

Narratives Forgotten

Over the last year, I recorded this album.  I released all these songs on my blog through soundcloud, but now it's been mastered and released as an official album.  Each song tells some kind of story.

The Allegory of the Cave is an interpretation of Plato's famous story.



The Angry Customer draws from my experience working at a call center for Netflix.  This man's story is the only way I can understand the anger that drives people to be so rude on the phone.



The McCain Blues is a reaction to John McCain's support of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" even as it was being abolished.



The Tea Party An(a)them(a) describes the wet dream of ultra-conservative politics - a world in which a person isn't required a sense of compassion and support for their community.



Do You Ever Think You'll Understand? was written a while ago.  It was inspired by Three Cups of Tea by Mortenson.



The Anguish of Kyoto the Dog is written for Anita and my pup, Kyoto.  It tells the sad tale of being put in a crate and being left alone.



Allison is written for my niece.  It probably doesn't fit well on the album, but I think it's a catchy tune, and I wanted to pay tribute to this special lady!



Pinch Me Now was also written a while ago.  It's dedicated to my wife, Anita.



And finally, The Creation and Destruction According to Mike is an inspired piece I wrote from God's perspective to explain Global Warming.