"STOP HARPER!" Absolute Fucking Win.

I am not a fan of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But how can I like Ron Paul (probably the most conservative U.S. senator) and not the head of the Canadian Conservative Party? Well, I simply don't consider 'neo-con' to be 'con' at all. As a matter of fact I think it's a bad joke, and it makes me a little sick. But I'll probably get into that in another post. Anyways, there's this girl I heard about today, Bridgette Marcelle, who gives me faith in Canada. Marcelle, a 21-year-old graduate from the University of Ottawa held up a sign in the Canadian Senate only yards away from Harper that read, 'STOP HARPER.' If you're not up on Canadian politics, that's okay because if I wasn't from Canada I wouldn't give a fuck either.

So to recap...Harper recently was elected as the head of a majority government (166/308 seats in the House of Commons). This of course is misleading (as Marcelle pointed out) because only 1/4 eligible voters actually voted for Mr. Harper. This makes me want to go off about electoral reform, but I'll restrain myself.

Anyways, Marcelle's reason for holding up her sign was to protest Harper's dangerous agenda. She lists the building of mega-prisons, military expendatures, cuts in social programs and an 'I don't give a fuck' attitude towards the environment as major problems in the Harper agenda. Instead, she believes workers movements , women's rights movements and environmental moments should be given more focus. She talks about civil disobedience which I would love to get into, but I think I'll leave it for another post. For now, here's a the interview and an article about the incident. Disrespectful? Awesome? Thoughts?

CTV interview with Bridgette Marcelle
Globe and Mail article about the incident

Epigrams and Interludes

I'm reading Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche. I feel like it's a stereotype for university students in the arts to read Nietzsche. It's like...'hey look at me, I'm reading philosophy everyone!' So to avoid looking like some kind of pretentious-hipster-philosophy student asshole I generally don't bring the book with me out of my house. But back to the book. I've enjoyed it so far (I'm on section five of nine) but the second section, The Free Spirit, confused the fucking hell out of me. I found the third section, What is Religious?, to be of some interest. However, this post is primarily about the unique fourth section, entitled Epigrams and Interludes. This section was both thoroughly entertaining and thought provoking. It consists of a series of numbered paragraphs (63 through 185) no more than three lines in length. These short phrases discuss a variety of topics, so I figured I would just list some of my favorites here.

• 67: Love of one is barbarism: for it is exercised at the expense of all others. The love of God, too.
• 78: Whoever despises himself still respects himself as one who despises.
• 81: It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst anymore?
• 94: A man's maturity consists of having found again the seriousness one had as a child, at play.
• 120: Sensuality often hastens the growth of love so much that the roots remain weak and are easily torn up.
• 146: Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you.
• 156: Madness is rare in individuals but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.
  
• 157: The thought of suicide is a powerful comfort: it helps one through many a dreadful night.
• 169: Talking much about oneself can also be a means to conceal oneself.
• 175: In the end one loves one's desire and not what is desired.
  

Perhaps I missed some important ones. But after two read thoughts the lines about definitely stuck out most to me. I was somewhat disappointed (but not really surprised) about Nietzsche's position on women (for example, in number 145, he writes 'Comparing man and woman on the whole, one may say: woman could not have the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary role). I find it particularly amusing in light of the first section of this very book, entitled, On the Prejudices of Philosophers, where he rails other philosophers for defending the so-called truth, which he states is only their version of the truth, formed by their prejudices. Again, just something I found amusing. I don't think it discredits his work, just demonstrates that he was not always above his own criticisms.

Talk to your ugly child for fuckin' five minutes.

I just stumbled upon this picture a little while ago. It's a quote by comedian Louis CK about gay marriage, and I think it just about sums up my position on the issue. Now I'm not gay, but I have no problem what so ever if two people who are gay want to get married. I can't stand people on a moral god damn crusade. I've adopted the following simple position on a lot of 'social issues' that get people upset: If it doesn't concern you at all, shut the fucking fuck up and let people do what they want. Seems simple to me. I know gay marriage is becoming more and more acceptable and this is probably about five years late. But I think the point can be applied to life in general. To simplify even further, mind your own business, let people do their thing, you do yours, everyone is happy. Same applies for other things like abortion and euthanasia and what not. If its not you killing a fetus, why does it bother you? Is that taking indifference to far perhaps?

Some words of wisdom from Mr. Wallace.

A good friend of mine sent me a link to this article by David Foster Wallace (author of Infinite Jest and The Broom of the System). When he was explaining it to me I thought it was pretty much complete bull shit. It wasn't until I read all of it did I appreciate Wallace's simple but brilliant point. To summarize, Wallace says that new graduates don't know shit about shit. He talks a lot about being self-centered and how thinking we are the center of the universe is our 'default setting' (because after all, we experience 100% of the events in our lives from our own perspective). Wallace says,

"This is real freedom. That is being educated, and understanding how to think. The alternative is unconsciousness, the default setting, the rat race, the constant gnawing sense of having had, and lost, some infinite thing."

Anyways, just thought I would share.

I love you, Mr. Camus (pronounced Ka-Moo).

I just finished re-reading The Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. I enjoyed it the first time, and I absolutely loved it the second. Actually that's a god damn lie. I didn't love it at all, but I'll get to that later. There were parts of it I enjoyed, and what I enjoyed most was Camus' description of 'the absurd'. He explains that the feeling of absurdity can strike any man in the face on any street corner. Perhaps my favorite example of Camus' description of 'absurdity' comes on page 14. He states,

"At certain moments of lucidity, the mechanical aspect of mans gestures their meaningless pantomime makes silly everything that surrounds them. A man is talking on the telephone behind a glass partition; you cannot hear him, but you see his dumb show: you wonder why he is alive."

I find what he describes to be familiar feeling, and one I could never describe myself. This was easily my favorite part of the book. Where I start to loose interest is where he describes the conequences of living an absurd life (revolt, freedom and passion). I also dislike his examples of absurdity, particularly Don Juan (the lover), the actor and the conqueror. The titular character, on the other hand provides the best example of an absurd life (in my opinion of course, but It's my blog so fuck you). He imagined Sisyphus happy, despite the fact he was condemned to roll a rock up a hill for eternity. He imagines this because his rock is 'his thing'. If this is sounding confusing, it's because (a) I can't explain anything to anyone and (b) you probably didn't read the fucking book). What I find most confusing about the absurd is where it stands in relation to other ideas, particularly in relation to existentialism. The two ideas seem so similar I found it hard to differentiate one from the other. Thank God for Wikipedia (there's a little joke for you), I think I am able to make some sense of what is going on here. Existentialists believe that there is a such thing as meaning, but the universe is totally devoid of it. Therefore, people must create their own meaning for their lives. Absurdists also believe that there is a such thing as meaning. However, they acknowledge their may be meaning, but if there is we will never know it, and should not hope to know it. The main difference between the two ideas, so far as I can see, is that absurdists believe that individuals may create their own meaning (much like existentialists, thus the confusion) so long as it faces the absurdity and seemingly pointlessness of life. Sisyphus therefore acknowledges meaning, but knows he can never know what the meaning of life is. So instead he finds 'his thing' (the rock) which is his meaning. Because he knows 'his thing' is pointless, he faces the absurd every day by rolling the rock up the hill. Because he confronts the absurd instead of avoiding it (like Camus accuses just about every philosopher who came before him of doing), he imagines Sisyphus must be happy . I think that makes sense. Kind of. Sort of. Maybe?

Did I completely miss the mark here?

Osama Bin Laden, Navy Seal Team Six and Pakistani sovereignty.

While I am ashamed to be linking to anything to do with Fox News, I found this article about Ron Paul's position on the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden pretty interesting. While Ron Paul has many opinions I down right disagree with, I admire his position on international relations. Ron Paul is a proponent of something called 'non-interventionism' which basically is an approach to international relations where everyone minds there own fucking business. Well, that isn't completely true. Non-interventionists believe in trade agreements but oppose any type of military conflict that is not in self-defense. Anyways, Dr. Paul pointed out something I've been saying from the begging of this 'We Got Osama' victory parade. He asks, "What if he had been in a hotel in London?" He concludes things would have been handled much differently, and he is of course correct. I don't see the U.S. shitting on France to get Roman Polanski, so what makes it okay to shit on Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden? How severe does a crime have to be in order to necessitate military intervention. Now you may be quick to point out that London and Islamabad are very different places. However, the U.K. and Pakistan are both allies of the U.S., so why should the U.S. stomp on Pakistani Sovereignty like it's a piece of dirt? Are they harboring a terrorist? Maybe. Maybe not. But was getting Osama worth pissing off a country that already dislikes the U.S. and is packing over a hundred nuclear weapons? I think not.

Do you think differently?

Why Ron Paul is the most hated man in politics.

Few names in politics inspire so much hate as Ron-fucking-Paul. Democrat? Republican? Doesn't seem to matter much. Ron Paul has political positions that make people (a) laugh, (b) scream or (c) cock their heads sideways and say, "what the fuck!? If you don't believe me (or don't know what the fuck I'm talking about) you should take a look at this first. As hilarious and infuriating as I find Ron Paul's political ideas, I am not going to attack them (like this shameful display). Instead, I would like to congratulate Ron Paul on sticking to his (mostly libertarian) principles, and on being a more-or-less walking definition of non-partisanship. Yes, I did just call the man with the most conservative voting record of any congressmen from 1937 - 2002 non-partisan. You see, Ron Paul doesn't vote with the Republicans (despite being a Republican), nor does he vote with the Democrats. Ron Paul votes with Ron Paul, and this pisses just about everyone off. Whenever congress voted to invade Iraq, Ron Paul voted against it. How about the 'War on Drugs' started by fellow Republican Richard Nixon? Ron Paul says fuck it we don't need it. Abortion? He's pro-life, but thinks abortion legislation has no business in federal politics. The point I'm making here is certianly not that Ron Paul should run the country, or that he has an admirable voting record, or even that he is a sane individual. What I am saying is this: Ron Paul is a Republican, but he votes like he doesn't give a shit about it. And that is an example every politician can learn from. Unfortunately, this also makes him the most hated man in politics.

Now, who hates Ron Paul?

This is an interesting article by the way: The Antiwar, Anti-Abortion, Anti-Drug-Enforcement Administration, Anti-Medicare Candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul