C - Kelly Clarkson. I don't know why, but she popped into my head. Maybe it's her panache for stylish pop/rock attire, or her cute accent, coupled with a raspy bedtime voice that makes Kathleen Turner nervous... Whatever it is, she's managed to make it to my head, and considering the barren womb that has been these past few furlongs, that's quite the feat. L - 19th Century England, specifically in Northamshirington....O - A pair of ruddy sunglasses. Blimey!S - The Luddite movement. You know, something relevant for today...A - Taking half an UltraDorm, and not waking up with the slightest hangover.T - I tried to have cybersex once, but I kept getting a busy signal...Pardon my CLOSAT... It's a bit on the fritz. I've found that my ability to wax witty has been diminished by about 5/11ths since I've been hammering away at the abode of my fore-bearers... I blame the coconut oil.
Still, lately I've found little reason to actually be witty. The world seems to be falling into a state of utter insanity, and we're all left to try and make sense of it all. It's a shame Lion-O isn't around when you need him.... You know, to kick some Deceptecon butt, and take some surnames.
I've grown increasingly impatient with television lately. It seems one cannot escape political ads of all varieties. They all spout their jargon, their beliefs, and always accompanied by somber music. No longer are we looking to the future with hope and sobriety; instead its all about fear tactics and shame spirals. "How can we make Judge Soandso Johnson look more awful today, Mr. Senatorman? Oh, I found this awesome music loop in Soundtrack today. It should scare even the most liberal of Republicrats!" What makes this all the more pathetic and sad is how much the American man (and woman) gets off on this. Americans love a battle, whether it be civil or foreign. Our own political fervor seems to be the root of our inevitable downfall as a country. No longer are we being asked to compromise for the good of a whole; instead we must battle it out, name call, throw stones, mud, thumbtacks and the occasional horseshoe all in the name of Democracy, or rather, our own political party. Our bi-partisan system works because there are always (seriously, always) two sides to every issue. Always. While we could get all Biblical and call one side good and the other evil, we'd ultimately realize the greyness of it all.
I remember reading an article about Atheism where the professed Atheists denounced God fearing believers as "evil". My mind was blown, as I was astounded that someone who didn't believe in God (and naturally, his lovely nemesis) would use a decidedly religious word. It made me realize that to him, Christians, Muslims, etc were "evil", or the opposite of "good", a relative "good" and a relative "evil". So, even in the debate between Good and Evil there are two sides. This man believes ever so strongly that Christians are awful people who deserve no rights, because they bomb things and put chrome fish on their cars, while any Christian would tell you that this man's influence on the world is also "evil". So, who's evil? Are we all evil, both the believers and those who do not? This is that grey area, the area where subjectivity is king.
The problem with politics is that subjectivity rules, and objectivity is impossible. We all believe something. We all feel one way or another about something. Does that make either one of us evil? By the above definition, yes. We're all evil people, because there is inevitably someone out there who despises the very idea of our existence. That someone is also a voter, a passionate person, represented by a council man or congressman, and their vote is what seems to decide who and what is deemed "evil". That's the problem with politics, and it's why I shy away from it in all regards: it places labels on people who simply are expressing their right to believe in something, and ultimately to choose. It doesn't make them evil, or awful, or stupid to believe that stem cell research should move forward, or that gay's should have the right to marry. That's their belief. That's their understanding of their world that surrounds them. It's subjective, and that subjectivity, on both sides of the political arena, is what is bringing down our country, and making it into quite the mess.
I've recently been incredibly interested in the philosophies of Ayn Rand
(pronounced Eye-n, for those curious... I know I was...), the renowned developer of Objectivism. Most of this interest was stemmed from a rather fantastic video game (of all places) entitled
Bioshock.
The game features the exploits of a man named Andrew Ryan, who has come to foster Ms. Rand's belief that man's own happiness is gained through the pursuit of their own self-interests. He creates this underwater city called Rapture, where he houses the greatest minds of the world, in order to establish a higher order. These great thinkers would in turn pursue their own careers with great fervor, hopefully spawning a utopia of perfect ideals and perfect people. Of course, all of this goes down the tubes, once the self-interests of these great minds begin to clash, creating a rather disastrous dystopia, filled with genetically enhanced citizens, brainwashed little girls called Little Sisters, and their deadly bodyguards called Big Daddies. It's all very dramatic and nice, but at the heart of it is this idea of choice, and the difference between being a slave and being free. Agency and the ability to choose is something I hold so dear to me I can't even begin to express it. It is the greatest thing we have in our lives, and anything that takes away our ability to choose is morally wrong (see, there's that subjectivity again... It's quite a beast.... Quite a human beast...). We are endowed with the wonderful ability to be agents unto ourselves; to act as we see fit in a world lacking in answers by the millions. We're all trying to make sense of something we may never fully comprehend, and it creates a lot of confusion. With this agency comes choice, and with that choice comes consequences, and those consequences often destroy the agency of others. So, how can anyone who so adamant about choice be so against the idea of politics, an establishment that lives and dies by the "choices" of others. Well, to put it simply, because by encouraging the choices of others, I no longer feel free.
In the game, you play as a man who has been denied choice. He is a killing machine, responding to the voice of his "master", who repeats the phrase "Would You Kindly" over and over again, in order to move his slave forward. As the game progresses, you learn how it was only through the choices of others, namely Andrew Ryan and Frank Fontaine, another pivotal character in the game, that led the Hero to this point of complete slavery. The conflicting self-interests of these two great minds led to the slavery of hundreds of people, including the main character. How can that be a wonderful thing? This game seems to be a cautionary tale, as most dystopian stories tend to be, but the parallel's to our own world are impeccable. The choices of the older generation could very well make slaves of their progeny. Slaves not to a human master, but slaves to ideals they can no longer choose whether to accept or deny. No compromise seems possible in the cases of human choice, because it is our right and privilege to live as we will, and choose as we will. But, in a society where the choices of so few affect the freedom of so many, how can we continue to believe in the idea that we cannot
choose compromise? Is that choice beyond our understanding? Is it a choice that impedes on our own beliefs? Maybe. And some would say that compromise is the seed of Communism, and that's a fair statement, but really? No qualified precedent has been set when it comes to worthwhile communism, so it's impossible to really say anything like that.
EDIT: One thing to note about
Bioshock is that ultimately, the message is of hope (well, depending on certain choices that you are capable of making). Throughout the game, you are required to kill the Big Daddies, in order to get to the Little Sisters. Why? You could leave the Big Daddies alone, because they only harm you if you attack them, but because of what these Little Sisters are capable of. They contain within them an element called Adam, which allows the bearer of this element the ability to genetically modify themselves. When you rescue a Little Sister from a Big Daddy, you are given a choice, a very clear choice: you can either Harvest the Little Sister for all of her Adam (which equals a lot of precious Adam), or you can Save them (which gives you some Adam, but not a lot). You are encouraged to save them by another character pivotal to the game's story, Dr. Tenenbaum, and she rewards you for making the correct choice. And so does that game. By choosing to save every Little Sister, you in return are rewarded with the true ending to the game, which is a positive one, and a hopeful one. Why do I mention this? Well, because it emphasizes the fact that in spite of our own slavery in regards to the choices of our fore-bearers, we are still free to choose to make the next generation free. These Little Sisters are indeed young girls, slaves to a system. But you can free them, and let them live a normal life outside the corrupt walls of Rapture. This, I suppose, is the reason for our political system: to allow many to choose to make our future generations capable of living as free a life as is humanly possible.
So, I don't know. I'm rambling. I'm usually one to not take a stance on politics publicly, but this recent election season has made me afraid of the choices that will affect my freedoms. However, I simply cannot believe that even my choices are for the good of anyone, including myself. I make stupid mistakes everyday, some of which I regret more than others, so who am I to make choices like this? I'm as fallible as the next guy, incapable of choosing which show to watch on a Thursday night, or which fast food restaurant to clog my arteries with.... I'm not fit to choose the freedoms of others. I'm not fit to know what's best for everyone. What I do know is that I cannot stand by a system that places freedom in human hands, for man has historically been incapable of keeping freedoms free. We pursue our self-interests with a fury like no other, and we knock down several people on our way. I'm not ready to my faith in that system. I'm not ready to be a part of that.
And so, I'll leave you with that, Blog-O-Friends. Choice. Consequences. Freedoms. Quite the philosophical mess....
- Side Question for Thought - If subjectivity rules our own perception of reality, then wouldn't certain freedoms also be considered subjective? I'll let you discuss that one yourself, as I'm sure it's a doozy...
**Blog posting has been paid for by The Irresponsible Voters of America**
Yes, he is often without pants, if that's what gets you goin' in the mornin'...
.svg.png)
