Hi, my name is D and this is my writings on subjects. I'm no rapscallion or anything at all. If you want to you can read my writings on subjects if you have free time. If you want to argue with me or call me names then please comment. Negative feedback is very welcome...I love dat shit. Me? I'm not even a noun, I'm a fucking verb, dude.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Identity Politics is the Cheapest Form of Politics

Today we are going to look at the concept of "Identity Politics" and discuss whether this is okay or if it is the downright cheapest and lowest form of politics imaginable.

Identity Politics

Obviously, identity politics has exploded on the pop scene of late and many are scrambling to understand what the heck it is. The Nigel Garage led Brexit vote thing-a-ma-doo and the whacky American election thing-a-ma-jig has made Identity Politics the norm now and I think not many people in those regions were really ready for it or fully understood what was going on.

I wasn't surprised at all by Brexit or the American 'lection as much as other people were .... I've grown in up Quebec region where on the minor-league "provincial level" (regional areas of Canada) Identity Politics has been the status quo here for over 50 years. It's powerful stuff, powerful stuff. It's also the reason I don't vote and can't stand politics and view politics as the most insidious form of human thinking and behavior.

So yeah, I'm biased, I hate this form of politics. What is it? The old Internet defines it as so,

"a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics."


I don't think that's the jist of it though. I would define "Identity Politics" as the following,

"A method to get-over or win in politics by scapegoating minority groups who do not share certain skin color, religious, or linguistic traits that the majority population has" -My Definition


Older American Examples (to show it's not new there either)

It's nothing new anywhere, this has been a common form of political strategy all the over the world for thousands of years, the only reason my region (Quebec) is probably more familiar with this term is because we've seen such advanced forms of it in provincial level politics here that that term has been used to discuss politics here for decades now ... while the term "identity politics" is something quite newer to other regions who might not have needed a clear cut term for it in prior years.

America has always had it too but in shorter bursts and in most cases entire campaigns were not entirely designed on it. Just to show this is nothing new let's look at a clear cut example from yesteryear where-in some cheap heat is ran by Bush to beat Dukakis (Dukakis? I liked Dukakis).



Alright in this example by the Bush One campaign to vilify Dukakis, we see an ad which on the surface suggests that Dukakis apparently supports weekend passes for prisoners who display good-behavior and in one case of the weekend pass program a prisoner committed a crime. The ad on the surface attacks Dukakis for supporting this program, but is that all that we're seeing here? This ad campaign heavily focused tv, radio, and billboards with the face of one Wille Horton (the day-pass man). He's a scary man and this ad is saying Dukakis wants to release a horde of them to kill you.

Subtly, this ad said "Dukakis wants to release a horde of black guys to murder you" ... and this ad was popular enough for Bush One to in fact defeat Dukakis. He used an isolated instance of an individual crime as a way to scare the base majority population with photos of scary looking minorities. I feel bad for former Detroit Tigers outfielder Willie Horton who probably had a difficult time in airports and the DMV thanks to these attack ads due to sharing a name with this man in the attack ad.

Yet, in terms of today's American politics this example of Identity Politics is subtle and pretty tame. Today it is totally common to flat-out scapegoat a minority community at the drop of a hat or at the drop of dime full throttle with no worry of any brushback or fallout and no damage control will be needed. In today's politics totally open Identity Politics is the NORM.

My Region

As stated above, my provincial Canadian region has engaged in flat-out open-source minority scapegoating for so long that this shit doesn't shock me as much as this overt Identity Politics is shocking millions of British and American people right now following Brexit and the American Fiasco.

It is so common in my region for politicians to use Cheap Identity Politics that I can't even anymore. I literally can't even. Seeing the cheapest form of politics talked about in the media ad nauseum is the status quo for quebec regional politics. Let us count some of the ways.

One time, a mayor of a small town called Herouxville banned muslim wear (hijab, turban, etc.) .... and how many muslims actually lived in this small town ... wait for it .... ZERO! In this case the mayor of the town wasn't even scapegoating a minority that actually even lived there!

There was a weird time here where they had this dopey "Charter of Values" thing where they wanted to ban religious symbols. It seemed strange that 99% of religious people in quebec are catholic christians yet this charter aimed mainly at Muslim and Jewish people and their customs who make up about a combined 1% of religious people here. All the streets in quebec are named after christian saints and there's a gigantic ugly metal cross thing on Montreal's mountain ... but religious symbols like that seemed to be unaffected because they claimed they are "historical religious symbols" basically giving the religion that 99% of religious people believe in an exemption and focusing the ban on the 1% of minority religions.

There's always smaller ones like 9 year old girls getting kicked out of soccer leagues because of muslim headwear and things of a smaller scale. That's just 24/7 stuff.

Want to know what is the main debate going on the last few months currently in Quebec provincial parliament? It's not how to boost the struggling economy that has been in stagnation for 30 years now or anything like that. What is the main debate this month? Well, they are debating non-stop whether or not a lady can wear a Burka.

(see: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/18/burqa-ban-proposal-quebec-parliament-hearings)

This is the main topic of debate here now. You should know that the Arabic population here is about 1% in total, most live in the multi-cultural Chill Area (Montreal), that many are second or third generation Canadians and who are pretty much as Canadian as Poutine Pie .... and of those people the amount of females wearing the burka in reality right now is anywhere from ZERO to THIRTY. Taking all this into account ... is debating whether 0 to 30 people in your 8 million people populated area are allowed to wear a scarf-thing really a valuable use of time or does it just boil down to one big old fashion Identity Politics nonsensical WASTE OF FUCKING TIME?


Are you Readin' the News? Are ya Readin' The Papers?

If you're following the news you probably read that a mosque here after months of torment and abuse has been attacked during prayer service by a psychopath yesterday resulting in six deaths. 

(see: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/shooting-at-centre-culturel-islamique-de-quebec)

After something like this happens are all these politicians here who nonstop scapegoat this group of people ... is it going to go back to business as usual after this? Is the Arabic community still going to be the soup-du-jour scape-goat-of-the-day in the non-stop Identity Politics Soap Opera you politicians engage in? Is tomorrow the debate in your parliament back to debating over whether Arabic people can wear a certain hat?

There's dangers in constantly without remorse engaging in xenophobic scapegoating. When elected politicians do it it gets scary because it's almost like you are egging unbalanced people on and roiling up people for no reason at all.

I read a book once called, "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by one Charles McKay in 1841,

See: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds"

It was a series of then-contemporary examples of the public going out of control over the silliest things. I remember coming away from it thinking, since the dawning of time it has been incredibly easy to whup up a pointless idiotic fervor over nothing at the drop of a damned dime! I see this happen everyday in society now ... there's a new Popular Delusion that brings out the scary Madness of Crowds every damned day. Whipping up the masses into a fervor is more easy than you can imagine. People who have been elected to office, in any country, have to keep in mind how easy it is to rile people up.

The Identity Politics of today is aimed at the masses by powerful people and I really hope people who use this cheap form politics understand just how easy it is to rile segments of the population up and that getting people riled up over nothing can be very needlessly dangerous.

Conclusion

I find Identity Politics in the modern age to be dangerous and totally negligent behavior and the people with influence who engage in it for gain to be of the cheapest variety of human being.

In the words of Charles McKay who wrote Extra-Ordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds let's end this one on a quote:


"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." (McKay, C.)

Sunday, January 22, 2017

Dear Expos Fans, Don't Boo

I was reading articles like this one below the other day about an owner who was part of the collusion scandal is being elected into the Hall the same day a player effected by it is being elected,

https://nypost.com/2017/01/21/the-elephant-in-the-room-in-inducting-tim-raines-and-selig/


I've also noticed a lot of articles about Selig along the lines in regards to "How can you not put Bonds/Clemens in the Hall of Fame due to steroids/HGH but will put the man who turned a blind eye and let the players use them into the Hall of Fame?" I notice Jose Canseco for instance is very livid about this on Twitter lately amongst others.

I remember when Dawson got in the Hall in 2010 there were people in Expos gear at the induction who booed Selig because they feel he was responsible for the End of the Expos and hold a grudge.

All these three points about Selig are somewhat valid, even I wrote a negative piece about Bud coupled in with a tribute article to Bill Veeck a while back (This one). But, it's time to forgive and forget now. It really is.

When Warren Cromartie started his ambitious and many thought impossible goal to bring back the Expos to Montreal he made it clear that Montreal needs to forget the past, stay positive, and focus on the future. He made it clear 6 years ago when this movement started that Expos fans should stay positive.

The Exhibition games over the last few years have really proved that. We showed up 50,000+ strong and cheered for the game of baseball itself as well as past heroes in the pre-game ceremonies (Pedro et al. last year, Vlad et. al, the 1994 team reunion previously, and Rogers/Cro/Rock/Carter's family in the first year). We are a positive fan base, there's no doubt about that. We are a classy and positive group of people who comprise Expos fans.

We know there's gonna be a boat load of Expos fans going to Cooperstown, Expos Nation says they've got busloads already booked, so we know that day is going to be loaded with people in Expos gear ...

.... and I have a feeling like in 2010 these people are inclined to Boo if they see a certain person. Personally, I think it's a mistake to do that. Cromartie is right that Expos fans need to forgive and forget and remain positive. These bus loads of Expos Fans are going to cheer Raines because he was a Hero to this city.... and that should be the only reason they have for going.

Booing certain people while they are there is not classy and this Expos fanbase prides itself on being classy and positive.

Congratulation to Tim Raines, my childhood Hero, for finally being elected to the Hall of Fame ... and also Congrats to Bud Selig for making the Hall of Fame because despite many scandals during the tenure of Selig as MLB commish his tenure did lead to record profits and fiscal health of the league.

As for the Return of the Expos movement? It seems stronger than ever at this point and as Cromartie has said, it started as a positive movement and should remain that way. Booing people in Cooperstown, I don't think, is what this whole thing is about.

So, please don't Boo nobody.




Expos, Baby.

Friday, January 20, 2017

RIP Roy Innis

Another obscure obituary here. Other than the New York Daily News, I've seen no pro-outlet mention the death of Roy Innis last week.

He was a controversial figure in his later years so I guess people remember that Innis more ... but Roy Innis in regards to his media appearances deserve to be remembered. I don't think things that happened on Talk Shows involving Innis will ever happen again. "Reality TV" is all scripted now and everything on the dumb TV is a work of WWE Wrestling proportions now.

Roy Innis was part of two of the most memorable moments in the Entire History of TV. He had live on-screen altercations with both Nazis and with Al Sharpton.

Innis was booked by Geraldo in '88 to a debate white supremacy against dirty Nazis. Yeah young people, talk shows used to be WAAAAY different back in the day. The following is not a scripted event, it's real, poor little Geraldo even got his nose broken by a Nazi in this melee:



This isn't Springer scripted fighting. Innis stood up and then a whole melee ensued. Like, this is one of the most amazing moments in the history of TV. What's up though, is this lost to history or something? How come no one is running pieces about Roy Innis in the media other than one pro outlet?

Day-time TV has really changed since the 80s. Now a days Daytime goes The Price is Right - Ellen - The News ... In the 80s Daytime went more like The Price is Right - Violent Uncontrollable Fisticuffs - The News.

The other big media feud Innis had was with Sharpton during the Brawley fiasco. Innis knew it was a hoax that the lawyers and others were pulling and called them out on it.

For those who are unfamiliar with this, Brawley and lawyers claimed a policeman raped her and wrote words on her with his caca ... but it turns out it was a hoax. Innis was pissed about this because he thought doing hoaxes like this and running "cheap heat" * (a wrestling term for when you lie to try and make someone look bad, more in footnotes) really undercut the civil rights leaders goals. Innis thought Sharpton was a jabroni and holy fuck did he let him know about it.

There's two events that were aired on the Downey show and one that wasn't but clips exist on youtube. The un-aired one is quite wild ... Sharpton calls Innis a "Punk Faggot" in it.



But yo, Innis was a large man and he was no "punk faggot" in the least. He dropped Sharpton at their next appearance. Check (The altercation ensues at around 6:30):





Anyways, we've re-entered here in North America into a very wild and odd political climate where basically anything goes again ... so I don't understand why media won't mention the death of one of the wildest talk show guests in history. These two moments are two of the most iconic moments of the 1980s and it doesn't seem like anyone in media remembers them at all.

Media, you can't tell me that Innis was too controversial a person to do pieces on, I mean look at current day politics, today's political climate is like 5000x times more insane than anything Innis ever said.

Rest in Peace, Roy Innis.



*Cheap Heat is term people should get used to. I'd say 99.6% of politics now a days is Cheap Heat politics. A guy just won an American election solely on Cheap Heat for instance. Personally, I hate Cheap Heat in all forms and don't believe Cheap Heat is ever justified in any circumstances.

Footnote 2: The Wikipedia definition they have for Cheap Heat is WRONG. Cheap Heat is not when a heel calls a population of a city certain mean names that's just standard heat. Cheap Heat is when a wrestler screws something up in the ring in a fashion that makes the other wrestler look bad. It's a way to get Over by making your colleagues look bad so in turn you look good.



Edit: More on Cheap Heat. Look, you need a certain amount of "Heat" to get "Over" and it doesn't matter whether the heat is BabyFace-Positive or Heel-Negative ... if you're Over you're Over. Cheap Heat is when you get "Over" by making an effort to make the people around you look stupid. You didn't get yourself Over legit but you got yourself Over by making everyone else look bad and thus when everyone looked bad you by contrast looked good... THAT'S CHEAP HEAT.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

On Vaccines

Alright. This is a big topic this week.

I don't have as many readers on this blog as I used to but I still think I have some info to contribute to society at times.

In terms of popularizing rationality and science-based literacy, I think there is a great gap between the science people and the public. Maybe I can try to take some things they try and get through to the public and try to explain them in the simplest of terms. I think dealing with the public is not always easy for science-based people and in the current internet age it is common for correct expert views to be sunk in a sea of nonsense that pollutes the internet at all times.

I read a lot of science blogs like Science-Based Medicine and others who try and convey science related matters to the public .... and they make valiant attempts, especially regarding vaccine importance and safety, to inform the public about the importance of it (which is a great service) .... but I don't know if it gets absorbed into the public sphere as readily and as easily as it should be.

I wrote something very early on when I started this blog about something I noticed while reading "high end" material (I guess you'd call it), it was an essay where I wrote two-essays-in-one about the Ramones song "I donn't Wanna go Down to the Basement":


Here: Analysis of Joeseph Ramone's piece, "I donn't wanna go down to the basement" 


In that one, I tried to get the point across to academia types that if you really ever want to educate the public you have to speak their language. There's many pitfalls in the world of academia where it's easy for explanations to get distorted. I think that there's so many silly programs in academia that are not real fields with a tangible grading system, that the academic world can teach people to just butcher up language into a convoluted mess in order to appear to be smart. If you want to educate the public on matters ...  you have to present it in a way that is not butchered into silliness. That's my main point with that old Joey Ramone essay.

I write as a person would talk, and I use terms that don't make me look smart ... and I throw in some kooky or bad words sometimes to keep people interested. That's the style I'm trying to go with.

Look, I'm not suggesting real publications write the way I do ... I mean they'd look unprofessional ... but they can maybe gravitate towards this style somewhat if they want to try and get difficult subjects to the public. I don't think portions of my style are compatible with real professional publication writing but the overall idea of trying to talk to the reader, I think anyway, is actually a good writing mechanism to employ for academics who are trying to write science publications aimed at the public.

So, with that in mind let's try and do a vaccine article aimed at the public where the examples will hopefully be things people can relate too.



Autism

Touchy subject but let's get it out of the way first. Is there an "autism epidemic"??


Autism is a psychological condition and you have to understand that psychology is a very speculative field. Freud is like the king of this field and a lot of his stuff is interesting but it's not exactly stuff that you can exactly prove. Freud's stuff mostly boils down to sex-related perverted speculations and not real concrete science. Psychology has a lot of room for error, let's say.

When a real medical doctor adds a disease to the big disease book and tries to list the symptoms of a disease for future reference ... they are able to list key and identifiable physical characteristics of a disease. A doctor can describe a symptom like "ass warts" as growths that appear on the ass. You can look at it and diagnose a medical physical symptom quite easily and it is easily identifiable in future cases.

Is the same true for a mental psychological symptom? No, it isn't. It's much more difficult for a mental symptom to be defined. You can tell the doctor you're sad and fatigued and he or she can pretty much just pick a diagnosis out of the air to say you're sick with. They can say you're sad and fatigued due to "manic depression" or something even though there's no real physical signs to prove this diagnosis to be 100% correct.

When you're dealing in a field where disease is defined by symptoms which are not concrete ... there's a lot of room for interpretation.

You following so far?

Alright now, so the symptoms that are listed in psychological books for these "diseases" that they teach in schools are open to interpretation and often the definitions for these diseases can be changed by some psychologist at the drop of a hat ... these definitions for psychological diseases are in no way written in stone.

What I mean by definition is simply how you describe something. Think about it like this, let's say I give you a stat, alright, I give a statistic that there are 275,000 mail carriers who work for the US Postal Service and I'm telling you this stat under the definition that "mail carrier" refers to a person who is payed by the US Postal service to deliver mail to citizens.

Now, let's say out of the blue, the definition of "mail carrier" changes to "You are a Mail Carrier if you've ever held mail in your hands at any time."

After that definition change, how many mail carriers are in USA? It's not going to be 275,000 anymore. It will jump from 275,000 to around 300 million. After the out-of-the-blue definition change that number of people would meet the criteria of being a mail carrier.

Now one might look at this and say "wow how come there's so many more mail carriers!? Is it because so many people have joined the postal service this year!" No, obviously not, the answer is because they broadened the definition of what it takes to be called a mail carrier ... that's all.

There's still 275,000 people who are paid to deliver the mail ... but the definition of mail carrier now
includes people who have ever held a letter in their hands and thusly the number of people who could be described as being mail carriers jumped from 275,000 to 300,000,000.

In regards to autism, let's say the definition started in a psychology textbook as "child unable to read basic text and count to 50 by age 10"...ok? Not many kids meet that definition, maybe tens of thousands at the most. But, let's say one day the official definition of autism has a symptom added to it such as "doesn't speak well", alright so now more kids are defined as having autism, now let's say they add the symptom of "is shy" to the definition... now you're talking about 250 million people in the USA would fall into the definition. Public speaking is regarded as most people's biggest fear so it's not far fetched to estimate shy people being a good 250 million people in the USA.

For each symptoms you add to the definition of autism ... guess what happens? The more cases get diagnosed. The more symptoms added to the definition in the official textbook ... the more kids meet the criteria and thus more get diagnosed. It's literally that simple, we went from a few tens of thousands under "can't count by age 10" to almost literally everyone by the time "is shy" is tacked on to the definition.

There's is NO autism epidemic. There's just a more broad set of terms applied to the disease when diagnosing it. I mean, if you add ... "the child is shy" to the official symptoms list ... for sure there's gonna be an explosion of new cases.

The "Autism Epidemic" is a definition based epidemic. If they altered the definition and removed many symptoms from the official list, guess what? Fewer kids would be diagnosed with autism.

What is the official list of symptoms you ask? It varies from psychologist to psychologist (this is not a very well uniformed field of study) .....  but here's an example list of the symptoms (from WebMd):



"-Significant problems developing nonverbal communication skills, such as eye-to-eye gazing, facial expressions, and body posture.

 -Failure to establish friendships with children the same age. 

-Lack of interest in sharing enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people.

-Lack of empathy. People with autism may have difficulty understanding another person's feelings, such as pain or sorrow.

-Delay in, or lack of, learning to talk. As many as 40% of people with autism never speak.
 

-Problems taking steps to start a conversation. Also, people with autism have difficulties continuing a conversation after it has begun.
 

-Stereotyped and repetitive use of language. People with autism often repeat over and over a phrase they have heard previously.

-Difficulty understanding their listener's perspective. For example, a person with autism may not understand that someone is using humor. They may interpret the communication word for word and fail to catch the implied meaning.

-An unusual focus on pieces. Younger children with autism often focus on parts of toys, such as the wheels on a car, rather than playing with the entire toy.

-Preoccupation with certain topics. For example, older children and adults may be fascinated by video games, trading cards, or license plates.
 

-A need for sameness and routines. For example, a child with autism may always need to eat bread before salad and insist on driving the same route every day to school.
 

-Stereotyped behaviors. These may include body rocking and hand flapping."
(from WEBmd).





Okay, guys, guys, guys .... this is no longer a description of a mental condition, ok? This is just an UNENDING list of symptoms. If you keep adding symptoms to this list you know what's gonna happen one day right? If you keep piling this list with symptoms, you psychologists, you will eventually have a definition SO BROAD and wide ranging that 100% of children will be diagnosed with autism. Okay? You gotta settle down with the piling on of symptoms to this definition of Autism, alright?


Liking video games? Ok like you've now described every child in North America with that blanket statement. If liking video games is a signal a kid has the autism then EVERY SINGLE KID has autism!


Psychologists defining autism is akin to the kids from high school who liked to use a Hi-Lighter marker to highlight what they felt was important in a text book for their class. A lot of these kids ended up making every word in the entire book YELLOW! At that point ... if they were trying to highlight the key factors of the text but ended up making every word in the book yellow .... then what was the point? This is what psychologists are doing with autism ... they are gonna highlight every key factor in child behavior until they highlighted the whole damn book .... at that point what was the point of highlighting anything to begin with?


Okay now, let's re-define the term of being mentally challenged back down to reasonable levels. Can the kid count to one hundred? Yes? Ok. Can the kid read a children's book? Yes? Ok. Can the kid do simple arithmetic like 5+6? Yes? Ok. If your kid can do all that ... then he or she is not mentally handicapped, ok? He or she might not be the brightest banana in the bunch but they are not mentally challenged if they can do those things. Alright? To me, "mentally handicapped", are kids who cannot count or read or do simple reasoning or tasks by age 10. That's it.

Me? I'm not trying to sell some dopey psychology book to Harvard ... I'm not making no money ... I am allowed to keep it sane and simple when making a definition of a child being mentally challenged.

Is there an Autism Epidemic? No, there certainly 100% is NOT an Autism Epidemic.



Celebrities with Lots of Media Pull are Pointing Heavy Fingers at Vaccines

There's no autism epidemic but you would sure think there is. Psychologists all over the world are assigning fairly normal children with a scary sounding disease.

A lot of celebrities have had that term applied to their children and they are fighting back it seems and Against what?



...Childhood Vaccination.

They attributed the rise in autism not to the obvious broadening of the definition but to Vaccines.


Guys, NO.

Polio, Measles, Tuberculosis, Diphtheria, Meningitis, etc., etc., etc.

These are very dangerous and have all been kept at bay and in many cases been ELIMINATED by vaccines. The only people who die from this now are in third world countries in places where they don't have access to these vaccines. Millions of children worldwide still die before the age of five due to contracting the above diseases ... but it's super rare if not impossible to get these diseases in rich countries. Why? Because we have 90% vaccination rates for children for these diseases and have successfully achieved Herd Immunity thanks to having close to 100% vaccination rates.

The people getting vaccines into third world countries and vaccinating children there are HEROES who are saving millions and millions of young children's lives every year. These people are heroes yet if you listen to celebrities you'd think these people were monsters.

Celebrities and conspiracy sites have gone absolutely off the deep end. They go on the wildest tirades against vaccines in the media and many people take them very seriously. It's gonna get to the point where Calcutta, India will have a higher vaccinated children percentage than Marin County, California .... and that's actually insane. It's literally and undeniably ludicrous for that statement to be approaching truth.


Why? Because so many people in rich countries are getting their health advice from Celebrities, "Mommy bloggers", and conspiracy-laden websites. These people have NO CREDENTIALS WHATSOEVER!!! NONE! They have never studied vaccines or have any idea of how they are created or administered. These celebrities and these websites are completely void of any understanding of any science in most cases ... spouting just outright nonsense and the most odd conspiracy theories.


There is NO conceivably viable reason why vaccination rates in some North American regions are dropping even under 80% in some cases. You're gonna get so low at some point that those regions will lose Herd Immunity.


Kennedy

My Grandfather had a framed newspaper clipping of a photo of John F. Kennedy in his living room of his apartment for as long as I can remember whilst he was alive. He was Canadian from Irish roots and Kennedy was his favorite President.

I like that family, they are wonderful, they seem like very nice people, and my Grandfather the illustrious Paw Jack that he referred to himself as, was a big big fan of President Kennedy ....

but .... I gotta really say .....

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, I think you are behaving incredibly silly. It is near shocking that you believe that trying to stop the vaccination of children is a noble goal. I really think it is near shocking.

Why is it that so many Environmental-oriented wealthy people use their law degrees to try and ban certain substances that aid humanity? It all started with a lady named Rachel Carson who penned a book called "Silent Spring" where she said that DDT was making bird shells thinner than usual ... and it was so popular that DDT was banned.

There's a great deal of people from that era, mostly the very wealthy, who became Environmental Lawyers thanks to that book and formed various organizations like Green Peace, National Resource Defense Council, and Robert Kennedy Jr.'s firm .... who think their way into the history books is getting something banned like Rachel Carson did.

Was banning DDT a good idea? Seems so, yes, .... but the counter-case that mosquito parasite-related illnesses like malaria or zika cause the deaths of 500,000 people (mostly children) worldwide and that DDT was an insecticide that worked well against removing mosquitoes from highly problem areas where they breed their larvae ... there's even a decent case that DDT could save lives in the form of removing mosquitoes and thus malaria-related deaths.

You people on missions to be remembered in history as a great Rachel Carson-esque hero for getting something banned during your lifetime really need to find something that's REALLY dangerous and with no value to get banned before you start your holy quests? Ok? Vaccines are definitely NOT something you want to go on a banning crusade over.

If you really have to find something to devote your life to banning from society before you can feel like you've accomplished something in life please try and look elsewhere than to Vaccines. Vaccines are not something you should devote your life to banning and even though your intentions seem to be noble and your hearts are in the right place ...

.... you are misguided and doing WAY MORE harm than good.


Conclusion

If you are a person who didn't or is thinking about not vaccinating your children because of statements you've heard a Hollywood Celebrity or one of the Kennedys make please try to understand that Vaccines do a lot of good in the world and that 99.99% of licensed medical doctors are for them whole-heartily (the 0.01% exception being "Dr Bob" Sears who has sold a lot of books in his lifetime by latching onto to this phenomenon of parents worried about vaccines).

Autism, and children with mental challenges in general is heart-breaking to the parents and everyone feels for you and wishes the best for you and your child ... but .... please don't go on an unending crusade against childhood vaccination in an effort to try and make a difference in the world. Your attempts may be of sound heart and noble intention but they are very very misguided. Time and funds gathered by Autism foundations should be used to promote acceptance for those who suffer from it and not used to go on smear campaigns against childhood vaccination.

Sesame Street has done great things with it's Autism Outreach lately on that show by teaching the young generation to love and respect children who are different or who have difficulties. I think that's a beneficial thing to do with money donated to Autism charities. That does make a difference and is a better investment of those funds than trying to stop children from being vaccinated against life threatening childhood diseases.

Thursday, January 5, 2017

Defining "The Jazz": A Short Dissertation on the A-Team

What is the Jazz? 


Today, ladies and gentlemen, we shall be looking at a concept that seems to still be without definition. I'm speaking, of course, about ... The Jazz. I'm not talking about the musical genre known as The Jazz, though we shall dip briefly into Musical Jazz and speak of what makes Musical Jazz cool, but when we talk about the Jazz in this article we are speaking specifically about the concept known as "The Jazz" on the hit 80s television show -- The A Team --.


The A-Team


In this Short Dissertation on the concept only known as The Jazz (and not the musical genre) we shall be: Firstly (A) Quickly looking into where the word originated from which is the Musical genre known as Jazz, (B) How Characters on the A Team Program attempted to explain to the viewers at home the definition of the concept known as "The Jazz", (C) Third-most we shall be looking at how other members of modern society have tried to explain "The Jazz", and Fourthingly (D) I shall attempt to synthesize it all and offer to the reader my own personal interpretation of .... "The Jazz."


Alright, buckle your safety belts reader, and if you gotta go pee do it now .... because once you start readin' a short dissertation on "The Jazz" there's no turning back: So, Here. We GO:



The Etymological Origin of "The Jazz" within Jazz Music

Jazz Music is a free form style of music ... but don't let that fool you into thinking that anybody can just pick up an instrument and be a gifted Jazz player. No, Jazz is NOT like abstract art in the sense that anyone can do it. Good Jazz is preformed by the most talented players imaginable but they are playing what they want. It's not from a sheet with notes, it's just free form playing, listen to a sample here:


This is not Abstract Art of just throwing crap around ... these are some of the most talented artists ever yet their structure has no form ... it is free flowing .... you work with each other .... you go with what the bassist's doing and you flow with what the drummer's doing and you groove your own style with how the saxophone man is grooving his style .... and in the end it's this big Free Form Entity. It's Jazz.

It's chaotic but due to the talent and trust shared by each player for each other ... it's also very orderly. It's a perfect clash of Order and Chaos. You couldn't just have Order and get Jazz, like read notes off the sheet and play it with full stuffiness .... yet on the other hand you couldn't just have chaos as in pick up an instrument and smash it over something style ludicrous do-what-you-want Chaos ... you need the perfect congruence of Chaos and Order to achieve Jazz Music.

You can see them in the clip above, no one knows what the other is going to do and in that sense it should come out as jumbly wild nonsense ... but it isn't at all ... it's very together and concise ... they are so good at their craft and have such trust in the others abilities ... that it is so purely organized looking as a final product that you'd think they were playing off of the same music sheets.

Jazz music, I would define as, being so incredibly talented at your craft that you no longer need structure because your experience with the craft has honed your instincts to a point where your Free Form expression of said craft comes across as a final product as being more structured than the structure itself.

There's a great Free Form Freedom to Jazz. There really is.

Yet, we are not talking about Jazz music as we are trying to conceptualize a concept who's definition has plagued humanity for decades now. What is "The Jazz" referred to on the 80s smash hit television show ... The A Team? Many of you may not be familiar with the show, so, nextly we are going to present how various characters on the show attempted to explain the "Jazz."



Characters of the A-Team Various Attempts to Explain the Concept of "The Jazz" 

The first time viewers of the A Team were ever introduced to the concept of the Jazz was on the Pilot episode, where as Face Man (in the only appearence where the character is not portrayed by Dirk Benedict), asked the A-Team's Strategist Hannibal Smith why he pulled so much "Maury Wills Junk" (referring to Maury's annoyance of pitchers by taking leads off of first base before stealing second) prior to pulling a sluice gate lever, which then flooded the canal/road and in which culminated in stymieing their pursuers. Bosco B.A. Baracus interrupted Hannibal's response to Face Man's question and responded:


"You know Ol' Hannibal, he loves The Jazz man, he loves The Jazz" - B.A. Baracus


We are introduced to this concept of The Jazz yet are (purposely?) left in the dark as to what this "Jazz" is or why Hannibal loves it so much.

Nextly the Jazz is invoked when the A Team is splitting into two groups to flank an enemy and the Face Man insists he be paired with the Tough Man Baracus instead of Hannibal. Hannibal inquires as to why the Face Man would rather be paired with Baracus and Baracus explains that when Hannibal is on The Jazz ... he's crazy.

It seems The Jazz is something in Hannibal that makes him reckless, unpredictable, and erratic ... yet Hannibal is the A Team's Strategist and should be the most calm and collected of the ensemble. How can their leader be so prone to reckless behavior that may endanger his team? It seems, as with an ensemble in Musical Jazz, the A Team trust Hannibal with their lives and throughout his erratic and sometimes dangerous free form plans ... this trust is still there ... they still trust him even though his actions are viewed as erratic, reckless, and without structure.

On a subsequent episode "The Jazz" is explained to the recently recruited character Amy as being that feeling when a gambler puts all his chips on the table. It's the moment as the dice rolls, or the card is pulled, or the ball lands, where the gambler doesn't know if he's gonna lose all of his money ... or make a shit load of money.

That's The Jazz. When Maury Wills dances off first base he knows the pitcher can throw over at any time and catch him dancing ... but he still does it. He still takes off from first base even though he knows he can be caught stealing. Maury Wills, like Face was implying, had The Jazz. He just got a hit or a walk and safely reached first but he tries to go double-or-nothing by either getting picked off or caught stealing .... the risk is big ... but the reward is big. That's the Jazz. Stolen Bases are Jazz.

There's a large feeling of Freedom in The Jazz. You can stay at first base if you want and play it safe. You can go to the boardwalk and catch a show in Atlantic City and play it safe. You can jump in B.A's car and rush off to safety without embarrassingly getting Colonel Lynch trapped in the canal whilst the sluice gate opens (getting him ALL WET). 

Or...

You can try and steal second base, you can go to the Tropicana Hotel and put it all on the table, you could wait until Lynch is exactly inside the canal/road before opening the sluice gate .... so he gets ALL WET!

In that time where Hannibal was waiting for the perfect Moment ... Lynch could've shot Hannibal or blew out the tires on B.A.'s truck but Hannibal needed to get that colonel All Wet and didn't care about the consequences or the risks because that man was on The Jazz!

Hannibal would endanger the lives of himself and his team .... just to get his pursuer wet. Now that's The Jazz.



What other Figures in Modern Society have said regarding "The Jazz"


Last article I mentioned a story I always found fascinating. It was the one about Telly Savalas losing all his money gambling yet for some reason "feeling clean" afterwards. That was the Jazz right there. It was the moment where it was all riding. That Living in the Moment type of moment ... that he had a chance to win it all and every moment leading up to, and after, that 5 seconds where it was all riding .... seemed to last for an eternity. The cup of coffee afterwards tasted amazing and during that cup of coffee bought with the last dollar to his name after he lost it all .... he probably realized he just spent all his money on a "Moment" and he probably didn't even regret it. That? You know what that is? That's the Jazz.

I recently read Norm MacDonald's book which is a collection of Incredibly Fascinating life stories he shares with us .... but that's just a subplot ... the main plot of the novel is Norm's journey with his trusted Sancho-Panza-esque sidekick Adam Eget to Atlantic City to carry out his "Plan" ... and the Incredibly Fascinating life stories are shared as flashbacks whilst Norm is experiencing varying forms of morphine-related psychosis during various stages of the "Plan".

Norm MacDonald's book is rife with The Jazz, I would even regard The Jazz as one of the main themes of this exceptionally crafted novel. You should read it, I won't go into it too much. It's good.

My own Synthesis of all Data Relating to said "The Jazz" and my own Personal Interpretation as such,

Now it's my turn. This is my opinion. After studying everything I could in relation to the Concept on the A-Team referred to as "The Jazz," after understanding the etymological background of it, after listening to many characters on the show's interpretation of it, and after applying those concepts to other variations I've seen in other forms of history or modern life .... it is only now that I feel confident enough to construct and be allowed to have an opinion on The Jazz. Would you like to hear it? Ok, here it goes...

The Jazz is Free Form Chaos presented in the most Organized of Manners. It is a moment in your life where all around you was complete and utter chaos yet you were calm, collected, and in total control of your own actions during that chaotic situation.  It was in this highly chaotic yet totally orderly moment in which you felt total Absolute Freedom. Even with all the chaos around you, you knew that you had a plan and even if the plan failed miserably, you were still in complete calmness whilst carrying it out. Thus The Jazz can only be described as,


Chaotic yet Organized Free Form Freedom.



Conclusion 


To me, Writing is My "The Jazz", and it will be different for everyone. Everyone has to find a fun and safe outlet to experience their version of Chaotic yet Organized Free Form Freedom. For me, my The Jazz is writing, it really is. You're probably wondering how Writing incredibly silly, overtly long, overly constructed, almost downright pointless essays on a variety of strange topics can be a "The Jazz" to someone ... but it is for me.

Any topic, at all, can be chosen and a multitude of almost infinite sentences can be constructed for that topic. It's Free Form. I can pick whatever Topic I want and smash out keys on a keyboard like a jazz pianist smashes out keys on a piano.

I set out a goal, (A), (B), (C), and (D) in the opening intro .... and I think at the start of the process.... No, there's no way this can be done, you can't write something interesting, professional, and unnecessarily long about a topic such as "The Concept of The Jazz on the A Team" because it's not possible .... and that's when the Jazz really takes over ... the second you think it can't be done ... that's when the Jazz takes hold ..... It becomes a personal mission to prove yourself wrong ... and if you impose a Time-Limit .... then things get real Jazzed Up real quick.... if you tell yourself that you got to write this incredibly strange yet professional unusually long essay but only have 2 hours to do it .... then your brain starts to really pick up the Jazz. Some of the longest and silliest things I've ever wrote were done in approximately 40 minutes .... the self-imposed time limit of getting the words down and in a way that's readable .... it's the time limit is what really sparks the Jazz up something fierce.

I wrote the intro at 1:59 and it is now 3:57 ... meaning I am 2 minutes under the 2 hour time limit.

Then, you quickly proof read it to find errors .... and while you proof read what you just wrote the whole piece kinda settles in .... and there's a feeling that comes over you. It's like Something has just Came Together ... Something that Wasn't There Before .... and all you can really do when you're satisfied with your work is sit back and say to yourself .....



That's what The Jazz is. It is Chaotic yet Organized Free Form Freedom but It's also the,

Chaotic yet Organized Free Form Freedom .... Of Accomplishment.