Did you know that John McCain was born in Panama? He claims to love America, but doesn't even have the balls to have been born here!

Did you know that McCain is of Scots-Irish and English ancestry? That's right, the same English people who occupied America and BURNED DOWN THE WHITEHOUSE (AND sacked New Orleans!)!!! He was educated in THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE! What's the matter? Is American to low class?

It seems to me that we really have yet to see the real revolutionary aspects of reliable birth control. The technology is there, but it hasn't infused into the culture yet. This goes for paternity testing as well. Paternity testing is male birth control, or at least a form of it. For the first time in History, men can be certain that their children are biologically their heirs. This really frees things up. There is no longer any psychological pressure on men to completely and totally dominate their wives to be "certain" they aren't sneaking around on them. At the same time, with birth control pills, women can "sneak around" and avoid the biggest consequence of "sneakiness".

So far, the implications of these two bits of reproductive technology are up in the air in a way. At least socially, no institutions or memes (other than their existence) have popped up around these two things... except perhaps the ubiquitous "Who yo BabyDaddy?" episodes of Maury Povich. There's nothing like "marriage" as an institution. Which makes me think... Did "marriage" evolve out of something Maury Povich show like? I mean, if we can imagine an institution that comes out of a "WhoyoBabyDaddy?" episode of Maury Povich, why not run that process in reverse and imagine a pre-historic Maury Povich that evolved into what we now call "marriage".

I'm off track here. Basically, what I am saying is this... Social Institutions evolve out of necessity. So, obviously, "WhoYoBabyDaddy?" episodes of Maury Povich have evolved out of some necessity on the part of the viewers and the participants. Everything was more or less in place, and the innovation was the addition of the "reveal" of the paternity test. But what is being served by this ritual? First of all, there are seriously Authoritarian aspects of the ritual. You have two claimants with essentially contradictory assertions about reality. Almost invariably the woman (or commonly, the "female") is claiming that the Man (rarely, the "Male") is the father, and the Man is claiming he is not. Sometimes, the man just wants to "be sure". That's case Two, and it's a totally different deal (That is the "insecure male" case... you could provide him with non-stop video of the woman from birth to five minutes ago, and he would still be convinced that various men were sneaking semen into her cooch).

So, since Case Two is almost invariably the result of insanity, and is rare in any case, we'll stick to the common claim.

Why is this an Authoritarian ritual as I would call it? Well, if you've seen one, you'd sort of know what I mean. I have a different definition of Authoritarianism. Or at least a bit different. My concern is the mindset. I suppose I could say "Authoritarian Mindset"; Let's not quibble. By Authoritarian, I mean (in this case) a worldview in which all claims or statements serve the purpose of determining who is the "authority". The world where "calling it" somehow conveys who has "say". Who, in effect, is "Daddy". If you can read, you probably don't know what the phrase "Who's Yer Daddy?" means. And you almost certainly wouldn't know, or want to know why a man would demand that his partner answer this question while he is having sex with her. Because it immediately smacks of incest. And is disgusting. But in the Authoritarian World, Daddy is he who establishes the terms of what is and what is not reality. Daddy beats you and tells you that you shouldn't cry. Because crying makes him feel bad, and he's beating you because he loves you. Of course, these kinds of people are way down on the Social Scale, so Daddy rarely realizes that he is indoctrinating his progeny into an Authoritarian Worldview (and dooming them to a life as Cafeteria Workers or Street Prostitutes).

So, the whole ritual is essentially Authoritarian, because it comes down to two people making diametrically opposed claims. The "reveal" moment reveals the essential nature of the power play. Someone MUST win and someone MUST lose. If this weren't a zero sum game, they wouldn't be playing it. Angelina Jolie isn't going to drag Brad Pitt onto the Povich show to PROVE he her BabyDaddy... Though that would be a good show.

I wanted to discuss the whole ritual in its present form, but I am eager to get to the end. Suffice to say, if you've seen it, you're familiar, and if you haven't, it's roughly something of a cross between a court hearing and a therapy session. First, the BabyMama tearfully recounts her tale of having her baby "denied" (Can you possibly get more authoritarian? The man doesn't deny his paternity, he "denies" the baby. He is in essence, using his power to somehow make the woman and the baby unreal). Then they show pictures of the Baby, BabyMama, and BabyDaddy. Everyone in the audience agrees that the Baby looks like the Daddy. Then Maury says that the Baby is backstage. They cut to video of the cute Baby. The purpose of this is to demonize the BabyDaddy. As the audience is cooing at the cute baby, Maury says, "Let's bring [BabyDaddy] out." The potential "Father" who was shown backstage (almost invariably bouncing around as if he is a prizefighter preparing to enter the ring) emerges to a hail of "Boos!"

At this point, the BabyDaddy forwards his claims of infidelity. In essence, his claim amounts to not being "certain" that she wasn't having sex with other men. This is a verifiable mental consequence of being brain-addled by excess testosterone. (These men are convinced that strangers in line at the Grovery Store are hurling baggies full of semen at their BabyMama's crotch. The BabyMama of course immediately injects the semen of any and all passersby into her ovaries.) Then, there is a ritual where the man is brow-beaten into asserting that if the baby is "his" he will "do the right thing" "by" the baby. "I'll do right by it," he says. The mother really needs 20% of that Arby's Salary...

Which actually makes a good point. It seems like nothing, but the choice between nothing and $50 a week, is the choice between eating and not eating. It's the choice between heat or no heat, cable or no cable. These people are surviving by the barest of margins (by our standards). And when you're eating Ramen Noodles Five nights a week, the step up to chicken is HUGE.

Then they go to commercial, and after a recap, the "REVEAL".

So, what is revealing about the reveal is the reactions of the participants. The Victor is granted rights of violence (real in the case of women, symbolic for the men) and the Loser is "de-realed". They are unmade as a person. It is chilling to watch. It's like watching a turtle retreat into its shell, only it keeps going. The women yell things like, "I told you! I told you! I told you!" They may even yell this after having confessed that they were unfaithful. Somehow, the test validates their irrational emotionally assertive view of reality. For the men, a "Victory" elicits a bizarre giddy response. And there is a specific dance that you don't see anywhere else. The man will leap into the air, spread his legs and punch down. This is repeated and mixed with general air punching, all of which is symbolic violence directed at the woman who he "owned" somehow. None of it makes any sense in reality. But in the authoritarian reality where "calling it" is the highest possible virtue, it does make sense. That "down punching" dance is a sort of unmistakable act of rape-like savagery in which he symbolizes the feminine by spreading his legs, the downward thrusting punch representing the fact that he is validated in striking at her sole source of power (her ability to generate heirs for him).

Now, what weirds me out is that the matter of paternity really solves NOTHING for these people. It is clear that the men have no intention of giving the women any money. It is clear that the women have little interest in anything but money. These people have horrible lives and this act changes their circumstances not one bit, but they MUST have answers to these questions, not because the answers matter so much, but because the answer determines who is the arbiter of reality. When the women "win" they often respond with indignance or outright rage. They will often outright declare that they don't want to "hear nothin'" from the "Dog". This is the Victory they so eagerly sought? To prove that the father of their children is an animal who is beneath contempt? It is truly bizarre to watch. And I am glad that I am so unquestionably above these people! So, there's another purpose this ritual serves!

One wonders at the horrid world these people live in, and in many ways that world is our future, because these people really churn out the babies.

Please to answer:

- Favorite type of CD packaging:
- Favorite way to watch elves slowly devour Ken Starr:
- Ringo Starr (yes/no):
- Name someone you'd prefer to be President rather than Dubya, but just barely:
- Would you rather watch Matt Damon and Ben Affleck fuck each other or kill each other?
- Carl Reiner or Mel Brooks?
- How many times have you seen Ghost?
- Last Celebrity spotted:
- On a scale of 1-10, how badly do you want to shave "Joe Millionare"'s hair off:
- If you knew there was a 90% chance of escape, would you try to evade Police Pursuit?
- Last movie you payed full price for, and walked out before it was over:
- No one's looking, do you touch the corpse?
- Would you be willing to give up a finger of your choosing, if it meant that Dubya would leave office tomorrow? (no anesthesia)
- Ever licked soap in the shower?
- If a guy/gal had a strange, yet harmless condition whereby his/her nipple hairs grew like hairs on his/her head, and he/she cut them off and gave them to you in a baggie, how long would you keep them?
- Would you pay money to watch Dr. Phil fight Bill O'Reilly to the death? Dr. Laura? If so, how much?
- Complete this sentence: Noam Chomsky asked me to hold a half-eaten __________ ....
- Morton Downey Jr. or Shaquille O'Neill?
- Your locked in a room with a greased, nude (complete question):
- Immortality (yes/no):
- Name the worst movie you've ever seen that you know someone close to you enjoyed:
- Do you think Keifer Sutherland has a better sex life than you?
- What's the fastest you've ever driven?
- What's the most expensive thing you've ever stolen?
- When was the last time you shoplifted?
- Your big toe or Jon Ashcroft, one of them has to go:
- When was the last time you smoked pot?
- Joe Pesci or Jobeth Williams?

I liked this phrase. I was writing about manplanet, the band, not the planet, and I said, "They are so good, I wish I could grow another ass, so they could kick it."

I have found a way for you to make your livejournal info page more annoying! In the bio section, instead of writing:

I am a woman. I am proud. I am vegan. I am bisexual. I have tattoos. I have a wheat allergy.

Write:

I am woman. I am pride. I am bisexuality. I am tattoo. I am wheat allergy.

It puts it right over the top.

I recently purchased the oeuvre of one John Vanderslice, and as a consequence, I have been thinking about the WTC attack. Given who I am, anything following that is going to be a big barrel of "wrong" so please accept my "apologies" in advance.

First, I wonder who was the first person or reporter or writer to refer to those events as "9/11" or "September 11th"?

Second, when investigating crimes we are supposed to pursue "means, motive, and opportunity" and I don't think enough effort was put into investigating Paula Poundstone. Ask the question: Who had the most to gain? If you will recall, the media was building her a bonfire on September 10th. I am sure she had the same reaction as most of us, shock and horror, and whatnot... But I'd have to bet that on some primitive level she must have been relieved. It's awful to say, but seriously, she was about to be crucified by the media! Although, truthfully, I think the conspiracy was a little out of her league. But if you happen to be a 9/11 "Truth" whackjob, why not direct some of your razor-sharp attentions on Paula Poundstone?

On that note, third, as much as I tried not to, I had two unshakable responses the day of 9/11. After, "This is a lucky break for Paula Poundstone," I initially thought, "and George Bush too. This is going to make him." Ask my mother. Then, soon after, I tried not to but I couldn't shake it. I was like Porkins with that T.I.E. fighter, "I can't shake it! I can't shake it!" My next thought was, "This would make one hell of a pinball game."

I couldn't help it. And I must admit now, I was right. It really would make a SUPERB pinball game. Give me a break! I was perpetually unemployed. What is there to do all day when you're depressed and unemployed. I had had to move (briefly) back in with my parents a few weeks before. I was about to turn thirty. That's a tough time! You want to talk about a lousy thirtieth birthday. I suppose it would be worse if your birthday was actually September 11th. That would be bad. Imagine how many kids were born on that day! That must suck. Happy Seventh Birthday! But back to me. I spent as much time as possible out of the house, of course. I was getting pretty good at some pinball games. I was able to keep the ball in the safe spots and out of the out lanes. I was getting good at tilting, even. And if you've ever had a period of your life where you were hooked on pinball, you know how that table infects your every waking thought. If you have no control over your life, here's a place where things can make sense.

And it is odd that pinball makes sense. What is the story? Are you the ball? Are you the flippers? Is the ball your "opponent"? Is the game itself your enemy? Or are you and the game collaborating in some sort of dance? It is a strange game, in that the analogies are all so strained. Yet at the same time, pinball is a fairly philosophical pursuit.

So, before the attacks, I was planning on hopping in my car, heading down to the Southside, and playing pinball. My mother told me about it, and she said she was scared, and I said, "Nothing to be scared of, it's over." I don't know how, but I knew. I was very calm. It was not very long afterward that I was saying, "Listen, if that's the best they can do, we have nothing to worry about... They couldn't even use their own weapons, they had to borrow a weapon, and a clumsy one at that." I am not saying the attacks weren't horrific or effective. I'm just saying that the US killed 120,000 people in one night of bombing, and that was 1945. This was (militarily) a pathetic attack, and a desperate one.

All that aside, perfect pinball narrative.

Tags: 911, pinball

I have felt since I was very young that there is no way for me to participate in Society without being part of a killing machine. There's no art or craft or theory or gift you can give that can't be twisted to the purposes of the machine. And by refusing to participate, I am not punishing "the machine". The machine just gets some other part to plug into itself. So, I have tried to "stay out of it" as much as possible. And truthfully, I have done a pretty good job.

I am pretty sure that this instinct is Universal... the drive to "engage" the world on "one's own terms". And I am sure that the behavior pattern it leads to in my case is pretty common: A desire to simplify and barricade. Twenty Tons of canned food, Two tons of .303 rounds, a ham radio, and ten million zombies... BRING IT ON!