BLEAK DEARTH

     A review of David Herlihys The Black Death and the Transformation of the West. I had to do it for class. It was interesting enough I geuss. All of the usual disclaimers apply. I dont care if people reproduce anything I write in any form (lol, implying that happens) but dont pass my paper off as yours or I will hunt you down and rape your face while you sleep. You heard me . . .

HEY! I WAS SLEEPING! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING WITH MY BLANKET!?

      In software engineering there is a process known as "black box" testing. It describes the attempts to understand and manipulate a system in which only the output and input can be observed. The inner workings of the system are in the "black box", you cannot observe or divine them beyond the input and output of the system. The work of historians is a bit like this. In David Herlihys book The Black Death and the Transformation of the West Herlihy analyzes history like this metaphorical black box. He explores some of the big questions of European history. Why does European civilization take off so quickly after the middle ages? Why does it spread where other civilizations never even considered going? Why did the populations rise so fast after such a long period of stasis in the centuries before the renaissance? Herlihy contends that the black death of 14th century was the catalyst for Europe, the all important input that caused the technological, economic and cultural trends that led Europe into the industrial revolution.Though the first and third essays by Herlihy are interesting id like to look at the second essay The new economic and demographic system as the focus of my review.

      Herlihy begins with a fairly meticulous recounting of the death toll that the black death had on Europe by the end of the 14th century. The establishment of this fact is key because Herlihy operates under the assumption that the black death was a Malthusian crisis. What is a Malthusian crisis? Lets let Malthus himself describe it:

      "The great law of necessity which prevents population from increasing in any country beyond the food which it can either produce or acquire, is a law so open to our view...that we cannot for a moment doubt it. The different modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundant population do not appear, indeed, to us so certain and regular, but though we cannot always predict the mode we may with certainty predict the fact."
(Malthus, 1798, Chapter IV)

      Malthus, in a 1803 reprint of his essay, expanded on this idea and described several varieties of "modes which nature takes to prevent or repress a redundant population". Malthus calls these positive and negative checks. Positive checks describe population checks such as war, famine and disease. He uses the term preventative check to define anything that prevents over population, late marriage, sexual abstinence, or other limits on birth rates. Herlihy presents the notion that feudalism in Europe was its own kind of Malthusian preventative check. It kept populations growing at a slow relatively steady rate. At some point however the rising wave had broke and the condition were right for plague, not necessarily bubonic, to sweep across Europe and smash its overpopulated communities. This huge population decline and the subsequent social chaos was the death knell for feudalism. It opened the way for a renewed social and cultural order.

     This argument seems internally contradictory for me though. In Herlihys own assessment the black death was supposed to of been one of the positive Malthusian checks on the population of Europe. Even if we assume every aspect of Herlihys assessment is correct it would appear that the black death did nothing in the long term to stunt the population of Europe and in fact projected it forward at an accelerated rate. This breaks the whole theory and simultaneously modifies it. Herlihy seems to argues that the Malthusian model works until it no longer works and then "Hey presto! You broke out of the Malthusian trap!" At which point the model no longer applies. The Malthusian model presupposes that civilizations are totally closed systems with only two variables, population growth and food supply, no other externality. I am particularly suspicious of this theory because Herlihy presents relatively little hard evidence to back it up. Its just this sort of empirical evidence that tends to cut away at these unapologetic declarative theories. It is my understanding that Malthus himself also did not base this theory on any kind of empirical data, as it wasnt available to him at the time. This creates a further problem, in attempting to find empirical evidence to support the malthusian model you dont start from a point of objectivity. There is a name for that kind of research, and it is not critical analysis, its confirmation bias. The Malthusian model seems to me such a vague and indistinct predictor of population shift that it is almost useless.

CAN YOU SPOT THE MALTHUSIAN CHECKS? NEITHER COULD I.

     Herlihy contends that the dramatic decrease in population numbers caused by the plague enabled the formerly slave like work force of serfs to demand more capital in repayment for their labor. This led to an inflationary job market in late medieval europe. I dont take issue with this notion but as a consequence of this understanding he makes a flawed leap. He theorizes that the resultant increase in capitol needed to keep the newly liberated surfs satisfied spurned on technological advancement and the proliferation of labor saving devices. Herlihy identifies this trend as the beginnings of what would become the industrial revolution. This theory proposes that social demand and economic pressure cause technological development and the necessary scientific understanding that must accompany it. He crystallizes this concept here, using the printing press as his example:

      "But the late medieval population plunge raised labor costs, and also raised the premium to be claimed by the one who could devise a cheaper way of reproducing books. Johann Gutenberg's invention of printing on the basis of movable metal type in1453 was only the culmination of many experiments carried on across the previous century. His genius was in finding a way to combine several technologies into the new art. His family had long been associated with the mint of his native city of Mainz, and from this he gained familiarity with presses. He also was an engraver, and he needed that skill to cut the matrices for casting the type. He had to know metallurgy as well, and he successfully combined lead, tin, and antimony into an alloy that melted at low temperature, cast well, and remained strong in the press. Finally, he and all the early printers were businessmen. Printing shops required considerable capital to set up their presses and to market their books. But they were able to multiply texts with unprecedented accuracy and speed, and at greatly reduced costs. The advent of printing is thus a salient example of the policy of factor substitution which was transforming the late medieval economy."

      He seems to gloss over the fact that the benefits and impacts of this technology would not of been known to Gutenberg at the time of the invention. The printing press was far from just being a convenient way to save Gutenberg time and money. In fact the development of such a device must of cost considerable time and effort on the part of Gutenberg when he would not of had any way of knowing that any benefit would ever come from it. Herhily also assumes that the invention of such a device is done directly for the economic benefit of the inventor, rather than just out of curiosity or altruism or any other compulsion. Further, as Herlihy himself describes, the invention of the printing press was the product of a long chain of incremental progress, in both technology and science. Those who discovered the metallurgy, the mechanisms for the press, the skills in engraving, or even the invention of the written language itself, never could of conceived of a machine such as the printing press. Yet each understanding and advancement had to be made in concert and in sequence before the printing press could ever come about. You couldnt invent the printing press without inventing ink, or paper, or the skills to mill and work lumber into the necessary forms. All of these developments happened independent of the plagues of the late middle ages and independent of any european population crisis. They were independent of any "positive" or "preventative" check.

      Herlihys theory looks like a kind supply/demand paradigm from economics (Thats probably because Herlihy has been brainwashed directly or indirectly by cultural marxism in his academic life, but I didnt want to look like Breivik so I decided not to mention that. Not that Breivik isnt a stylish mf. -Ed.) but applied to technological advancement. In as much as history and economics are both varieties of systems analysis this might seem reasonable enough but science and technology vastly complicate this simplified magic hand type of formula. History is awash with inventions and discoveries that seem to contradict Herlihy. For example, the block and tackle, a system of pulleys and ropes used to lift heavy loads, was invented some 4,500 years ago, Archimedes described it as an old invention even in his day. The block and tackle was, and in some circumstances still is, the most effective way for multiplying force when lifting a heavy object. It was used widely all the way up until the end of the 19th century when it was made obsolete by steam and electric motors which could lift infinitely more than any group of men. If Herlihys supply and demand theory was correct it would seem to lead to the conclusion that a device like the block and tackle would of been useless or perhaps unknown because it existed in a time of cheap and readily available human labor. Why invent the block and tackle to multiply human strength when you can just have a few more slaves pulling on the rope? Similarly the treadmill crane, without which all of those glorious high flying cathedrals would of been nearly impossible, was in widespread use by the mid 13th century. Again as with the block and tackle the treadmill crane dramatically multiplies and saves human labor and yet they seem to both crop up independent of any kind of economic or social pressure. No amount of economic incentive would of got Louis XIV central air and heating. No amount of demand for labor could of caused the electric motor or the internal combustion engine to be invented before the nessessary scientific and technological developments that led to those conditions. Herlihy imagines these inventions as the beginning of these technologies when in fact they were very much the end of a slow progress (dare I say evolution?).

MOTHERFUCKIN SCIENCE UP IN THIS BITCH!

      Similarly there is the case of science. Most scientific investigation, particularly in the middle ages, had nothing at all to do with profit motivations (I like how I just stick random unqualified statements in here to debunk random unqualified statements, lol - Ed.). Science in theory costs nothing to create, ideas are free and observation is by definition open source. Yet it was not until after the age of Francis Bacon that we see science proliferate. Once the scientific revolution of the enlightenment comes about we see a complete explosion in European population, indeed almost any place Europeans went they seemed to be able to thrive thanks to their science and its subsequent technology. Far from being checked negatively or positively by this growth science and technology seem to lead in the opposite direction of Herliys theory. Larger populations are concurrent with more technological innovation, not less. Its the civilizations of the world with the smallest and least dense populations that have made the least amount of technological advancements, not the most.

somethin fishy goin on here . . .

     There are also some incredibly important environmental considerations when we imagine why western civilization took off during the industrial revolution. Europeans were the first to leverage and make effective use of coal and oil. The explosion of european populations and the subsequent expansion across the globe is as much the story of oil and coal extraction as it is technology and science (or economics for that matter). Without the inexpensive energy that coal provided the industrial revolution would not of occurred at all. Oil and coal are the real labor saving devices of modern civilizations. Though europe may of expanded without coal its entirely possible they also could of stalled like the spanish did in south america and been over taken by some other world power. Coal powered the rise of industrial europe, literally.

     Again, the accumulation of centuries of detritus at the bottoms of oceans and forests had nothing to do with economics. It was only until the necessary level of scientific understanding was achieved, and then the subsequent technological advancements in the construction of steam powered engines, that anyone could make truly revolutionary use of oil and coal. This sequential development in science and technology is just as important to us today as it was to the coal economies of europe in the 19th century. Free energy is literally all around us, solar, wind, geothermal and in dozens of other forms. Enough power to save every man, women and child on earth from serf like labor and yet these sources remained largely untapped for centuries not because of a lack of economic incentive or demand but because the technology never existed to tap them. In the words of Steve Jobs "you cant connect the dots looking forwards, only looking backwards". Only after a great amount in scientific accumulation could anyone make use of these resources that are otherwise freely available to everyone.

So, ladies and gentlemen . . . if I say I'm an oil man you will agree.

     It should also be noted that at the time of writing these essays the tremendous importance of environmental conditions to the development of complex civilizations were not particularly well recognized. Its no surprise that Herliy doesnt pay any attention to these theories, they were not in vogue at the time of the writing. This is probably why Herliy spends as much time as he does analyzing economic factors and how they relate to the black death. I suspect he applies theories from economics more because of memetics rather than their pertinence. This is not to say that I think the black death didnt have any economic effects, or that these effects were negligible, only that they should not be given exclusive importance.

      If the Malthusian model is unsubstantiated or at least flawed and the tie between technological advancement and inflationary job markets broken, then where does that leave Herlihys Black Death theory? Well, actually better off than you might expect because the first half of it, the bit about the black death bringing an end to feudalism, is very well researched and quite convincing. Moreover, Herlihy makes a strong case for feudalism limiting family and population sizes in a variety of ways. Even if we assume the Malthusian framework is flawed the details about the positive and negative checks all remain intact. We could easily modify his conclusions about inflationary job markets as well. Its not so much that economic and social pressure caused the technological advancements that came during the late middle ages but instead that it was only during the late middle ages that new technologies and scientific discoveries were made use of en-mass because the necessary economic conditions where also right. Though Herlihys assessment of the impact of the black death on european economies is a little too convenient to work as proposed it can be tempered into something feasible.

Whats the deal with Dan Brown?

     Yes, this was another paper. Im not going to stick the work cited in because lets be honest, nobody cares. Its about the da Vinci code. I dont know why a movie like this should even be the subject for a "critical analysis" but whatever.

 

"Thats a man baby!"

Matt Lauer: How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?

Dan Brown: Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are—Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.

      Perhaps Dan is being a bit ambitious when he says historical fact. The da Vinci code and the subsequent film of the same name have come under tremendous scrutiny because of Dan Browns approach to historical fact. Though "based on a true story" has become a popular trope in late twentieth century fiction his claims have been particularly controversial or even offensive to some because of how they conflict with established teachings about the life of Jesus. More importantly, Dan Browns claims conflict with the accepted historical narrative and contemporary scholarship. Though books labeled "fiction" (or hollywood movies) are not typically considered a venue for serious historiographic debate Dan Browns radical revisions on the history of Christianity are seen as entirely factual by many. That fact not withstanding, Browns "historical accuracy" is a speculative counter factual history as we shall see.

      The film revolves around two characters, Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu, who through a serious of mysteries and adventures discover a centuries old secret being concealed by the catholic church. A cabal by the name of the priory of scion protects this secret. A secret that if revealed could change the face of western civilization as we know it. The secret is that the legendary holy grail was not as so many have assumed, an actual vessel from which Christ drank during the last supper, but was instead was the womb of Mary Magdalene. After the death of Christ marry gives birth and this begins a bloodline that exists to this day. Over the centuries the albino assassins of opus dei (portrayed in the film as scheming and murderous protectors of the church) have pursued these decedents of Christ seeking to exterminate them and all trace of their existence. They do this ostensibly out of fear that the revelation of Christs existing bloodline might usurp the catholic churches place of privilege and power in Christianity. Over the centuries many have been initiated to the secret. This is the cue for Leonardo da Vinci to enter the show. Da Vinci hid within his art and writing the clues necessary to discover the shocking truth of the film. It is through these clues that our protagonists begin their story so lets start there. . .

Hi Dan!

      You might imagine from the outset that a film that claims historical accuracy and that is titled The da Vinci code would get its facts strait about Leonardo da Vinci, right? Its right in the title, da Vinci code. Dan Brown said it himself, its all historically accurate. So what is this code from da Vinci? What is the deeply inscribed secret teaching that da vinci hid inside his works? The crux of Browns argument seems to be that St. John looks like a girl. In Leonardos iconic fresco of the last supper Brown claims that it is not St. John but instead Mary Magdalene that is sitting to the right of Jesus. Brown claims in his book and in the film, that the sexual ambiguity of the depiction is the clue to St. Johns real identity. This is an odd thing to claim however because Leonardos own notebooks, in which he made various preliminary sketches for the fresco, still exist without any mention made of Mary Magdalene what so ever. In fact he sketches all of the apostles (including St. John) complete with labels above their heads identifying them by name. Why would Leonardo label Mary Magdalene as John in his own private sketch book? Why not have no label at all if the intention was ambiguity? Moreover, in his notebook Leonardo describes the actions in the scene and uses the male pronoun to describe the apostle sitting to the right of Jesus. Why would Leonardo call Mary Magdalene "he"? Are we to suppose that this is all part of some ruse? Why would we? Or more importantly, why make claims about an artists work that directly contradict the artists work?

So, hows it going Dan?

      What about the priory a scion? The secretive cabal that seeks to protect the airs of Jesus and Mary Magdalenes sacred bloodline from the opus dei assassins? Well, turns out its pretty much just made up. The priory myth was invented by Pierre Plantard in 1956 and he admitted as much himself during an investigation into charges of insider trading by Patrice Pelat, who, Plantard had claimed, was a grand master of the priory. To wit:

        When Judge Thierry Jean-Pierre became the presiding French Judge heading the enquiry into the Patrice Pelat financial corruption scandal of the 1980s, Plantard voluntarily came forward during the 1990s offering evidence to the inquiry, claiming that Pelat had been a "Grand Master of the Priory of Sion". The Judge ordered a search of Plantard's house which uncovered a hoard of Priory of Sion Documents, claiming Plantard to be the "true King of France" – the Judge subsequently detained Plantard for a 48 hour interview and, after asking Plantard to swear on Oath – Plantard admitted that he made everything up; whereupon Plantard was given a serious warning and advised not to  "play games" with the French Judicial System. This happened in September 1993 and it was all reported in the French Press of the period.


      That the priory was a big hoax was quite well documented before Dan Brown ever wrote The Da vinci code but the priory as portrayed in the film doesnt even entirely resemble the priory as imagined by Plantard. Browns priory of sion wishes to protect the bloodline of Mary Magdalene and Jesus from assassins sent on behalf of the Catholic church. Plantards priory is even stranger; they wish to create a united federal Europe ruled by a sacred Merovingian king descended from Jesus. Even if we assume the veracity of Plantards claims Browns twist on things would be fictional.

Dan, you are getting really close to my face and its freaking me out.

      Then there is the question of Mary Magdalene and the bloodline. The claim is that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, had children with her and that the bloodline exists to this day. This is a pretty bold claim to make. You might imagine that a two thousand year long bloodline might leave behind some sort of evidence. That would be asking too much however, as none exists. Not only is there no physical proof for a bloodline, there is no physical proof for the existence of Mary Magdalene at all. There are no eye witness accounts of her existence. No artifacts or tombs left behind. Nothing was written of her marriage to Jesus or their subsequent supposed children in any contemporary source. Nothing was written of any romantic relationship between any other women and Jesus. If we approach this claim of a bloodline with the sort of scrutiny a forensic examiner would in a court of law we wouldnt even be able to prove that Marry Magdalene herself indisputably existed. Much less the paternity of a child that we have no reason to believe exists. The counter from Dan Brown is that a conspiracy by the Catholic church has erased all evidence of this relationship and bloodline. Why not completely remove Mary Magdalene form the historical narrative as well if that was the case? Why leave any mention of her at all?

Ok, thats better.

      From even a cursory examination we can see that The da Vinci code strays from historical fact. Most people dont consider fact a wiggle word. Dan Brown uses the term rather loosely and many have taken this as a kind of personal affront. They believe he is being purposely controversial or malicious or perhaps is just incompetent himself. I think this is over reacting a bit though. The real case is not that Dan Brown is trying to be offensive or that Dan Brown himself is incompetent but instead that the claims of historical accuracy and subsequent historical slight of hand exist purely as a theatrical device to heighten the interest of the viewer. In this scenario we are a bit like Robert Longden then in the film. The twisting of historical facts is similar to the unraveling conspiracy of the film. How do we know what we know about Christ? Who does decide church doctrine? Why are women so conspicuously absent from the church? How did the bible come about? These and the other theological and historical questions Langdon encounters in the film, even his vague uncertainty about his own faith, (I contend) resonate with emotions and thoughts that many in the audience have felt about their own faith. This is part of what makes the story compelling for so many. (Unfortunately we as viewers do not get to run around the countryside of Europe with Audry Tautou while trying figure out these existential problems)

HELLOOOOOOOO NURSE!

      But this reading of history, no matter how personally compelling, is horribly anachronistic. History is not simply a canvas on which we can satisfy our whim. It is not a sounding board for our existential problems. Artists are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. To paraphrase Bart D. Ehrman in the epilogue of Truth and fiction in The Da Vinci code, "history . . . is a true story". If we take our historical facts from uncorroborated sources, or arrive at our conclusions and then search out facts to support them, we are able to make any claims we like about the past and call it "history". For example, in the four gospels of the bible it is stated variously that Jesus had two fathers, Joseph and the lord God. But, two fathers, both of the same child? How could this be? Is this some kind of endorsement of same sex adoption? Joseph was also married to Mary, was this some kind of gay polygamist marriage? Of course not! But taken out of context even these simple facts from the gospels can be easily misinterpreted. It gets even worse when we cherry pick unsubstantiated theories to confirm our own beliefs or suspicions. The entire structure of The da Vinci code is like this. Every sentence is predicated on the suspicions of the last sentence and when one or two of them break down the whole thing starts to almost immediately collapse. This kind of speculative history is easily discredited and yet persists like some kind of strange parasite on the back of legitimate substantiated history. It has such wild popularity in part thanks to films like the Da vinci code.

      Perhaps we are being too hard on poor old Dan though. (Stephen Fry referred to The da Vinci code as "arse gravy of the worst kind." zing!) He may claim authenticity for his story but he certainly doesnt have the credentials to back up the types of factual claims that he makes. He doesnt site any sources or have any scholarly academics weigh in in footnotes. He even mentioned (after years of criticism from the catholic church and others) in an NBC Today interview:

"I do something very intentional and specific in these books. And that is to blend fact and fiction in a very modern and efficient style, to tell a story. There are some people who understand what I do, and they sort of get on the train and go for a ride and have a great time, and there are other people who should probably just read somebody else."

      His vague claims about the premise of his stories being true not withstanding, why should we believe that anything Brown has to say is factual? Id like to be very explicit here; claims of authenticity are nothing more than that, claims. They should not sway our opinion of things one way or the other. Dan Brown really isnt anything more than a fiction writer with an interest in conspiracy theories and puzzles. As an artist he has (to my way of thinking) no obligation what so ever to stick to the facts or to write anything even remotely factual at all. The whole point of art is freedom from the facts of reality, not slavery to them. Dan Brown doesnt have to submit his work to peer reviewed journals, he doesnt have to site his sources, he doesnt need to do his homework, he doesnt even need to check his grammar. He is an artist, artists say things, the veracity of their claims fall squarely on the audience. He writes an entire series of books about mysteries and hidden truths and the wool being pulled over peoples eyes and then with a sort of wink and nod goes "and its all true!". The tell, they way you ought to know its really not all true, is that The da Vinci code was made into a hollywood film starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard. You can pick it up at wal-mart, in the discount dvd section, along with all the other inane detritus of 21st century civilization.

Pretty much this.

YOHJI, BECAUSE I FUCKIN HATE FINALS SHIT

The purpose of time is to prevent everything from happening at once

 

 

 

FOREVER HOLDING

BLACK AND WHITE DIAMOND, FUCK SEGREGATION

 

"Although it stands to reason that a samurai should be mindful of the Way of the Samurai, it would seem that we are all negligent. Consequently, if someone were to ask, "What is the true meaning of the Way of the Samurai?" the person who would be able to answer promptly is rare. This is because it has not been established in one's mind beforehand. From this, one's unmindfulness of the Way can be known. Negligence is an extreme thing."

                                                                                                                                 -Yamamoto Tsunetomo

   I was sitting in class last week when my professor asked one of the perennial sophomoric questions that im sure we all have encountered at some point. We were talking about the need or lack thereof to assimilate immigrants to american values and part way through my professor goes, get this she goes; "But does america really have values? Do we? What are they?". Now, im pretty sure she knows we do have values but most of the class, they are mouth breathers, but anyway, they sat there with their jaws hanging slack and I waited for the inevitable response . . . "hamburgers?" I heard someone murmur. I can remember being in high school and thinking the same thing, the most quintessential american custom was backyard bbq hamburgers. It was McDonalds and summer time and 99cents. If you could put that summertime bbq smell in a can people would buy it (we reckoned). I was almost coughing on my tic tac when the professor then replied "are hamburgers an american value?". Now again, I was once this naive so I cant blame these poor dupes but really, hamburgers are an american value? Lets try and do some decon here. First of all, hamburgers are not a value, they are a food item on a menu, no more american than chicken tikka masala is british. So, ok we all knew hamburgers were food items anyway so why this confusion?

   It seems to me, to my great dismay, that most americans have never for a second even considered what american values are. They, in this sense, are fundamentally unamerican. The unexamined life is not just not worth living, its quite confusing, you might even think that the nation that made you is exemplified by hamburgers. If it is really necessary for one to hesitate in response to this question you are not in my estimation anything more than accidentally american. I remember back when the war in iraq was getting going, people where playing the patriotism card, saying things like, "If you dont support the war you are not an american! Get out of my country!". Well I think that was a jingoistic thing but id like to revive it. If the first thing that comes to mind when someone says "american values" is "hamburgers", then, ahem,  get the fuck out of my country you fucking cunt. 

   American values: The right to self determination and political participation for everyone irrespective of race sex etc. Equality of the sexes. Freedom of speech and free expression. Religious freedom and freedom from state religion. Freedom of religion from the state. Equality in the eyes of the law. Liberty. Opportunity. Economy. Having your shit squared away because its the right thing to do. Having the freedom to be a dirtbag and not doing it. Sacrificing for these values even when you dont like the people you are preserving the values for. Not taking your ball and going home. Competition. Making your own luck. Just doing it. Loving it. Optimism. Progress. The anglo-saxon tradition. The french enlightenment. Battling down anybody who doesnt stand for these things. Saying "fuck the police" and actually meaning it. Being the police because you actually believe in justice and the rule of law. Not being a bitch ass hater. Having answers, not questions. Do I need to go on? Are you getting this? Are you starting to see why I think so highly of the libyan revolutionaries? Seriously, if you arnt running with this fucking run from it. Take your goddamn hamburgers too.

   If these notions sound like a nike commerical or a disney movie its not at all by accident. Nike didnt invent american values, it just articulated them through advertisements. This is like the reverberation in the room after a great cacophony has been created. Dont mistake the burger for the ideology that led to the burger. Irrational exuberance isnt a product of deregulation or wallstreet greed, its our fucking middle name. The united states of irrational exuberance.

   Sometimes when you are drowning in these things its hard to see them. Its understandable really, raised in it, breathing it every day, it becomes invisible. The mythology of your culture appears to be a "self evident" reality to anyone from your culture. If you really want to understand your values it is instructive to examine another culture for comparison. You might pick any really but lets say the theocratic state of the iranian republic. Religious freedom? Nope. Equality of the sexes? Nope. Independence of religion from the state? Nope. Freedom of speech or thought? Nope. Holding hands in public? Nope. So it is quite easy to see by contrast that these values are ours, not theirs, and that we do not share them and that if it is necessary (and it is) to articulate american values that these would some of them. Further more if it seems to you that these values that I have articulated are common to all civilized societies it would not be a coincidence, again, the west is civilization. It defines the entire archetype. If you do not participate in the legacy of the greek humanist and stoic philosophers, if you do not take part of the roman republican tradition, the enlightenment, an idea of the nation and a nations sovereignty and a slew of other things, you are not recognized as civilized, you are a barbarian. We define our values most easily in contrast to this barbarism.

WHY AM I NOT A WAR CORRESPONDENT???

gg Gadaffi, gg

UGGHHH WHYAM I ALWAYS ON HOLD

YEP, ITS A ROCK

i feel like SHIT

PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE U.S. ARMY