Do this.

Put down your cell phone. Look up. Look left. look right. Now, look straight ahead. Take to the streets. Tell them no.

Let us do this.

Toward. by thugwizard

Today is sort of like that.

Today, I had a mango. It was delicious. Today, I made curry it was also delicious. I cut wood today, as well. I plan on building a planter with it. I also have plans to make an awning, and to can the rest of the mangoes in the coming days.

It is important to recognize that all of those things are directly human and tangible. None of them simulated, or derivative of someone else's efforts. Except those others who were involved directly in the doing of those things. Rachel's mom helped peel the mangoes. The first one I attempted to prepare ended up in four or nine parts with more pulp and juice on the counter than in me. Rachel helped assemble the curry. It was an exceptional curry, using whole cumin seeds, dried coriander root (grown organically by me!), and a red Thai chili. We also steamed the rice with whole cardamom, cinnamon, and anise. Fucking delicious.

But what consequences do the mundane trivialities of quite normal have to those reading (or not)? Well, honestly I can't personal implicate any to you directly, but I can infer that, if the reader is one of a representative populace in the US, that quite a bit of what you did today may have been without consequence.

There are 500 million users on Facebook, according to them. It seems to me that Facebook has become a sort of conversation proxy. This is not to say that people talk directly, face-to-face, to other people any less because of it, but that a lot more conversation is happening via it's interface, instead of your face to another's. This is also happening in more or less real-time. (I hate that word) This is interesting to me mostly because I am told that face-to-face interaction is a 'building block' of society. What does this increase in non-face-to-face interaction say about the importance of real people talking to other real people? Do we see our friends' Facebooks and the posts therein not as a representative or proxy of a particular person, but as an equally direct representation of they themselves?

I don't know.

Another thing many people do is watch television. The fact that I don't watch television, or movies, or any sort of visual, aural, and thereby, emotional (mis)representation of human interaction on a regular basis, makes me view them in an (obviously) different light than most. In fact the reason why I hate most modern fiction and fantasy is because none of the characters seem rational by any length of word to me. Take Harry Potter for instance. There are really only three interesting characters in the whole story. (One that I didn't even finish. I only read 1-4 and 6) They are, in order of most to least interesting, Severus Snape, Albus Dumbledore, and Alastor Moody. This is because the have a rational understanding of events that happen, and respond to them in accordance to that. They are well rounded characters. Even if confusing at times. Everyone else is a whiny, self-righteous, glory-seeking snob. Which, I guess is a set response to events. But, no one really bitches about everything, everyday, like Harry... Right?

The entire story seems to center around everyone else's expectations of some hero or another, and them falling short of those expectations just long enough to create some sort of doubt in their moral character. Then MIRACULOUSLY they are Sir Lancelot, naked and up a tree, getting his horse stolen. Lancelot then proceeds to cut the Horse Thief's head off and apologize for having to do it. 'The fuck?

So, what we have in television, movies, the news, and commercials is a sea of ideals that are neither real nor ideal. This is not a new idea. Why are we still swimming in a world of food made all of corn, and the horrifically disfigured body-ideal of a barbie doll?

Now, since we have digested a bit of what is all around us more completely, let us think of it in terms of it's actual passivity. If you sat for a few hours on Facebook, chatting, or sat and watched whatever show on tv that you are emotionally hopped up, on and about, or a movie, or clacked away Call of Duty 4: RAPE AND PILLAGE FOREIGNERS EDITION, or Halo (Do people still play that?), you have done NOTHING. You have learned (next to) NOTHING. (Except, maybe that there is some shit you never had (nor needed) but now you must have!) You probably ate a bunch of Doritos while you were at it.

Dig in the dirt, and plant something.

 Shake hands, and smile at your cashier. They are not a machine. Whether you think they are or not.

Xenophobia.

Don't do it. That is all.

Discourse.

Edited 27/06/2011

I think I like Lightning Bolt. On top of liking both Hawnay Troof, and Reggie Watts I think this makes me a 'Hipster.' I also have faith and favor in bicycle travel over cars. I don't own a mac, however, and never will. Partly because I hate the way they (and Apple as a business) work, but mostly on principle of not becoming part of that 'culture.'

That word is in quotes, because I don't mean it as it is usually meant...

'Culture' is something not easily defined. Mostly, I'd say, due to the fact that it has no actual meaning.

Here we see that it is initially defined as "cultivation" or "tillage," two specific procedures which have two separate definitions. Next definition: "the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education." This is a bit closer to what *generalitzation* most people think they are saying with the word. Third is more of an association with the first definition: "expert care and training..." The fourth one contains two sub-definitions:"a)enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training,"and "b)acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills." I find these most displaced; having no context without the fifth definition, which itself contains a number of sub-definitions:

"a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations."

"b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time."

"c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes an institution or organization"

"d : the set of values, conventions, or social practices associated with a particular field, activity, or societal characteristic."

The sixth, and final definition is a sort-of science (another word with it's meanings taken very liberally) throw-back-colloquialized definition: "the act or process of cultivating living material (as bacteria or viruses) in prepared nutrient media; also : a product of such cultivation."

The fact that the word has so many meanings can mean that it is a subject/topic/resource that is so utterly important to our existence that we use it in many ways (like Inuits and snow, lawl), or that it's meaning is so utterly contrived (which appears to have just one meaning!?) that it no longer has an actual concrete meaning. It may also be that it has never had any concrete meaning at all... As it generally seems to imply the concepts of 'human' and 'creation' which are both seriously fucking vague.

Now, to exemplify it's importance as a subject/topic/resource we will look at the first definition, obviously. Especially tillage. My minimal, corn-fed, public-school, community college knowledge-head/brain/mind seems to think that agriculture is pretty integral to civilization, wholly. Without this rudimentary realization that dirt, seed, water, sun, makes plant (AHEM, the FUCKING BASIS OF LIFE ON THIS PLANET) our species would not be in the midst of rampant over-population right now. Additiviaditionally, here we see the word 'culture' in the compound-word agri-culture. I won't etymoligize it, bro, but you follow? Its use here insinuates our ability to analyze our environment, and use that to feed ourselves for a smaller expenditure of energy than hunting, and for a longer period of time. Encouraging the species to stay in one place for longer, and to do other things we hand't thought of doing until then. Like drawing and praying. (Here is where it gets thick, and I start probably disproving myself. We'll see...) This sort of hints at the current, generalized laymen idea of culture. We draw, and sing, and pray, and think, and make words, and write them down. This is our culture. It defines our civilization. If this is the case then what the fuck does a laptop born out of greed and child labor say about me as a person? What does torture porn like SAW say about us collectively? Is that not 'culture', or 'art' as it tends to be massively defined? Or are those words really reserved today for Banksy, Lady GaGa, the shape of a macbook, Chuck Palahniuk, Radiohead, The Beatles, Steven Spielberg, Andy Warhol... If something so cornerstone as growing plants is the genesis of culture, of which we would not have 'civilization,' then why is it so easy to professionalize things as representative of culture and exclude others as not?

If we can regard art as representative of culture, in that it is something people create, and we also regard movies and television as a form of art, then why is such a large portion of television programming dedicated to advertisement? Are ads art? I'd say yes, and get laughed at, but they absolutely are. Art is, more or less (an argument for another day) anything created by human hands/brain/and- or/mind, collectively or individually. Typically, it has sort of become 'culturally' necessary to prescribe/ascribe an intended meaning of something that is considered art. This is also often something abstract, emotional in concern or representation, and personally important to those involved. The latter part of that definition is what puts ads out of the current consciousness of what is art. They have no goal other than to get your attention. They are generally intended to get you to buy something (that is, exchange paper or imaginary numbers for something else), which isn't as important, because if your attention is got, then you might tell someone else, who might buy it instead. They might tell someone else, as well...runonendon, potentially increasing the chances of SOMEONE buying the shit. What ads really play to, in order for them to be effective, is something called, demographics: "the statistical data of a population, especially those showing average age, income, education, etc." The data can really mean anything from hair-color to shoe size. It is then used to show 'trends' so advertisers can say 'yellow-haired males who wear size 7 shoes are more likely to eat cheese." Then cheese ads are run featuring only Norwegian men with tiny feet. Jumping ahead, lets say that soon, after SO many ads, somehow more Norwegian men with tiny feet consider the power of cheese... In fact, cheese ads become so ubiquitous they may never consider why they thought of cheese in the first place. This is good for cheese, but bad for culture. If culture is intended to be a layout of who we are, what we do and why; an identity, then how do we know we don't like both Britney Spears AND Pepsi for the same reason the Norwegian, yellow-haired, small-feets like cheese? If, institutionally, we are defined by our demographic identity, ascribed to us for advertising purposes, 'culture' need not have a concrete definition. If we are permitted to pick from a select few social identities, then why bother explaining what they mean or where they came from?

I don't think 'culture' ever needed a word or a definition. If it is what we are, what we are should be whatever the hell we want. I remember being in eighth grade, and only wanting to be 'punk'. I couldn't afford the uniform. I had no idea where shows were happening, what bands were good, and definitely no transportation. I was also under the impression that punk was centered on an ideology of not giving a fuck about those kinds of things. So, what I ended up doing was attempting to assemble 'the uniform' as it appeared out clothes that I had, and language, name-dropping, etc that I had heard. I was in turn only berated by those whom I thought were punk. I was just trying to pick up on those things that are defined demographically as punk. Not really failing, but that is just now how that is done. Or, how it should be. Because, what is considered demographically as anything does garauntee it as actually represented of the 'culture' it is supposed to represent... We should be able to belong without having to try. We should, also be able to do this without keeping anyone else from doing so. Our identities can and should be shared, but with response to others. And, we should be able to define ourselves without response to labels ascribed to us institutionally. This not by appealing to images and icons of advertising agencies, but as a reflection of our peers. Even though most peers will be holding your face up next to a picture of Brad Pitt, Lady Gaga, or (Insert pop-faux-punk band here), and looking real hard just make sure you an individual? I am not a fucking worker-bee, all those people are, and none of them are real.

.

NEW MORDECATS!!

There are some new things up on the old sound-of-cloud. Go LISTEN!

Stephen King: Torture-Pornographer? Or Graphic Moral-Adminisiter?

I recently read The Long Walk. It was written by Stephen King using a pseudonym, Richard Bachman. He did this because, as he puts it, he wanted to be someone else for awhile. That is bullshit. The book reads exactly like any other book he has ever written. Same themes, pacing, narration, Maine... He also mentioned in the introduction of the the collection of his "Bachman Books", that his publisher thought they were over-publishing the market with his name. More bullshit. Well, probably less bullshit...

Regardless, they book is quite relevant to my interests.

Synopsis: In the grim and 'fast approaching' future, the new great American pastime is something called The Long Walk. It is a contest, a race of sorts, in which one hundred young male volunteers are challenged to walk non-stop from one end of Maine to the next. North to south, specifically. At the end the last one standing is awarded anything. Anything they wish.

They are given food and water when needed, but they can not stop or slow down. They must keep a pace of at least 4mph. You are given three warnings for falling below that speed, and each warning lasts for one hour. If you get more than three to quick you get a ticket. You lose.

Losing doesn't mean you are just out of the race, however. The Long Walk is sponsored by the new (apparent) supreme ruler of the Universe America, The Major and his various military personnel. The Walk is trailed by a half-track, and guarded on both sides by soldiers. If you can't keep pace, they start calling out warnings. At your fourth warning you are shot. You have "bought your ticket" so to speak.

Elaboration: So, why would anyone in their right mind sign up for to be systematically slaughtered? They are clearly not in their right mind. They are misled first, in that they will be rewarded with anything they could want. Which, apparently to young American men is money, women, and power... Secondly, the way that The Walk's registration is conducted is somewhat shady, and pointless. They'll take anybody, but they act like they won't. And finally, the walkers are treated like heroes. Parties are thrown in their honor, people line the street with signs bearing the names of their favorite walkers, some people bet on the walkers, and they are cheered even in death. In fact, spectators cheer numbly before each Walker is gunned down. There is always a strange mix of emotions afterwards, though. Usually referred to as a 'sexual' kind-of sigh.

Now, if we look at this as some sort of critique of American culture, we can say that the young men are the average ambitious individual striving for that American dream. Money, Power, Women. We could then also say that the Walk is the struggle within American culture to secure part of that Dream for yourself, and the reward is The Dream itself. The crowd is then everything else in, on, or around your path:"Environmental dissonance/noise/atmosphere." It is their to distract, and to urge you on at the same time. To parade the Dream in your face.

I don't intend to try and accurately define the American Dream, but we will describe it thus: A house, a family(male-female, kids, dog, fence), a job. Bullshit. I mean... Digression.

So, first you must qualify for your Dream. You must adhere to and represent cultural standards that are deemed appropriate for those who attain their Dream. You must wear the tie and white/blue collar, but so much more importantly you have to WANT this Dream. You are not sought out. You volunteer. Once you have come forward, then you are assessed. It is not hard to get accepted, really. In fact, you can very well bullshit your way in. They like that. It shows spunk(willingness to manipulate others).

At any rate, you pass, and agree further that you will show up at a specific place and time to do a specific task for some predetermined(or indeterminable) amount of time. It isn't a very hard task. Just pickin' 'em and puttin' 'em down. For hours. Days. Weeks. Years? You start out strong, some lag behind, others don't pace themselves well and hang around front only to drop back later on. Positions are established, friends made, and some even help each other out when things get rough. Eventually people start to drop out. They can't keep pace, and are warned. Bill collector Sergeants start calling, and pointing guns in faces. Saying the authorities will get involved and put holes in you.

All the while everything around you urges you on, and draws you away. Women come and put their hands/lips on you, and you put yours on theirs. It is good, but the Bill-Sergeants tell you, "No!" So, you keep walking. With an erection. If only you hadn't agreed to this damn walk... But, you did, and you knew what it was about. People offer you nice things, like watermelon... Bill-Sergeant says, "That is illegal!" and gives you a canteen of water and some food concentrate.

Someone gets taken out. The cameras line up. Everyone cheers/watches, says, "That's too bad," gives a sigh, and moves on.

At the end you are so tired, , hungry, bleeding, and sad that all of your friends are old and dead that you don't give a shit about anything. In fact, all you can think about is walking. You can't be the last one standing! There has to be someone else... Look there he is! One more. I'm gonna run that son of bitch to the ground.

Or, you can wake up. It's all bullshit, always ways, and always will be.

Further, it is Stephen King. He probably repressed any emotion or though whatsoever in writing this book. I am damn near certain he is a just a gay-hating sadist.