More Content Talk

Many people love to opine about happiness. The Christian believes it is adherence to Jesus Christ. The humanist believes it is the protection and advancement of the human species. The environmentalist believes it is the recognition of all species as being equally important. In Buddhism, happiness is achieved when a person can perceive the true nature of reality, unmodified by the mental constructs we superimpose upon it. In Hinduism, there are two types of happiness, one which comes from what they refer to as "the good life" (pleasure and achievement) while the second comes directly from god. The concept of happiness in Islam is known as falah. Falah is pleasure and peace that can be enjoyed by any individuals in life and after life. Even nihilists have their own concept of happiness, "For Nietzsche, the famous  mustachioed nihilist, happiness is a kind of control one has over their  surroundings. ... That sense of self can then turn into happiness. The problem, of course, is that the only similarity we see between all of these versions of happiness is that they are vastly different from one and other. This is complicated even further when we think of things like sects, cults, revolutions in thought, culture clashes, and independent movements and sub movements within these various modes of thought. Christianity, for example, is one of the most popular religions in the world, not because of its cohesiveness, but because it is so diverse, "Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity." Islam, though often presented as a monolithic force by American media, is also quite diverse. Here are just a few denominations of Islam: Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Kharijite Islam, Murijite Islam, Mutazila Islam, Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi are just a few examples. Then there is nihilism, which also has various schools of thought: moral, epistemological, cosmic, and existential nihilism are the main four, but there are subcategories within these. So, we have a lot of different voices arguing over what happiness is. We have no clear definition of it or what it may be. And, as a result, we have not concrete way of achieving it, unless we look at the science. Neuroscience is telling us something quite different than other modes of thought on the subject. Neuroscience believes that they key to happiness is actually seeking, a human drive that leads to things such as philosophy and artistic expression, but also the setting of goals. It may very well be that the setting of these goals is what makes us happy, not a particular accomplishment or worldview, but the process of seeking those things. If you disagree with my premise, then consider this: "In an American study of mortality in former psychiatric outpatients, the  most educated group (and, by implication, those with higher incomes)  had the greatest increased risk of unnatural death, and the largest  category of unnatural deaths was suicide." And also this, "People with a history of mental illness and a high income are at greater  risk of committing suicide than their lower income counterparts. Richer  people with a mental disorder may be more suicidal before they are  admitted to hospital or they may feel more stigmatised,4 vulnerable, and shameful5 about having a mental illness." If happiness was just about achieving goals, then why, exactly, are wealthy people so miserable? Because we seek, therefore we are. If we do not seek, if we have already done everything or at least think that we have, then we really have no reason to exist. Thinking that certainly does not make us happy. 

The internet was once overly populated with pornography. Nowadays, internet porn makes up only about four percent of the entire web. Does that mean that the internet has turned into a valuable source of knowledge? Not so fast. In fact, the internet is now mostly populated by advertisements. It is so overtaken by the ads of big business that is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between the ads and the content you are supposedly watching and that is exactly the point. Content creators get paid handsomely to lie to their followers, to coax them into thinking that they are actually providing them with valuable advice. That is demonstrably false. Here are some internet advertising statistics taken directly from the advertisers themselves: Buyers Expect Digital Ad Spend to Increase 6% Over 2020, Compared to a 30% Fall in Traditional Media

source: influencemarketinghub.com 

But I am sure this all just in my head. I am sure that I am developing some sort of fantasy in my mind about this. I am sure that you really wanted to pay $1550 for some bed on Amazon you could have gotten for $800 in store. And I am also sure that no one could ever fool you. You are far too smart for that, too intelligent, too positive. You are in the in crowd after all so you would know. And why wouldn't you? Companies like Nike, Weight Watchers, Ford, Wells Fargo, Tesla, Google, Facebook, and so many more have paid millions of dollars to reassure you of this. They told you that you were too smart to fall for all the advertising. You know too much, so how could I possibly know anything that you don't? You have it your way (Burger King). You thrive (Kaiser). You just do it (Nike). And do you know what? That all makes sense seeing as how you think different (Apple). And just look at you, you're the best a man can get (Gillette). And hey, why should you stop? You are lovin' it after all (McDonald's). You think big (Imax). You taste the rainbow (Skittles). You think outside the bun (Taco Bell). You are high quality and quality never goes out of style (Levi's). You are better because you eat fresh (Subway). You are better because you belong anywhere (AirBnB). It's all for freedom and freedom for all (Harley Davidson) so sit down and open happiness (Coca Cola). This is the happiest place on earth (Disney)

Oh...my...god! Yay! Wow! Super exciting! It's time to shower random celebrities with golden statues again! Golly, how could it possibly get any better than this? Sorry, I just fell asleep. What were we talking about? Oh yeah, the vanity awards. How could I forget? There is nothing new to see here per se because you have seen it all before. A bunch of rich and famous people come together every month to shower each other with gold. You can almost taste the arrogance and smell the putrid stench of vanity wafting through the air. Each individual Emmy cost $400 to make; that is a week's salary for many people in this country. The total cost for every Emmy statue combined for the lavish award show is $46,400, far more than the median income in the United States, which sits at a paltry $34,486. That means that the Emmy statues, which will end up collecting dust on some celebrity's shelf, and eventually being pawned for drug money by one of their relatives or the celebrities themselves, is worth more than the average front line worker during this deadly pandemic. Wow, it sure does sound like we are getting back to "normal" fast; one statistic and already I feel like nothing I do matters in this country. Yep, super normal, American style. But the waste of money and time does not stop there. I am just getting started. When the Emmy's first started they were open to the public and you could get in for five bucks. That may sound surprising, but it's really not. I mean, you are paying to watch celebrities stroke each others' egos for five or six hours; they should be paying you to do that. Nowadays, the Emmy's are no longer open to the public because Hollywood hates poor people and has successfully excluded them in a way that Donald Trump could only dream of. I'm pretty sure Trump had his face laminated with a melted down Emmy, but that's another story for another day. The Emmy tickets are sold to friends and relatives of celebrities, as well as what are known as "seat fillers", basically professional extras who pretend to like Hollywood for a living. The cost of these tickets you ask? One will run you about $225. Oh and no free programs, that is another $425. Seem reasonable during a time where a record number of Americans are out of work? Then you must have been doing some of the free cocaine that comes in those little statues (joking here, but you never know with Hollywood). Even if it does seem reasonable to you, that is not all. There is also what is known as an Emmy "campaign". Emmy campaigns are elaborate marketing schemes that networks use to bring home the statues; they do this because it increases network ratings, which means more money and even more statues. If you notice, the same shows and actors win every year; this is because they pay a pretty penny for those wins. "Networks shell out big bucks to get those winged ladies sitting in their offices. TV Guide reports that an average Emmy campaign costs between $150,000 and $500,000. In 1993, HBO reportedly spent $1 million on its campaigns, an investment that paid off when the network took home more awards than most broadcast networks for the first time." That's right, HBO did not become popular by merit. They paid to be popular. But it does not stop there. "According to Variety, the 2017 Primetime Emmy Awards resulted in $30 million in revenue for the organization, which spent $10.9 million on the show." So they spent 11 million dollars on production alone! You can feed a small town with that. But why do that when you can organize a fancy circle jerk contest about how wonderful you and your friends are? 

Watching the news throughout the pandemic, one would think that the human animal was somehow incomplete, not quite optimized enough for relationships or work or search engine optimization. Yes, incomplete, inefficient, not worth the time, falling critically below the mark. The media has been very effective at communicating to us that we are monsters, far too human to be considered humane. Conservative media channels instruct us that we are too easily offended, that we must get over ourselves and allow people to shower us with unwarranted insults and sometimes even physical assault, or else be branded as being boring snowflakes. Left leaning and moderate news channels on the other hand tell us that we are too aggressive, that we lack empathy and that we need to be kinder and better before we destroy the human race. I think that both are wrong. The problem with these assumptions is that they are unscientific, intellectually lazy and painstakingly stupid. Stating that human beings should get rid of disgust is impossible, while stating that disgust should be a platform for a political party is downright genocidal. In order to see how we should behave in any give situation, we should always look back to our biological normal, not the various societal norms that we have created to keep up appearances. Biologically, "negative" emotions make sense, especially when it comes to disgust. Why do we get disgusted? Just look around you. Everywhere there are things that could potentially kill you: bacteria, viruses, parasites, blunt objects, allergens, electricity, fire, deep bodies of water, extreme heights, etc. If you were not disgusted by the possibility of being infected by Covid-19, for example, you may end up with the virus and die. What is disgusting about being the sick? The mucus, the saliva, the snot, the congestion, the nausea, the vomit, and so on. All of these things help us to remember that being sick really is not desirable in the slightest. Even if it will not kill you, that does not necessarily mean it will make you stronger. In fact, getting sick often may very well weaken your immune system, not strengthen it as is the case with the following diseases: lupus, arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, type I diabetes, psoriasis, and many more. Covid-19 also falls under this category. Many of the long covid symptoms take months to fade and all of that time spent sick will damage overall immunity in the long term. But disgust does not just prevent illness. Many people are disgusted by the following negative behaviors: racism, sexism, domestic abuse, rape, etc. Ironically, disgust, when misdirected, may also fuel things like racism, sexism and domestic abuse. What we have here is a mechanism that we need for survival, but that must be properly guided. We do not need to become more or less disgusted, but we do need to ensure that our disgust promotes pro-social behavior and that can mean using it as either a motivation for change or a battering ram to rid ourselves of anti-social narratives like white supremacy, extremist religions and Trumpism. 

The corporate media has gone to great lengths over the years to make the incoherent ramblings of well-liked celebrities seem relevant. This pays off big time for the corporate media; if a dumb celebrity is painted up to appear intelligent then their dumb fans feel intelligent also. This improves profit margins for corporations, but does absolutely nothing to help the general populous. So, I applauded when Howard Stern, who I have not always agreed with in the past, called out anti vaxxers or, as I like to call them, the intelligence hesitant: "When are we gonna stop putting up with the idiots in this country and  just say it's mandatory to get vaccinated? F--- 'em. F--- their freedom.  I want my freedom to live," he said. "I want to get out of the house  already. I want to go next door and play chess. I want to go take some  pictures. This is bull----." Sorry for all the dashes, but the internet does not like the fuck or shit words because the internet is a five year old. Stern continued, "If you have a heart attack or any kind of problem, you can't even get  into the E.R. And I'm really of mind to say, 'Look, if you didn't get  vaccinated and you got Covid, you don't get into a hospital. They had the cure and they didn't take it." Stern's frustration with the intelligence hesitant is completely understandable; his furious tirade on the idiots in this country is downright admirable. Perhaps you think it is "normal" for idiots to sabotage us at every turn, but I do not agree. I have stated from the beginning that antivaxxers are a threat to public health, and therefore a very real threat to the nation. The complacency and the bullshitting about empathy and unity has now cost us well over 600,000 lives, more than the Spanish Flu managed to snuff out. But the antivaxxers are still saying. "so what? it's just a flu". Well, if they have the right to say fuck me then fuck them too! I am not going to sit here like some jackass on MSNBC or Meet The Press or The View and coddle to these idiots. They are the scum of the earth and they deserve to be treated as such. Yet still there are calls for "understanding" and "unity". Take your understanding and shove it up Donald Trump's orange ass. I am done understanding. I am done being the nice guy. Meanwhile, Nicki Minaj lost her damn mind. She joined the Busta Rhymes camp and decided to propagate her idiocy to make a few bucks. She lied about being invited to the White House too. But she wants you to listen to her though, even though she's a damn liar, acting like she was joking about her cousin's aunt's sister's daddy getting swollen testicles because of the vaccine. That was no joke. She was dead serious. She's just dumb. She got caught being dumb too and then she wanted to pull the race card, talking about anyone who disapproves of her insane statements is coming down on "strong black women". Oh really? Why is it that every black celebrity only seems to remember that they are black when they are in trouble? Kayne did it. R. Kelly did it. And now it's Ms. Baby Mama Cousin's Testicles turn. She was sitting up there pretending to be a white Barbie doll with all that blonde hair and makeup for all those years, but now she's black all of a sudden when she says something dumb? Negro please! I refuse to cover for her or anyone else that tries to get innocent young black people killed so they can make a few extra bucks. And that's real talk, take it or leave it. 

Sigmund Freud once fantasized (or theorized, whichever you prefer; they both work here) that "normal" women develop something called penis envy around the time of puberty. Freud hypothesized that this penis envy eventually led women to desire to have their own penis so much that they become heterosexuals, thus accomplishing their secret goal. Why Freud needed to come up with such outlandish theories to explain why a woman would want a penis, I will never know. I tend to think that it had something to do with his own penis envy though. Late in his life Freud was afflicted with mouth cancer due to his frequent smoking and one of the side effects was, unfortunately for Sigmund, erectile dysfunction. In order to treat this, as I am sure most men would have tried, Freud had a surgery on his penis to try to get it to function again. This did not happen and he died a short while later. Imagine if Freud had been a woman afflicted by breast cancer. Would Sara Freud have developed a theory about boob envy, stating that the real reason men desire boobs is because they do not have them and that heterosexuality is merely an expression of this hidden desire? Probably. I mean, we are talking about Freud after all. But, unlike penis envy, I am starting to think that boob envy is quite real. We see it all the time in entertainment. A famous women wears scantily clad clothing for the first time in public and all of a sudden the puritan living inside of most Americans comes back big time. "Burn the witch" has now been replaced with "unfollow the celebrity". I still remember when Janet Jackson accidentally showed a portion of one of her breasts while performing with Justin Timberlake (still don't understand that pairing at all, but whatever); it was like the world was ending (I know that sounds exaggerated but some people still use this clip in end times predictions videos on youtube just as they used Madonna's Superbowl performance with Bahphomet symbolism to do the same). By the way, Jackson's career pretty much tanked because of the incident, while Vanilla Ice's, I mean Justin Timberlake's career took off. That is a pretty nasty double standard when you think about it and it is quite primitive. The woman must suffer, while the man is elevated. Are you starting to take note of my not so subtle hints of religious fundamentalism here? One of the strongest indications of a society in a state of peril is this need to write lofty moral concepts into law. There is no utility in such laws. They only serve to repress women, to keep them from expressing themselves and to keep them in the dark about their sexuality. This is what high-minded intellectual snobs like Freud encourage all the time, this idea that sexuality must be pure and conditioned to "normality". There is no hard science to this notion. There was also an outcry from the puritans when Britney Spears released her "Slave" album, scantily clad in a green bikini like outfit, holding a large snake (I'll leave you to figure out the symbolism on your own). Billie Eilish is yet another victim of this puritan mentality and the boob envy that comes along with it. Eilish recently changed her style of dress, wearing far more revealing outfits than her typical style and dying her hair blonde, a perfectly normal thing to do for a young woman who is finding out who she is. But she was punished by her "fans" for doing this, receiving a bunch of discouraging comments and losing 100,000 followers. I swear it feels like we are under Sharia law in this country! Why are we telling young women what to wear, how to dress, who to be? What business is it of ours? How far will this nonsense be allowed to go? Are the puritans planning on making women wear tents instead of clothing? It could be. Only time will tell. But in the meantime, let's enjoy boobs while we still can before the dreadfully boring folks make living in America even less arousing than it already is, shall we?  

The art world has taken a beating over the last seven decades. Artists now work as gig workers, relying on the donations of wealthy art lovers to keep them afloat. Yet, twitter was all, well, a twitter about AOC's recent attire at the Met Gala in New York. You have probably seen the pictures posted all over social media by this point. It is interesting that the same people complaining about the dress spent the most time talking about it, and, by result, promoting it. It always amazes me when people who want to discourage a particular type of behavior try to do so by spreading it all over the globe via instagram or youtube. You would think that the best thing to do in this case would be, you know, not talking about it so goddamn much, but the conservatives have never been so great at political savvy. In the end, the negative coverage AOC got probably ended up boosting her following on twitter more than anything else. There were also some on the left decrying the fact that a successful woman got such a hard time for going to...gasp! A fundraiser! Some also referenced the fact that conservatives were shaming AOC. I am not going to spend as much time on that as I am on the fact that the event AOC attended was raising money for an educational institute. Artists rely heavily on galas and fundraisers because it is the only way we can make money anymore. That is all that is left; that is all that is allowed. Gone are the days where you could run a theater company or an art gala on a shoestring budget. People just do not appreciate art like they once did; in fact, they are beginning to dislike it just as the conservatives have planned all along. Because of this dislike of artists (all you hear people say as an artist is something to the affect of "oh, you're an artist, that's nice, when are you going to get a real job?"; this is my job ass hat, when are you going to get a real hat?) it is now virtually impossible to get an artistic job without heavy funding from wealthy intellectuals. Because of the outspoken nature of good art the only wealthy people willing to open their wallets for out of work artists are, in fact, liberal wealthy people. George W. Bush may have calmed down a bit in his old age, but he sure as hell isn't going to give me a grant to do Othello. But liberals will if they can spare the money. Often times they get nothing in return for this. I personally have benefited from this little known fact about the struggling art world for years. It has kept me employed and it has kept my family fed. So forgive me if I am not so willing to jump on the "let's all beat up on AOC for donating to charity" train or don't forgive me; I don't care one way or the other. The money raised from that event went to help struggling artists like me so I'm all for it. Of course it didn't have to be this way. Of course more people could have fought against the conservative assault on the arts during the Bush years. But those people chose not to. They chose computers and web design instead. Good for them. I don't need those people. But what I am not going to do is let those people ruin my life a second time. Nope, it's not gonna happen. Should they have worn masks? Yes, absolutely. Are the Americans who went to Lalapalooza and the Sturgis rally any better than AOC? Hell to the motherfucking no! So no I'm not praising AOC. What I am saying is that I have observed regular people breaking the rules on masking on an almost daily basis. Those regular people, the same people who would have me on the street were it not for congress members like AOC and other wealthy liberals, are in no position to judge anyone. This tactic of pitting the poor liberals against the wealthy liberals so you can steal congress seats in 2022 is not going to work this time around conservatives. I will see to that. Thanks to artist Isabella Mariana for the beautiful image! Be sure to look her up on social media. 

A little known requirement for membership into the modern conservative movement is that you refrain from touching your ding dong, and no, I ain't talking about a hostess snack cake. Conservatives have continuously pushed the very incorrect idea that masturbation is somehow evil, even though things like pornography quite obviously lessen horrible crimes like rape, sexual assault and awful ailments like STDs. Though one would think conservatives would let this one slide if they wanted their children to be more responsible about sex, keeping their personal kinks in their personal bedroom instead of running off and having a child when they are not ready, even this very basic and safe part of human sexuality did not go unscathed. For a long while now, conservatives have pushed a very unscientific narrative that masturbation is addictive like a drug and that it causes erectile dysfunction, infertility and decreased interest in women. Some even argue that it makes people homosexual or bisexual. This anti-masturbation movement travels through social media with the hashtag "no wanks". None of these arguments have any evidence outside of conservative ted talks on the issue, which, if you know anything about ted talks (conservative scapegoat artist Candace Owens has given more than one), you should know that type of "evidence" is the least reliable you can find. The right has argued that the sexual revolution "ruined women", but what they really mean is that it got them out of the kitchen and into the workforce. One often finds that men who speak in such a way have gotten in trouble with things like sexual assault and abuse in the past. I personally believe this is a way they have decided to get revenge on women, some of them going full terrorist and joining the incel movement. But the proud boys also promote this dogma. I also believe that pent up sexual aggression in men is being taken advantage of here and in a very dishonest way. Many men do not realize that things like erectile dysfunction are early signs of heart disease, even fewer know that this can occur at very young ages in some men. So these radical groups are lying to men and taking advantage of their vulnerability just like they are taking advantage of women who want to be free from misogyny. These groups frequently attack strong female figures like Michelle Obama or Beyonce in very childish ways. They are not critiquing the actions of powerful women as much as they are critiquing the fact that women are able to have their own lives and careers at all. These groups are playing both sides against each other, claiming that men who experience sexual problems are incomplete because women have "betrayed" or "left" them for careers and welfare. None of this is accurate so we must work to spread the truth before it is too late. 

It is a common political myth that moderate politics lead to desirable outcomes. More often than not, they simply serve as a way of preserving the status quo. But the status quo is not always ideal. More often than not, the status quo is the source of your unhappiness. Doing the same thing over and over again is only advisable if we are following science. Though the social sciences are scientific in the sense that they observe the present, they are in no way full proof when it comes to predicting the future. In other words, what is working now, may not work in the future because the circumstances that exist today will not always exist. Thus, politics must, like everything else, change with the times. This requires new and innovative solutions because the problems are always new and innovative. As soon as you invent a policy, dozens of strategists are working on ways to dismantle that policy. If someone seeks to destroy a policy that works we cannot simply reinstate the policy and call it a success because now you are dealing with all kinds of judges that are able to interpret laws differently and make them unlawful. We must come up with fail proof ways that ensure the policy holds for a longer period of time, well into the future. We must send a message to political opportunists and extremists that the system is not for sale. This has not happened. Instead, insider trading and campaign donations are at an all time high. Just today another report was released fingering seven democratic and conservative members, most of whom are moderates by the way, for, wait for it, wait for it...insider trading of course! I bet you did not see that one coming eh? This is illegal by the way and all of Congress is aware that it is illegal, some of the accused even voted for the anti-insider trading legislation. Of course they probably did not read the legislation they signed (few congress members do; this is largely left to legal clerks who probably don't always read it either), but that is no excuse. They just know that, more likely than not, they will not be prosecuted. Several congress members, again most of them moderates, just got away with insider trading in 2020. The only congress member to do any time only did about 22 months, which is not going to discourage moderates from continuing to lie, cheat and steal their way to the top. If you think, for one second, that I am going to applaud this continuation of gaming the system, I am afraid you do not know me very well. I don't care what you call yourself, a dirty politician is a dirty politician. This is why I encourage you to support progressive candidates. Simply put, the establishment you are fighting is the moderate politicians. There are no progressives in the establishment. They have far fewer fingers in the pie that is corporate welfare. Also, even if we do not get exactly what we want from progressives, the simple fact that the country votes in progressive candidates will send a clear message that the center must stop being so far right. That alone, would be a huge win for people like you and me. But you have to get loud; you have to get mad. You cannot continue to let them walk all over you. You are coming to a fork in the road. You have two choices. Right or left? The moderates, who have not protected your right to choice or your right to vote, are on the right and the progressives are on the left. Choose wisely. The further down the road you get, the more difficult it becomes to get back to where you started.