Why I’m Proud to Be a Bastard

Reflections from the Dad-less on the Eve of Father’s Day

I consider myself a shameless member of America’s great, unheralded “33 percent.”

Never heard of the “33 percent?” Well, in case you haven’t, that’s the estimated percentage of Americans that have grown up without fathers. It’s a number that’s certainly swelled over the years -- in 1960, our rank was the a not so great “11 percent,” but now? Holy shit, we constitute a third of the freaking nation.

If you want to get technical with the terminology, however, you can actually boost our rank up to about 41 percent instead -- that number, of course, representing the percentage of contemporary births to out-of-wedlock bastards and bastardettes. A majority of black kids are growing up without fathers. Among white children with mommas without college degrees, the “no-daddy” meter rises to about 60 percent. Unless trends somehow find a way to reverse themselves, we’re no doubt facing a sooner than later future where Americans sans padres represent a plurality of the nation.

It’s oft-said that “Father’s Day” is the least celebrated holiday in the U.S. “Everybody has a momma,” one old adage goes. “But only a select few have fathers.” And for an ever-increasing amount of Americans, the whole concept of “fatherhood” is quickly becoming an archaic ideal.

It’s not so much that father absenteeism plays a huge role in American’s contemporary woes as it is the fact that father absenteeism is pretty much responsible for ALL of them. Think I’m joshing you? Check out the following stats, provided by the National Fatherhood Initiative:

POVERTY: Last year, 12 percent of kids living in families with married parents were officially deemed impoverished. Compare that to the number of single-mother households, which stands at 44 percent.

MENTAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Kids in single mother homes aren’t just likelier to be more aggressive than kids living in two-parent homes, but evidence exists that when kids have fathers with multipart fertility (meaning, they got some women not named “the kid’s mom” pregnant), they are much likelier to experience more externalized behavior problems.

INCARCERATION: Even with income taken into consideration, kids without dads have significantly higher likelihoods of winding up in jail, with a Department of Justice report from a decade ago revealing that about 40 percent of inmates grew up in single mom homes.

GENERAL CRIMINALITY: The more exposure one has to his or her biological father, the less likely he or she is to engage in criminal behavior. Period.

UNWISE SEXUAL DECISIONS: Growing up without a dad? Then you’re likelier to become pregnant or get somebody pregnant as a teen, marry without having a high school degree or marry someone that doesn’t have a high school degree. For girls, the outcomes are particularly severe; without a father around, studies have shown that they are twice as likely to experience early menstruation and four times likelier to engage in premarital sex.

CHILD ABUSE: Without a dad, you’re likelier to experience abuse at the hands of an adult. Kinda’ goes without saying, huh?

SUBSTANCE ABUSE: No pa around, and you’re much likelier to smoke, drink, or use marijuana than kids with a mother and father in the household.

OBESITY: Not only are kids living in fatherless homes likelier to be overweight and obese, one study found that ONLY the parenting behaviors of the father (as in, like, not being there) were found to be closely associated with a child’s risk of obesity.

EDUCATION: Oh, goddamn, this might take a while. Without a father, a child is a.) less likely to score all As in school, b.) have poorer reading skills, c.) have less developed language skills, and d.) post overall lower vocabulary scores. And as we all know by now, unless you have your neurological shit together before kindergarten, you’re biologically determined to utterly fail as an individual.

At one point in history, being a bastard (I think the gender analogue would be bastarda, but I could be wrong) was something one ought to feel a tremendous amount of shame about. But in our modernized, increasingly dad-less civilization, the term “bastard” is pretty much losing its impact as a pejorative; methinks in a couple of decades, the very term itself may become something of an antiquity, kind of like "toerag" or "ragamuffin" -- ancient language that once held tremendous contextual power, that over the course of time, have been reduced to regional peculiarities that sound about as offensive as a Dr. Seuss pronoun.

It’s impossible to really tally up just how much damage father absenteeism has wreaked for American society. Granted, I don’t think it would have altered things to the point where we would be currently living in a utopian paradise, but still. Lower crime rates, a more educated citizenry, less poverty across the boards; if dads would just do their fatherly duties, there’s no denying that we, as a culture, could put a serious dent in a majority of the social problems that plague America like…well, the blight of father absenteeism, I suppose.

The problem, of course, is that you can’t make people perform such a patriarchal role. For a lot of deadbeat dads, it’s easier to live their entire lives on the lam, or in jail, than it is to raise a kid. As an alternative to childrearing, incarceration isn’t all that bad a tradeoff for a much, much larger percentage of the nation’s men folk than we’d perhaps like to admit. Guys like Charles Murray are quick to point out the myriad social problems wrought by fatherlessness, but there’s really nothing we can do as society to alleviate the problem. And if you’re a kid without one of those “dads” so many conservative blowhards like to rant and rave about? Well, the great game of life has already given you two strikes at bat, and you’re just now a fucking zygote.

I’m not sure just how much not having a dad around screwed me up as an individual, but it’s probably quite a bit. Of course, I could use that as a lifelong excuse for why I never accomplish anything with myself, but instead, I prefer to look on the bright side of being a bastard. Believe it or not, it actually has a few benefits, you know.

For one thing, growing up without a dad makes you a lot more independent. Primarily, because you don’t really have a choice. You don’t have some dude with hairy arms showing you how to fix a car or hunt deer, so instead, you have to pick up all of these “trades” and “skills” on your own. And sometimes, you just skirt all of that typical macho-bullshit altogether and focus on things that are less testosterone-addled, like music and movies and books. Growing up without a father is a terrible way to raise a mechanic or a bounty hunter, but as a means of “making” an excellent poet, playwright or journalist? I can’t think of a better protocol.

Secondly, I think growing up without a dad makes you a way, way less misogynistic person. If you’re a male growing up sans a father, you’re pretty much forced to identify with your mother, and as such, you grow to appreciate more maternalistic traits and qualities. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking here, but I’d argue that growing up with just a mom actually makes you a better care provider as an adult, since you KNOW the kind of effort and hard work and dedication required to raise another human being.

Thirdly, it makes you a LOT tougher. If you’re the only kid on a football team without a dad cheering you on, it goads you into placing a greater emphasis on self-accomplishments. You don’t have anyone out there to “make proud,” so why do you bother doing what you do? Because it gives you self-respect and self-fulfillment, that’s why. You do things not to appease others out of self-insecurity, but because you want to prove to yourself that you have what it takes to do what YOU have elected to do for yourself. It makes you a more dedicated individual, and one that’s more willing to shoulder one’s own responsibilities.

Speaking of self-responsibility, that’s a fourth benefit of being dad-less. You don’t have a father around to fight your battles for you (or bail you out when you’re in trouble,) so what do you have to do? You get wiser, more creative and more self-sufficient. The only person you can count on to take care of you is you -- a quality that creates the best kind of entrepreneurs and artists.

And lastly, I think it makes you a whole more in tune with the real world. If you grow up in a safe, lily white, two-parent home safeguarded from the omnipresent perils that face dad-less kids, you generally grow up to be -- for lack of a better term -- a pussy. Actually, the worst kind of pussy, for that matter, the kind that’s never had to feel mortal fear, or existential dread, or a lifelong sense of self-inferiority, or realizing what the term “alone” truly entailed.

So what can these lowly, fatherless kids go on to do with their empty, utterly trite lives?

Well, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both grew up without their fathers, and they only went on to become the goddamn leaders of the free world. Samuel L. Jackson only met his dad twice, and he still grew up to be Samuel L. Jackson. Jay-Z was abandoned by his dad (as was Kanye West and Gene Simmons and A-Rod) and now he sorta owns his own NBA franchise and got a chance to ruin “The Great Gatsby.” Jon Stewart was raised by his mom, and so was Al Pacino. And putting that old “not having a dad turns you into a pantywaist” mythology to rest forever, you know who grew up without a dad around? Anderson Silva, aka the greatest mixed martial arts fighter in history.

Clearly, none of the above celebrities had it easy as dad-less kids, but what do you know? They all managed to do quite well for themselves, reaching plateaus that it is very unlikely they would have reached had they NOT been raised without dads. That’s because being fatherless grants you certain personal qualities that those that grow up with fathers will never develop.

I don’t want to slight two-parent kids too much, but the fact of the matter is, you’ll never be half the person a fatherless-person is. Anybody can find success when you have dual parental incomes and absolutely zero fear of one’s life spiraling into mayhem at any second, but for someone to grow up without all of that to achieve a swell standard of living? You have to have something downright extraordinary inside you, and whatever factors that make that personal motivator come alive simply cannot be experienced by those with both parents around.

So for all you kids out there prepping for Father’s Day this weekend, go ahead and enjoy it. While you’re celebrating daddy, just remember that only me and the other 32.9999999 percent of the nation will be celebrating our own perseverance instead.

Read More

Why the Government SHOULD Be Spying On Our Online Data…

An argument in defense of federal collection and examination of our Internet records and information…

Recently, the Obama Administration was lent a staggering one-two body blow; first, documents popped up indicating that the NSA has been forcing Verizon to hand over the cell phone data of every single one of its subscribers, and just a day later, info about the PRISM program -- which appeared to reveal collusion between the feds and some of the tech industry’s largest players, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Yahoo -- got leaked by the Washington Post. As expected, hardcore contingents on the left and the right responded with seething outrage, with the New York Times -- considered by many to be one of Obama’s most obedient media lapdogs -- stating that this new scandal completely destroys any and all credibility the O Cabinet used to have. Needless to say, this newfangled information doesn’t put the Obama Administration in any better standing that it has been this year, but is all of this government “spying” really as awful as some folks on the Web would have you believe?

First off, let’s clarify a few things. Allegedly, this whole PRISM thing appears to have started as an initiative under George W.’s watch in 2007, so you really can’t come out and call it an outright Obama project. Similarly, a lot of these “spying” programs were actually green lit by House and Senate approval…meaning as much as the nation’s conservative contingent (and for that part, the hyper-individualistic/hyper pro-privacy liberals) want to bitch and moan about the U.S. turning into an Orwellian state, the fact of the matter is that our democratically elected officials have had NUMEROUS opportunities to stop programs of the like from being authorized, and they haven’t.

Similarly, I haven’t really detected that much ire towards these mega-huge-conglomerate entities, who are only, you know, half of the goddamn equation. So, the feds come out and ask Google and Verizon to hand over some user data. Instead of saying “no” and turning over documents to the media (who, assuredly, would’ve gobbled the info up like free munchkins on National Doughnut Day), they willingly complied with the fed’s wishes and kept the shit under lock and key from the public. As the old adage goes, it takes two to tango, so why aren’t we singling out both dancers in this Grand Funk Railroad of duplicity?

That, in itself, raises a pretty interesting question : how come there’s so much concern about our “private data” falling into the hands of the feds, when our “private data” has been visible, collectible and archivable by Google, Facebook and Microsoft this whole time, anyway? If you want to complain about the government for “spying” on allegedly “private” Web info, then I think it’s a little hypocritical -- and woefully ignorant -- to not ALSO harp the hell out of these Internet firms for doing the same.

I sound like a government apologist right now, don’t I? Well, while it is cool to be all Libertarian and anarcho-radicalist on the Web in the wake of this leaked data, all it took was one quote from President Obama to get me to COMPLETELY accept all of this spying and data collectin’ without any ill feelings whatsoever.

"You can’t have 100 percent security and then also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience. You know, we’re going to have to make some choices as a society."

That line right there has to be one of the most intelligent things I’ve ever heard a politician, of any ideology, say. The reality is, we live in a social structure that promises us freedom from the kind of mayhem that goes on in a good 90 percent of the world; and to afford us that freedom from mass death, maybe, just maybe, we have to give up a little bit of personal freedom for guaranteed mass protection.

This idea isn’t new, you know: I mean, shit, how long ado did Rousseau pen “The Social Contract,” anyway? Even amongst hardcore Libertarians, the government’s function as social protector is vaunted pretty strongly. So here, we have the federales doing the one thing even Ayn Rand believes it should be doing, and of course…the masses cry “foul.”  Of course they would. Of course they would.

Now, I’m not exactly a big fan of that George W. character, but in hindsight, I have to respect some of  his executive decisions. It took a lot of brass to authorize something like the “PATRIOT Act” and give so much authority to the NSA, but in hindsight, I think it has to be considered a right call.

I don’t know if you kids remember this or not, but about 13 years ago or so, a a bunch of highly pissed off jihadists took control of a few aeroplanes and decided to smash them into some fairly expensive real estate. The brutal deaths of about 3,000 Americans, not to mention billions in architectural damage costs (you have to factor in property in the equation…after all, that’s the only kind of value you can get some individuals to consider significant), revealed something quite telling about U.S. domestic security: that, it was, in a word or two, pure shit. Looking back on 9/11, it was ridiculously clear that the U.S. -- the most formidable military presence in history -- had a MASSIVE weak spot on the domestic front. And seeing as how a couple of million militant extremists want us dead, maybe you can determine for yourself why so many political higher-ups have been on a nearly 15 year long national security improvement spree ever since.

Geopolitics is a game we all like to play in our heads, but the fact of the matter is, we don’t really know how complex and challenging this whole “keeping the U.S. safe from atomic briefcase attacks” business actually is. Odds are, it’s probably a billion times scarier than what we think it already is…and the fact that we’ve had two presidents in a row, with completely antithetical political ideals, becoming hardline advocates of intensified domestic security ought to be “clue #1” to anybody.

I imagine President Obama’s first joint chief of staffs meeting…the really secretive kind, where he convenes with generals and defense administrators underneath Camp David in a top-secret, radiation proof bunker with robotic maids and shit…to go a little something like this.

Obama: “I just want you to know that, like many Americans, I too am outraged by the excesses of the War on Terror, especially all of this NSA wire tapping stuff. So, what’s going on in the military world, mi amigos?”

Defense Advisor One: “Well, Intel has detected increased radioactive hotspots in Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and parts of southeastern Russia. These, it is worth noting, have completely different frequency signatures than what we’ve already picked up in North Korea, Syria, Lebanon and  Iran. And they appear to be moving around, Mr. President.”

Obama: “Umm…what do you mean ‘moving around,’ exactly?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Most likely, they are in the process of being actively transferred. As you can see here on this display [A flat screen monitor automatically unfolds from the ceiling], these signatures are not stationary. The green spots, where most of our silos and Russian sites are, indicate stationary atomic weaponry. These red ones indicate stationary atomic activity, albeit in much smaller scales, in China, Pakistan, and Israel.”

Obama: “And, these beeping yellow dots…you mean its’ moving atomic weaponry?”

Defense Advisor One: “More than likely, Mr. President.”

Obama: “So you mean all that shit about suitcase bombs and dirty bombs was real all along?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Very much so, Mr. President. And this map is just indicating confirmed nuclear armaments hot spots. Here’s a map of what Intel believes are potentially active sites…”

[Hundreds of yellow dots pop up on map, followed by thousands of miniature blue ones all across the globe.]

Obama: “So, uh, what are the blue ones, exactly?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Unconfirmed biological weaponry. The Chinese have been creating super-strains of SARS for the last decade, and former Soviet satellites have been actively engaged in the production and sale of designer germ weapons since at least 1988.”

Obama: “…but there are blue dots on that map in America!”

Defense Advisor One: “About 90 percent of those are lab stock. The other 10 percent, Mr. President, are unconfirmed.”

Obama: “Unconfirmed?”

Defense Advisor Two: “Quite possibly dirty bombs or black market stocks, Mr. President. NSA records indicate that transfers have been attempted at least three times this week already. If it wasn’t for that cell phone data, they likely would’ve gone completely unchecked.”

Obama: “…unchecked?”

Defense Advisor One: “Two attempted transfers between Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and one attempted transfer from a Russian nationalist to a Turkish extremist group outside of D.C. In that one, the CIA netted a pretty nasty strain of designer Ebola mixed with rubella. Completely indistinguishable from chicken pox, but at two weeks onset, results in extremely fatal hemorrhagic fevers, with a 95 percent kill rate. In all likelihood, an entire city could be contaminated in the span of an afternoon.”

Obama: “…and, uh, the only way you knew about that stuff was from wiretapping?”

Defense Advisor One: [nods head.]

Obama: [Lights up Marlboro, and paces back and forth for about ten uninterrupted seconds.] “All right. Keep it up, then.”

Defense Advisor Two: “Thank you, Mr. President. Now, here’s a map of suspected domestic terrorists, including one militia in Colorado that has been exchanging plans to blow up the Hoover Dam on Skype…”

Obama: “You know what? Fuck it, canvas the entire Internet if you have to. I’ve seen ‘Deep Impact’ before, and I’ll be damned before I become known as ‘the First Black President…who also let Saudi hi-jackers blow up a nuclear power plant!” [slams fists on table, dramatic music begins playing.]

And so, President Obama (as will every commander-in-chief this country will have from hereon out) faces a moral dilemma: while he or Hilary become known as “that one asshole that trampled on our civil liberties,” or “that one asshole that let terrorists fly two jumbo jets into the Sears Tower?,” or “that no good prick that was asleep on the job when Chinese infiltrators laced the water supply of Philadelphia with smallpox?”

Everybody that wants to rag on the executive office over this PRISM/Verizon/drone strike stuff have seen “The Dark Knight,” but seemingly none of them have picked up on the general lesson of the film: If you’re in a position of power, and you have the ability to stop mass destruction on one’s home front from transpiring, and you can avert another instance of milli-death (or, much, much more horrifically, even mega-death) from happening by combing through phone call transcripts and a few Google searches, then what’s necessarily immoral about doing a little proactive snooping from time-to-time?

And all of this brings us back to Obama’s quote from earlier. You and me live in a society, where we agree to sacrifice some of our fundamental liberties in exchange for mass protection. So, yes, we can cry and bellyache about the government MAYBE taking a look at our cell phone logs and YouTube videos, but do we ever praise and celebrate them from keeping international and domestic terrorists from blowing up our power grids, or knocking down our buildings, or unleashing genetic nightmares on entire metropolises? Of course we don’t, because it’s stuff we don’t know about. It’s easy to complain about an unfair trade-off when you only know what you’re being asked to trade. So, we’re giving the feds access to our electronic data, and what are they giving us in return?

Well, all I can say is that since 9/11 -- and since the PATRIOT Act and the NSA re-authorizations and the PRISM project have been enacted -- there hasn’t been a single wide-scale, cataclysmic domestic terror attack on U.S. soil since.

And if the occasional peak at somebody’s Reddit account is enough to keep bridges from being blown up and children from being immolated in burning buildings? All I can say is “keep up the good work, Senor Presidente. Keep up the good work."

Read More

Why America Will NEVER Be A Socialist County

Despite the apocalyptic warnings of right-wing wackos and the lobbying of lame-brain hipster leftists, there’s more than a few reasons why the U.S. won’t ever embrace socialism as an economic practice.

I’ve noticed something rather peculiar about all of the people I have met that purport to be proponents of “socialism” -- i.e., that economic-political system that involves public ownership of stuff and collectivism and municipalization and the Nordic model and probably a whole bunch of other things that sound good in theory but are next to impossible to implement as models in the U.S.

The thing that strikes me most about these in-name-only socialists is that, by and large, they are some of the most capitalistic mofos I have ever encountered. Not once…once…have I ran into a pro-socialist American that seemed to be making less than 400 percent the federal poverty line (the best measure out there to determine who exactly is middle class, in case you were wondering.)

These incessant Debs quoters, it dawns upon me, AREN’T a repressed underclass of laborers, peasants and unorganized workers. In fact, not only are the pseudo-socialists anything but victims of capitalism, in just about every instance I can think of, these so-called socialists are actually members of the neo-bourgeoisie they claim to hate with a fiery passion.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn’t socialism supposed to be a philosophy of the layman, of the non-elites that have to sweat and toil and perform grueling physical labor? Say what you will about Marx, but the dude -- despite having a couple of doctorates to his name -- lived the part of a Bohemian dirt farmer pretty well; reportedly, old K.M. lived in such abject poverty in London that three of his kids wound up starving to death.

With that in mind, there’s something really insincere to me about a bunch of college-educated, loan-applying, house-owning, non-starved, administrative/bureaucratic office folks claiming to be advocates of a socialist program, of any order. Really, you guys are advocates of collectivization, when you yourselves practically worship at the alter of mass consumerism?

If you want to talk about why socialism (nor its nine thousand permutations, like democratic socialism or Owenism or Bernsteinism or social democracy -- despite the seemingly redundant title, actually a different subsystem than ‘democratic socialism,’ if you can believe it) will never take off as an American institution, that’s pretty much why: there’s no way Americans will EVER embrace symbolic collectivization when the alternative of individualistic consumption is so damned omnipresent in U.S. culture.

With a systematic ideology as nuanced and ill-defined as “socialism,” of course, it’s going to be difficult to frame the question of why folks in the U.S. will never fully accept whatever it is that socialism, well, is. For the sake of keeping things simple, we’ll refer to “socialism” as the classical Marxist definition of a halfway Capitalistic-Communistic state -- where the free market is still kinda’ free, but all of the really serious stuff, like healthcare and utilities and major industrial production, like petroleum and mining -- have all been nationalized.

Despite what all of the Obama-haters have been yelling about, the United States already IS a socialist nation, in some ways. The fact that a lion’s share of the federal debt can be traced back to social security trusts and Medicare spending is pretty much all the datum you need to say, yeah, we’re kinda’ not a “pure” capitalist society, by any stretch of the imagination.

In theory, a lot of the things hardcore socialists want seem pretty damned desirable. Guaranteed government jobs, if you can’t find one in the private sector? Sounds cool to me. Universal health care coverage AND free education? Call me crazy, but if the gubberment wanted to yank half of my paycheck away so that me, my hypothetical wife and my even more hypothetical children would have guaranteed access to health services -- dental, reproductive health, the whole kit, caboodle and she-bang -- I’d be more than willing to fork it over. There’s really no goddamn excuse in the world why America has homeless people, either; not only should there be more federal housing out there, I think it’s downright inhuman that we here in the states don’t have guaranteed, government-assured access to shelter and food for every man, woman and child in the nation.

Now, here’s the problem with that; all of the above shit costs money, and in case you weren’t aware of it, America don’t have a whole hell of a lot left of it anymore. Of course, some of the socialist ideals could, theoretically, be achieved by massive restructurings of government programs -- I mean, really, would it be THAT difficult to streamline Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare into some sort of across-the-board safety net for ALL Americans?

The answer, I am afraid, is “yes.” Even though the feds certainly have the ability to restructure the trifecta of welfare-state programs into a universal health-and-job-security program for everybody, it simply isn’t going to be happening in THIS America, for a number of reasons.

First, there’s a lot of people that don’t WANT everybody to have socially-assured safety nets. As in, millions, tens of millions, hell, maybe even a 100 million or so that are damned, damned, damned opposed to the idea of expanding social security and Medicaid programs -- or really, even having them instituted in the first place. And it’s not just the people you think would be opposed to the measures; not only is “socialization” of government programming an idea despised by the capitalist classes, it’s also a measure loathed by a ton of working class and poor folks, as well.

Depending on who you ask, the nation’s lower class represents anywhere from 12 percent to a quarter of the nation (factoring in the working poor, of course.) Combined with America’s working classes -- in other words, the non-post-secondary-educated folks that populate mills, operate machinery, drive trucks and serve as security personnel -- their social rank jumps up to a plurality of the nation, representing between 54-to-57 percent of the entire U.S. population. With that in mind, you quickly deduce that the average American is more or less a neo-Prole, and since they outnumber the “higher classes,” certainly, their ability to influence economic and social policy -- after all, they are THE majority -- WOULD seem to tilt the national ideology away from hyper capitalism and towards socialism-lite, wouldn’t it?

Well, no, and then, more no. For starters, the only people in America that seem well versed in Marxist doctrine are people that are in no way shape or form part of that lower dyad of American society. Hell, try ambling into a truck stop or a field of soil turners, and asking them what they think about dialectic materialism some time; socialist ideals are about as implanted in the American layman as a taste for dry British comedies and suppressing belches around others.

So, uh, with that in mind, why wouldn’t America’s lower classes want to promote a political, social and economic system that’s catered to their needs as laborers and service providers? Well, a lot of reasons, actually, beginning with the fact that most lower class people are downright CONVINCED that they’re members of the American Middle Class, even though they received subsidized aid, live in mobile home parks and have part-time employment at Wal-Mart. When they hear doom saying about socialism, what they generally interpret that right wing rabble rousing as is “we’re going to give your money to minorities,” and as such? Don’t expect a very big turnout for the annual gathering of North Dakotan Communists or the Arkansas chapter of Socialist Workers anytime soon. As long as a majority of America’s working class and working poor remain Caucasians, I absolutely guarantee you that collectivist ideals will NEVER become popular movements throughout these “united” States.

More than anything, THAT’S the main reason why socialism just doesn’t fly as a realistic proposition in the States -- the people that would benefit from socialist programming, that under classical socialist ideology, ought to be socialists themselves -- have nary a goddamn interest in any collectivist goals or ambitions. The American working class doesn’t want to own stake in the companies they work for, and they couldn’t care less about the means of production. While it would probably behoove them to have universal health care or more expansive worker security programs, they’re not going to fight for them even though, as a plurality, they could easily dictate the nation’s policies by unionizing. Simply put, America’s poor and working classes are actually the most INDIVIDUALISTIC people in the entire country; most of them have no desire to collectivize and care more about the success of themselves and their families than they do anything that resembles social progression on the national level. Pardon my French, but the lower half of the U.S. dyad just don’t give a shit about itself. Things like communal goals or social improvements don’t mean anything to them; instead of fighting for a more equitable economic structure that at least gives them a fair shot at escaping poverty, they would much rather just be poor and save the effort for whatever luxury and leisure items they can accumulate by hook or crook.

That’s the great irony of the socialist dilemma; if you’re well-versed on things like class warfare and economic inequality, you’re probably an educated sort that has managed to move on up to the middle class (or more likely, you were born into the middle class already.) Marxism may be something the impoverished in Latin America and Asia have a firm grasp on, but here in America? All the poor here read is the Bible and whatever’s written on their latest sack of fast food; unless they just so happen to stumble upon “Acts” and get curious with their Wikipedia searches, working class America’s exposure to socialist ideology is destined to be limited to whatever Glenn Beck and the NRA newsletter tells them about it.

All in all, if you want to know why socialism will never become a true political movement throughout America, all you have to do is think about one word: “effort.”

It would require “effort” to get a socialization movement going. It would require people to read about socialist ideology and make coordinated efforts to influence public policy, by voting for, supporting and promoting socialism. It means people would have to voluntarily lower their standards of living and take a financial hit for the greater good of their own culture and children. Even if a 48 percent tax rate would guarantee jobs, housing, education and healthcare to every U.S. citizen, there would be at least 48 percent of the population that would fight like hell against it. They would rather use that additional 18 percent of tax dollars to buy all that delightful, capitalistic crap they really don’t need: Camel cigarettes and Starbucks coffees and flat screen televisions and new tablet devices and Xbox Live subscriptions and brand new cars and suburban homes and McDonalds’ fish nuggets. People in America don’t hate socialism because they view it as a threat to democracy, but because they see it as a barrier to them and their ceaseless pursuit of materialistic nothingness.

America is a nation that would forego universal, federally-guaranteed health, employment and housing safety nets if it meant they COULDN’T spend an extra $300 a month to watch “Game of Thrones,” and own a Smartphone or eat at P.F. Chang’s less than three times a week.

Marx said that socialism was a no-brainer for the workers of the world, since they only had their chains to lose. Well, in America, socialism would mean potentially losing our chains…our favorite fast food chains, our favorite retail chains and our favorite big box chains.

Collective social security and free health care access, we can do without. The potentiality that we may lose some disposable income and have to live within our means, for any duration of time, no matter how brief? Now that my friends, is just about as un-American as it gets.

Read More

Peanut Butter Pop-Tarts!

The most inevitable thing in history is finally here, but could it ever possibly live it up to its own hype?

When I say “Pop-Tart,” you probably think of about forty five million different flavors. That’s probably because, at last glance, there are indeed about forty five million different permutations of The Kellogg Company’s much-beloved toaster pastries out there, from oatmeal-laced offerings to products that are supposed to taste like the physical manifestation of spooky. There is a Pop-Tart, it seems, for all occasions and moods -- you can break into a box of Christmas-themed pastries, nibble on a breakfast item that tastes like an ice cream sandwich, and if you’re really adventurous, even devour a bar of Spider-Man himself. Alike the Brave New World imaged by Huxley (and also, Iron Maiden), ours is one more or less dictated by the almighty Tart. 

Deep down, I was also kind of knew that Kellogg would wind up making a peanut-butter flavored Pop-Tart someday, but that still didn’t keep me from being surprised when I saw the display at the local grocery store for the first time. And making the already sweet package even more tantalizing, not only had they forged a peanut-butter filled pastry, they even managed to unveil an all new, peanut-butter-loaded pastry that was ALSO marinated in several shades of chocolate. You know, that reminds me of a certain, extraordinarily popular candy item, but for the life of me, I just can’t figure out which one.

 

As you can see here, we’re dealing with not just one, but TWO separate kinds of “Gone Nutty!” branded Pop-Tarts. Both brands boast of containing “REAL Peanut Butter,” which is probably a plus, because that fake-ass peanut butter you always find laying around? Goddamn, do I hate it.

The light orange packaging, as you no doubt see, gives the product a very classy, baking-soda-esque appearance -- not that the package is more or less the same, size and weight of a medium box of Arm and Hammer, or anything like that. The nutritional information is pretty similar, although the chocolate permutation -- not surprisingly -- has a couple of more caloric atoms and fat cells in it.

The back of the packaging for both products are fairly similar, with the sole exception being that the regular peanut butter offering champions itself as a “BAM” (with a lingering, superfluous line of lower case m’s following it”) while the chocolate special edition hails itself as a “WHAM,” (also tailed by a needless trail of lower case m’s.)

Both packages, in a stroke of marketing adequacy, reference each other, although some of the font and wording differs. Odds are, if you picked up one, oblivious to the existence of its Pop-Tart yin or yang, you’d probably look at this and go “wow, I think I might want to try that other thing they’re telling me about here.” A revolutionary -- and rather ballsy -- advertising technique, without question.

One of the really small things I dug about the packaging was that the instructions panel actually featured two separate brands of Pop-Tart. Most companies would’ve just placed a monochrome pop-tart etching on there, and nobody would’ve really cared, and they probably could’ve saved a few dimes on color inkjet costs, too. But not Kellogg. Oh, god no. This is a company that is all about giving consumers what they want, and what consumers want, I suppose, is miniature, hue-correct facsimiles of the Pop-Tarts they purchase on the instructions of the Pop-Tarts they just purchased. Toaster Strudels don’t do that, because deep down, Pillsbury just doesn’t care about you that much.

The first major surprise you’ll encounter when you open up either box is that the wrappers are actually GILDED. That’s right, that time-honored, aluminum-silver-astronaut packaging has been discarded for a glorious golden wrapper, perhaps a subtle allusion to the famed golden ticket from the Willy Wonka films (except in this case, the actual internal foodstuffs themselves are the proverbial boletos de oro.)

Thanks to that damned Atlanta sol, however, it’s not like you could TELL that these things are supposed to be copper colored or anything. Just take my word for it, though: if you buy peanut butter Pop-Tarts, you’ll probably get a gilded wrapper or two. And if there’s some sort of unannounced contest going on in which the individual that uncovers a golden wrapper wins some sort of fabulous prize, well….shit, then.

As for the pasties themselves, when you put them side by side, you’ll likely notice a couple of aesthetic differences. First off, the standard peanut butter Pop-Tart is completely nude on the outside -- no frosting, no glaze, no nothing. However, the pastries are sprinkled with a couple of super shimmering speckles of sugar, and the entire thing is more or less covered in a thick coat of powdered dust, which, although invisible in the picture below, is quite observable when you’re actually holding one in your hand. Clearly, the chocolate and peanut butter permutation is a different pastry hue (it’s the veritable Ricardo Tubbs to the standard peanut butter Tart’s James “Sonny” Crockett, really) and unlike its’ lighter-grained kin, IS shellacked with your standard, liberal smattering of solid-as-a-rock choco-frosting.

So, yes, one of the new “Gone Nutty!” peanut-butter filled Pop-Tarts resembles a giant, pregnant saltine, while the other looks like an oversized graham cracker with melted black stuff atop it. Of course, these new offerings LOOK delicious, but does the actual taste live up to the marketing hullabaloo?

Well, both yes and no. Indeed, the new Tarts are very yummy, but to be honest, they’re not really all that different, in taste or texture, than your normal Pop-Tart offerings. The peanut butter taste is both palpable with your tongue, eyes and fingers (be forewarned, if you eat one of these things, your hands will reek for the remainder of the day), but the biggest problem with the new products is that the peanut butter taste just isn’t STRONG enough. Now, I’m no rocket scientist, and the biochemical make up of peanut butter, mixed with pastry shell and searing toaster heat, may be a hazard of some kind, but there has to be some sort of mechanism for Kellogg to pound MORE peanut butter into the pastry packets than what’s on display here.

Not that I need to tell you long time Tart enthusiasts this, but there’s definitely a gustatory difference depending on whether or not you heat these babies up or eat ‘em straight out the box. Eating them cold, I have to say that there wasn’t much of a difference between the two products…even though one was twenty four thousand percent more chocolate than the other, I’m convinced that if you blindfolded me and force fed me one of each, I wouldn’t be able to tell you which was which. Toasted Tarts, clearly, are the way to go here: not only does it seem to activate the chocolate ions inside the darker variation, it also makes your entire kitchen smell like a gingerbread house for 24 hours.

So, at the end of the day, are these newfangled PB Tarts the food of the gods we’ve been clamoring for since the demise of Dunkaroos? Well, they’re OK, but the peanut butter to pastry ratio needs some tinkering, and despite what you’d think, the textural and flavor-ial differences between both products are pretty limited. They’ll do you good while they last, but odds are, they ain’t the peanut butter breakfast snacks you’ve been praying to the gods of sugar for, sadly.

Read More

Explaining Right Wing Ideology in the United States

On the surface, the conservative mentality seems more than a little delusional, but is there actually a method to their madness? 

Thanks to some dude named Tom Morris for the above!

If you were to ask me what the primary difference was between right wing ideologues and left wingers (which, in the States, are actually centrists compared to liberal parties elsewhere), I would say it’s a matter of inspiration.

Simply put, conservatives are FUELED by their hatred of liberals. A conservative isn’t so much an adherent to neoliberalism and supply side ethics is he or she is an opponent of the Democratic Party, a human being whose very identity is enveloped in a fuming, inexhaustible miasma of hatred toward leftists. Try listening to an AM radio conservative show sometimes; instead of discussing solutions or policy ideas -- or, pragmatically, how to achieve desirable outcomes pending current resources -- it’s a safe bet that what you will hear is three or four hours of NONSTOP demonization of liberals. Even back in the mid-2000s, when Republicans virtually owned all three branches of government, programs of the type were almost entirely anchored around attacks to whatever  puny resistance movements were mounted on the left. At a time when Democratic clout was underpowered in D.C., the Right still found enemies to perpetually lash out against in the form of entertainment and social activists like Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan -- sometimes, it feels like this need to berate left-wing opposition is more important to right wingers than actually, you know, implementing and monitoring their own social and economic policies.

In that, anti-liberal rancor is to the American conservative what hydrocarbons are to modern industry -- shut off the fuel supply, and everything just comes to a dead stop.

Liberals, it seems, are ALWAYS on the defensive, while Republicans are always on the offensive. Democrats like Wilson, FDR and LBJ tried to implement new economic and social models -- which, of course, were fought tooth and nail by Republican resistors -- so that by the time those policies come to pass, they’d been largely defanged or neutralized as effective programs. Clearly, this is something you are seeing with the Obama presidency -- alike The United Nations, Social Security and Medicaid before it, it’s almost certain that an Affordable Care Act-like overhaul will be necessary at some point in the nation’s future. And I’d be willing to bet my bottom dollar that, alike Social Security and Medicaid (ironically, two liberally-implemented programs that senior Republicans now deem as necessary social entitlements) the aged neo-cons of 50 years will be screaming to keep ObamaCare models in place when the next great Democratic social reformer comes along with some kooky, crazy idea that might just have the audacity to think more than two years into the future.

And with all of that in mind, you know something? Despite being vilified and constantly obstructed, liberals still don’t hate conservatives with as much soul-consuming hatred as the right wingers hate them. In fact, a lot of times, leftists don’t hate right wingers AT ALL -- it’s just that, alike that one deranged uncle that hears voices in his head telling him to put metal things in the microwave to appease Jesus -- liberals feel like it’s their duty to keep rightists from burning down the retirement home. If liberals are the nurturing, common-sense employing mothers of America -- who just want to see their children grow up as prosperous, civil individuals -- then conservatives are the beer-chugging, deer-killing, job-hating absentee fathers that don’t give a shit what you do when you’re 18, just as long as you keep your radio in your room turned down and you’re home before 11. And heaven help you if they find out you’re dating a black person…

Of course, there’s a wide chasm between what liberals generally think and what conservatives generally think. Leftists believe in collectivism and constant restructuring of social policies -- preferably, with individual economic improvement via secularized, civic-focused structures casting as wide a social security net as possible -- while rightists believe “The Lord of the Flies” is a pretty good document to found an entire sociopolitical ideology upon. Making money is good, government sucks and the government taking your money (and gasp, perhaps using it on social programs that benefit less fortunate people) is the worst atrocity imaginable -- no matter what variety of conservatism you dig, if you believe the above three to be self-evident (alongside a contentious fourth pillar we’ll discuss shortly),  than congratulations, you’ve been invited to the boys’ club.

The fact of the matter is, right wing ideology in the United States covers a lot more territory than some would initially think -- in fact, it covers ground so large that it happens to push completely antithetical sub-ideologies together, as individual values and mores secondary to the much larger values stated above become unlikely bedmates.

As you can see in the figure above, the right wing spectrum runs all the way from God-fearing, drug-hating theocratic prohibitionists -- the sort of Victorian prudes that place religious conviction over personal liberty -- all the way up to market anarchists -- godless, amoral hyper-capitalists that not only believe man is without redemption, but actually EMBRACE humanity’s Hobbesian vileness as financial virtue. Clearly, these folks ought not to be part of the same team, but since they share similar fundamental moral values -- and much more importantly, a common enemy -- they can, theoretically, put their differences aside and declare the same jihad on liberalism.

There are some differences between the two poles, of course, the largest (at first glance, anyway) being the divisive issue of religion. The reality is, outside of their economic convictions, the bookends of modern conservatism -- the Sarah Palin loving, illegal immigrant-despising and Judeo-Christian God worshipping Tea Party side and the Ron Paul celebrating, weed legalizing Reddit atheist Libertarian side -- have almost dialectically opposite social policy beliefs. While the Tea Party side tends to have your “traditional” Republican values, the social policy values favored by Libertarians are not only closely aligned to the social policy values of those dastardly liberals, but in some cases, even more extreme.

Looking at core beliefs, there isn’t a whole lot of common ground between Tea Party conservatives and Libertarian conservatives. While the Michelle Bachmann-followers of America foster a profound hatred of abortion, secularization and drug legalization, the Gary Johnson-ites of America are usually staunch defenders of those same ideals. Two of the more understated, albeit contentious, issues among the Sunni and Shiite Republicans involves military support and the topic of illegal immigration; while most Tea Partiers are damn-damn-damn opposed to comprehensive immigration reform, there’s a large contingency of Libertarian Republicans that are in favor of it. Similarly, while a near majority of Tea Partiers celebrate the military with utmost zeal, a large number of Libertarians are anti-war and would like to see defense spending on the downturn…a sharp contrast to the ideology of Tea Partiers, who believe that the military is the ONLY aspect of big government that’s worthy of funding.

The only omnipresent, hot button issues it seems as if the two poles of conservatism can agree upon are less taxation (obviously) and gun control -- that being, there shouldn’t be any of the latter whatsoever. As a social policy, gun ownership/celebration/worship appears to be the ONLY core cultural value, outside of economic beliefs, that the two wildly divergent camps can agree upon -- in fact, it’s an ideological fixture secured so tightly in both camps that one could make the argument that “gun ownership is completely unquestionable as a civil right” constitutes an unofficial “fourth pillar” of modern U.S. conservatism.

So there’s this concept called “cognitive dissonance.” It postulates that people, by our very nature, are incapable of holding two contradictory ideas in our collective heads at the same time, so as a means of relieving such mental stress, we try to find ways to push out one idea and embrace its opposite. When you look at this modern conservative coalition, however, it quickly becomes apparent that it’s an alliance COMPLETELY anchored around cherished, antithetical ideas -- in other words, an ideological system that not only rejects the whole cognitive dissonance theorem, but completely embraces it’s polar opposite (“cognitive harmony,” would you call it?)

And as such, being a conservative in this day and age entails a necessary investment in contradictory ideals.

As you can see by the examples above, “logical incongruity” isn’t necessarily a problem for modern U.S. conservatives. While one act supposedly celebrating individual liberty and right can be championed as virtue, another individual act of liberty and right can be construed as a socially negative imposition that MUST be corrected by state intervention. Thusly, the logic of “outlawing guns WON’T reduce gun violence” reigns supreme in many conservative circles, where the virtually identical supposition -- “outlawing abortions WON’T reduce women seeking abortions” is completely disregarded. The same can be said of conservative views regarding governmental powers; while federal decrees are largely seen as unfair impositions on states, most conservatives never seem to trudge up that state and local powers are often guilty of imposing FAR more impositions on the citizenry, in much more direct -- and consequential -- ways. Por exemple? Despite federal laws making abortions and adult novelties legal across the land, states like North Dakota and Alabama have decided that “state rights” matter more than federal decree, and have thus levied seriously unconstitutional impositions on its citizens. So if you’re wondering why so many sheriffs in Red State America keep yammering on an on about how they don’t have to follow national policy because of the Constitution -- you know, the same document that has the goddamned Supremacy Clause in it -- I reckon it’s just that inherent conservative cognitive harmonization in full effect.

From an ideological standpoint, democratic liberalism is a much more consistent philosophy than democratic conservatism -- mostly because liberalism anticipates and incorporates societal changes into policy ideals INSTEAD of railing against them like Don Quixote threshing at a windmill. The problem -- which, peculiarly, has become U.S. conservatism’s greatest characteristic in the modern age -- is that it’s attempting to serve two masters: unfettered personal liberty WITH unfettered economic liberty, an order where the market reigns supreme, the government limits social safeguards, and everybody is free(r) to do as they wish. The rub -- as the Great Depression and the post-Gilded Age taught us -- was that a super-unregulated market, sans government interaction, doesn’t necessarily lead to a citizenry becoming wealthier or more civil. In fact, the only times economic growth seems to happen in the U.S. is when federal impositions are placed upon an unfettered market and social safeguards are established for a citizenry…as proven here after the New Deal, here after the erection of the Great Society and holy shit, even right now, as apparent by the nation’s Consumer Price Index, which is at its highest plateau ever. And as far as civility and liberalism goes, look no further than this chart, which saw the nation’s homicide rate plummet underneath FDR, bottom out with Johnson and then decrease dramatically by the end of Clinton’s second term (after reaching its highest levels in modern history during the Reagan Administration.)

According to modern science, underdeveloped anterior cingulate cortexes are probably responsible for the existence of Sarah Palin. 

Not only does it seem as if social security programming correlates with economic upticks, golly gee, it sure seems like such investments tend to have a beneficial effect on general civility, too. But alas, that’s contra to the modern conservative mentality, which says the exact opposite of what empirical data indicates -- that less market intervention and less social services investments result in both economic and social improvements.

It’s not that modern conservative ideology seems impossibly fragmented and ignorant of real world data -- it actually IS impossibly fragmented and ignorant of real world data. Now, to what extent we can pin all of the ideology’s faults and foibles on the “cognitive harmony” theory above is debatable, but it sure seems to cover all of the bases as a potential explanation for why right wing thinking seems so…well, delusional.

And so, it may be disheartening to realize that a good half of the U.S. population subscribes to a political ethos that rejects the notion of cognitive dissonance as a mental practice, with unabashed hatred of the political other serving as the sole adhesive the glues together two utterly impossible ideological pillars together, but on the bright side? Only half of their kind want to take over the nation via an armed uprising, thankfully.

Read More

The Rocktagon Recap of UFC 160: Velasquez vs. Bigfoot 2!

Featuring a Canadian Whitesnake Fan Putting a Top Ranked Lightweight to Sleep “In The Still of The Night,” a Brazilian ass-kicker (who bares an uncanny resemblance to Robert DeNiro in “Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein") battling a Super Samoan to the very end and a Mexican-American Proving the Existence of Bigfoot…by kicking its ass, again!

About this time last year, the UFC ran one of its most ass-kicking cards ever -- an all Heavyweight, Knockout-Palooza that featured five main card finishes, and some undercard bouts littered with upsets and similarly awesome finales that made judges that night, for all intents and purposes, useless. Yeah, you can argue that the show was loaded with Strikeforce-esque mismatches, but if you can complain about a PPV event built from the ground up to contain as many face-breaking conclusions as possible, you sir or madam, need to find a new pastime, and hurriedly.

Alike UFC 146, tonight’s Zuffa-branded shindig seems to be genetically structured to result in concussions and bloodshed a plenty. I mean, for Christ’s sake, the main event is a re-do of arguably the most gore-soaked fight in company history, and with TKO-kingpins like Junior dos Santos, Mark Hunt, Glover Teixiera and TJ Grant (well, really more of a submission specialist than a knockout artist, but the dude can throw some ‘bos…just ask Matt Wiman) serving as undercard kindling, I think it’s pretty much a guarantee that the canvas will be painted orange and maroon long before the Heavyweight Championship bout kicks off.

Grab your girl, grab your nachos and grab your, well, whatever it is that you also like to grab folks: it’s time for UFC 160: Velasquez vs. Bigfoot 2!

Tonight’s show is emanating from Vegas, while I’m calling it, as always, from Bailey’s, which is we all know by now, is home to more per capita cleavage and dwarf inhabitants than the original “Total Recall.”

It’s a tradition for the house TV remote handlers to take their sweet time in switching the feed from cable to PPV, but tonight had to set an all-time record. Thank goodness UFC pads their programming with 15 minutes of superfluous B-roll, or else we may have missed the entire first fight of the evening during the delay!

Lightweight Bout

Donald Cerrone vs. KJ Noons

Earlier this year, Cerrone had his spleen pulsed into guacamole by Anthony Pettis. For what it’s worth, it’s been one of the very few missteps of Cerrone’s UFC tenure (well, outside of that one fight he had against Nate Diaz, but we’ll just skip over that one.) Of course, prior to that, Cerrone was one the best lightweight fighters in World Extreme Cagefighting, where he’s probably best known for his, uh, two-logy of fights with current UFC Lightweight strap holder Ben Henderson. Noons, on the other tape-wrapped hand, is a Strikeforce import making his UFC debut tonight. He’s lost four of his last five fights, and he needs a win here like Reese Witherspoon needs a DD on speed dial. And since Cerrone really, really wants to make up for that ass-kicking he suffered back in January, you can figure this one out on your own: folks, somebody’s going to get their head punched off, and it’s going to be awesome.

Cerrone out to “Cowboy” by Kid Rock. The first round begins with a leg kick exchange, and Cerrone connecting with a solid knee. Noons already bleeding above he eye. Cerrone with a takedown, but Noons pops back up. More leg kicks from Cowboy. Noons with some punches in succession, to which Cerrone responds with a decent high kick. Noons with a decent jab to end the round.

Cerrone with a takedown to begin the second. Noons up, and he stuffs a second takedown attempt. Noons with a solid jab, and Cerrone fires back with one of his own. Cerrone with a knee to Noons’ face. Noons with a spinning back fist, and Cerrone with another takedown. Cerrone concludes the second on top, raining elbows from above.

Third round. All Cerrone so far, so Noons needs a finish. Cerrone with some lefts, a knee and a high kick. Cerrone with a takedown. And that’s where Cerrone spends the rest of the fight, as he drops elbows until the bout expires. Noons is a sopping, bloody mess by the time this one’s all over. A 30-27 decision for Cerrone, but you probably didn’t need me to tell you that.

Lightweight Bout

Gray Maynard vs. TJ Grant

Whoever wins this bout, Dana White said, is guaranteed a title bout against Ben Henderson at some point. With just one loss on his record (and this really funky double knockout from 2007), Maynard has already had two opportunities to strap the UFC Lightweight championship around his waist, but as it turns out, that Frankie Edgar dude is really, really hard to kill, even after you nearly kill him in the first round twice in a row. TJ Grant, a Canuck on a four fight winning streak, was last seen elbowing Matt Wiman’s face, hard. Having been in barnburners with solid punchers like Johny Hendricks and Dong Hyun Kim, this Grant fellow seems to be able to take a hit as good as he can give one. No doubt, both these fellows want a highlight reel KO heading in into their presumptive title fights, so for those of you that like dental destruction and nonconsensual face realignment surgeries…well, you might want to stay tuned for this one.

Grant uses “Here I Go Again” by Whitesnake as his entrance them, so I’m automatically rooting for him. Maynard begins the fight tossing some hard shots. Grant firing back now. Grant stuns Maynard, who starts swinging for the fences. Grant catches him again, and drops him with a right. More punches and a knee, and a stumbling Maynard collapses again. A few more shots on the ground, and this one is all over folks.

A super-impressive performance by Grant, who probably did more than enough to earn himself a title shot against Ben Henderson sometime before the year’s over.

Time for an interview with some online poker bloke. Since that last fight ended so quickly, looks like we’re going to have to reach into the bag of prelims for some time filler.

So, we’ve got George Roop taking on Brian Bowles. Both dudes begin the fight swapping paint hard, with Roop deciding to throw in some head kicks and stuff. Bowles retaliates with some punches, and Roop is doing his thing with the low kicks. Bowles with a stiff body shot that drops Roop with seconds left in the first. He aims for a guillotine, but the clock saves him.

Roop with a body kick to begin the second. And then, he drops Bowles with jab. Some follow-up punches on the ground, and that’s all she wrote.

MIKE TYSON and Chuck Liddell are in the House! And also, Lil’ Jon. But mostly those first two.

Light Heavyweight Bout

Glover Teixeira vs. James Te-Huna

Unless the rules of the cosmos no longer apply, this should be the last night we see James Te-Huna’s face, with all the usual adornments like teeth and noses, for quite awhile. Despite the New Zealander’s four fight winning streak (over such illustrious “who the hell are theys?” such as Ryan Jimmo and Aaron Rosa), Te-Huna is a MASSIVE underdog in tonight’s fight, primarily because his opponent is a Brazilian ass-and-face-kicker riding an EIGHTEEN fight win streak, who since 2006, has collect 16 finishes. UFC fans probably know him best from when he made Quinton Jackson look like a bitch, and also that one time he turned a dude into a zombie halfway through a fight at UFC 153. Of course, anything can happen in the Octagon, but if I was a betting man? I’d say that somewhere between the seventh or eighth row is where you’ll find most of Te-Huna’s bicuspids in about five minutes.

Crowd is definitely behind Glover. Te Huna keeping his distance, trying to find his range. Glover closing in. Glover with a takedown. Te Huna back up. And Glover says “I don’t think so,” locks in a standing guillotine, drops, rolls, twists, and this fight is over.

In the post fight, Glover said getting to meet Mike Tyson was better than winning the fight. Looks like somebody spent the better part of their childhood playing “Punch-Out!!”, no?

Heavyweight Bout

Junior dos Santos vs. Mark Hunt

In this absolutely inconceivable fight, one of two things is destined to happen: either Mark Hunt’s nigh-impossible, Cinderella with love handles comeback story will continue with one of the greatest upsets in Heavyweight MMA history, OR Junior dos Santos -- the world’s consensus number two Heavyweight -- will brutalize his Kiwi combatant like it was a PRIDE FC show circa 2005 or something. Granted, we all know Hunt -- a legitimate three-combat sport heavyweight -- can strike like a mofo, but Junior dos Santos? That dude can…well, just look at what he did to Shane Carwin back in 2011. This much we know: there is absolutely no way this fight can end WITHOUT someone splayed out on the canvas, minus several attached bones they used to have. As to who will be the hurter and hurtee, however, we’ll just have to wait and see.

Mark Hunt…with silver hair…out to some “Lion King” sounding shit. JDS, as always, is out to “Gonna Fly Now.” JDS clearly the house favorite. Both guys circling, JDS with two solid punches, and dos Santos DROPS Hunt with a looping overhand…you know, the same one that murder-death-killed Cain Velasquez in their first fight. Hunt, of course, is impervious to what we mortals call “pain,” so instead of passing out like 99 percent of the rest of humanity, he stumbles back to his feet and starts throwing these wild ass haymakers. Hunt throwing some serious punches, but nothing connecting. Meanwhile. JDS uses that scientific boxing to, you know, connect, with his punches instead. Hunt pressing forward, but JDS clearly landing more (and more effective) strikes so far.

Hunt out swinging. JDS using the jab to keep Hunt at bay. JDS looking for the knockout blow now. Hunt trying to mix in some low kicks, but they’re not really doing much. Tons of punches from JDS, but Hunt keeps going forward. Spin kick from JDS, and he whiffs on what would have been a devastating jab. Hunt looking gassed, but still throwing some threatening punches. JDS says “eff this mess” and takes him down instead. The crowd boos, of course. JDS drops some elbows as the round expires. Definitely dos Santos’ fight after two.

Hunt needs to finish. He comes out throwing these wild overhands and trying to toss out some low kicks. To no avail, clearly. JDS with two jabs and a low kick of his own. Hunt’s accuracy when it comes to connecting with those bombs is probably about as good as Shaq’s free throw percentage. JDS with a barrage of punches now. Hunt closing in, but JDS starts clipping him with uppercuts. About a minute left in the fight now. JDS with several right hands, and he DROPS Hunt with a wheel kick. One punch on the ground, and this thing is waved off with less than 50 seconds left in the final round.

A really, really good fight. Probably worth going out of your way to see, if you’re a huge enough MMA fan. And shall we turn our attention towards dos Santos’ presumptive next opponent now?

UFC Heavyweight Championship

Cain Velasquez (Champion) vs. Antonio Silva (Challenger)

The last time these two dudes met, the end outcome was a five minute fight bloodier than the first eight “Friday the 13th” movies combined. For those of you that have forgotten about that fateful evening almost one year ago today, here’s what happened…and if you’re eating anything with ketchup on it right now, you might want to put down your grub before clicking on the link. Anyway, Velasquez, fresh off beating the tar out of Junior dos Santos last December, defends his strap against “Bigfoot” Silva -- a man who pulled off one of the greatest upsets in UFC history when he KTFO of Alistair Overeem back in February. The last go-around, saying that Velasquez utterly dominated Silva would be like saying Grenada was a bit lop-sided; and yeah, there’s a very, very strong chance we’ll be seeing a similar slaughter in the cage this evening.

Huge ovation for Velasquez. Silva, obviously, looks a lot bigger, but Velasquez looks a bit more muscular. Cain shooting for a takedown. Can’t get it. Shoots for another. Can’t get that one either. Velasquez with a right, and Silva goes down. Velasquez with some brutal shots from the side on the ground, and this one is already over. Official stoppage time? Just 1:21 of the very first round.

SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? Well, it’s pretty much a given that we’ll be seeing Velasquez vs. dos Santos 3 before the year is over. And considering their dominance of the division, it’s likely we’ll be seeing these two go toe-to-toe like Sugar Ray and Jake LaMotta over and over again for the next five years or so. As stated earlier, I think TJ Grant was impressive enough here tonight to get that Ben Henderson shot, and I think it’s time we finally gave Glover somebody in the top ten to tango with. Phil Davis, perhaps? As for Silva, looks like its back to the end of the chow line for awhile, while Hunt -- now out of title contention -- has at least made himself look bankable and credible as a division threat. Of course, we all want to see Hunt vs. Roy Nelson at some point, but for the time being, how about putting Hunt in the cage against the winner of the upcoming Matt Mitrione/Brendan Schuab battle?

THE VERDICT? A really good show, with four out five main card bouts featuring finishes -- three of which came in the very first round, and one that entailed one of the best bouts of the entire year. Really, this is one of the stronger shows the company has put on in quite some time; if they manage to outdo this one later in 2013, we’re in store for a hell of a year at the fights, my friends.

HIGHLIGHT OF THE NIGHT: The dos Santos/Hunt fight is already one of the best heavyweight bouts this decade. Oh, and TJ Grant’s knockout of Gray Maynard was similarly dope.

LOWLIGHT OF THE NIGHT: …well, I kinda’ want my main events to last a little bit longer than a millisecond, so consider me mildly irked by the Velasquez/Silva re-do.

ROGAN-ISM OF THE NIGHT: Not so much a quote as it is an astute observation -- just how DOES that dude manage to pinpoint an exact number of ice cubes scattered about on the canvas between rounds? Apparently, weed gives you super-vision or something.

FIVE THINGS I LEARNED FROM TONIGHT’S SHOW:

• Blood stains are a real bitch clean off canvassing.
• If a dude comes out to an eighties hair metal ballad, he’ll probably win. 
• Meeting a one-time boxing legend turned disgraced pop cultural icon is better than earning a paycheck. 
• A wheel kick to the side of the face is a Super Samoan’s kryptonite. 
• Sasquatch DOES exist…and it can’t take a punch, either. 

Well, that’s all I’ve got this week. Crank up “Hand Over Your Guns” by Adil Omar and “Point of No Return” by Hard Target, and I’ll be seeing you in just a few.

Read More

The Marginalization of the Heterosexual, White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Male?

Are the relatively recent cries of oppression just a bunch of bellyaching, or is there actually a granule of truth to the majority’s accusations of persecution?

The future, it appears, doesn’t look to good for Caucasian males.

According to United States Census Bureau projections, the total percentage of white people in the U.S. in 2060 will be just 43 percent -- making white people a plural “minority” for the first time in the country since white folks killed off all the Indians way back when.

According to researchers at the University of Pittsburgh, the birth rates for males in the U.S. have dropped considerably over the last 40 years, with 104.6 male births being born for every 100 girls born in the U.S. in 2001. However, in 1970, the ratio was 105.5-to-100, and among white births? The ratio dropped from 105.9-to-104.7 over the same time frame.

Those 2060 Census projections tell us that the male to female birth ratio will remain locked at 104.7-to-100 for the next 45 or so years, but at the same time, the contemporary ratio of males to females in the U.S., ages 18-to-65 right now is just 98.9 men for every 100 women. And looking at retirement-age statistics, things get even worse: regarding the nation’s current 65-and-older population, there’s just 77 men for every 100 women in the U.S.

From 2010 to 2100, the United Nation’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs predicts that the male-to-female gap will close just marginally, with the ratio predicted to increase from 97-to-100 in 2010 to about 99-to-100 by the dawn of the 22nd century. The wildcard here is the average life expectancy, which from 2010 to 2100, is supposed to jump from 81.3 to 90.8 for females, while expectancies for males are projected to increase from 76.2 to just 85.7. Coupled with a seemingly slight increase in the net production rate (the number of females born per woman is predicted to increase from 1.00 to 1.02), and you have yourselves a fairly unavoidable predicament: whatever shape America’s future takes, it’s one that’s pretty much guaranteed to have less males in it.

On the global level, UN predictions have the United States population swelling to about 400 million or so in 2100. Besides Russia and France, it’s the only country with a sizable Caucasian population to make the list of most populous countries by the time the 22nd century kicks off -- while mass population increases are predicted throughout Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East, overall population totals in Europe and the Americas are expected to bottom out, and hard.

No doubt reading the proverbial scrawling on the wall, some of the more extreme-minded white folks out there have begun to pitch fits about this all-but-inevitable demographical switch-up, resulting in the explosion of both men’s rights (or “anti-misandry”) organizations and pseudo white nationalists groups over the course of what seems to be just a few years…heck, maybe even the last few months, for that matter.

On one side of the fence (and on opposite sides of the Atlantic), an expected reaction to the biological decline of whites has been nativist movements in the U.S. (where groups like VDARE declare that Hispanic immigrants and African-Americans of supposed lesser intelligence are destined to burn U.S. culture to the ground) and continental alliances like “Stop the Islamification of Europe”, who are convinced that Caucasian genes are soon to be extinct due to dwindling European birthrates in conjunction with mass Muslim immigration. To be fair, organizations of the like have been fairly visible for quite some time, but it hasn’t been until fairly recently that said organizations have taken up this deathly serious, pseudo-genetic jihad against absolutely unstoppable statistical realities.

Of course, it’s quite difficult to talk about white males without also talking about two of the utmost “qualifiers” for Anglo-Saxon-hood -- those being heterosexuality and Protestantism. Needless to say, quite a number of miffed, hyper-heterosexual, hyper non-Catholic honks have taken to the Internets in protest, accusing the proliferation of the “homosexual” and “atheist” agendas as global endeavors to eradicate “whiteness” from the face of the Earth.

With that in mind, it’s a little hard to see where all of this “persecution” is supposedly taking place: currently, homosexuals across the “gay spectrum” -- meaning, ostensibly, everyone from “barsexual” college girls that occasionally French kiss one another to post-op transsexual Ultimate fighters -- make up less than 4 percent of the national populace. By comparison, an estimated 30 percent of Americans -- including a whopping 42 percent of U.S. males  -- have suffered from alcoholism at some point in their lives, while about 3.5 percent of the U.S. population, a sum tantamount to the nation’s estimated LGBTQI populace, are purported to suffered from some form of PTSD. Despite representing a good 96 percent of the entire national population, however, this hasn’t prevented a great number of extinction-threatened white men from claiming to be victims of some nefarious plan to “homosexualize” American culture.

Even Protestants (*) -- in 2008, representing a plurality of the total American populace -- claim to be objects of persecution in this, the waning days of supposed white male superiority. This, despite projections from the Pew Research Center that assert that the number of Christians in the US is expected to INCREASE from about 250 million right now to an assumed 329 million in 2050 (and making things really interesting? The same forecast predicts China -- yes, that China -- to have the world’s second highest per capita Christian population by the midpoint of the 21st century.)

(*) Why Protestants instead of just Christians, in general? Primarily because larger throngs of non-Caucasians are Catholic rather than Protestant - indeed, outside of every predominantly Anglo-Saxon country on Earth (which is most of them), it’s pretty much a guarantee that if someone’s Christian, they’re going to be one of the Catholic denomination (or some other nationalist orthodoxy which doesn't really resemble Protestantism at all.)

In the face of such a perceived decline in global power (let us not forget that most of the world’s most powerful conglomerates are still owned by white men, and perhaps the white man’s “greatest” cultural imposition -- the English language -- remains the international lingua franca of business and politics) it’s not surprising that so many frightened white folks take refuge in these extremist ideologies. Indeed, this perceived “diminishment” of Caucasian influence has led some -- including Anders Breivik -- to retaliate with extremely deadly force. Alas, while many culturally threatened white men turn to pseudo (and sometimes, just straight-up) racist causes and organizations to quell the pain of their own envisioned downfall, others have instead been drawn to what can only be called a horrifically misguided rejoinder to feminism.

The Men’s Rights Movement isn’t necessarily a new thing -- according to the world’s most reliable source of information, it’s been a fairly sizable cause since at least the 1970s -- but it hasn’t been until recently, as in, the last five or so years, that the cultural spotlight has been focused on the matter.

Now, we're not saying that Jimmy Buffet should contact his lawyers are anything, but...

With organizational monikers like “A Voice For Men,” “The Men’s Rights Association” and “The National Center for Men,” thousands of wannabe Al Bundys have congregated together, establishing what is, in essence, their own chapters of the National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood. And unlike the protagonists of “Married…with Children,” the supporters of such organizations treat their cause as a serious political matter, tackling hard-hitting issues like domestic abuse laws and paternal guardian rights with the sort of gruff self-righteousness that would surely make Gloria Steinham envious. Well, probably more furious than envious, but whatever.

The MensRights subreddit  -- populated, as of May 2013, with almost 70,000 subscribed readers -- teems with vein-popping declarations of reverse gender discrimination.

“Female Teachers Give Male Pupils Lower Marks, Claims Study” reads one post.

“Norway’s first female admiral was hired illegally,” reads another.

“Lauryn Hill gets 3 months for failing to file taxes. Wesley Snipes got 3 years,” reads yet another.

On a “fact sheet” posted on the same forum, a number of examples of “male discrimination” are listed. Among other tidbits, the frequenters of the site note the following as “proof” that gender inequality is a reality, only tilted against those with penises:

- Circumcising male babies “against their will” is illegal, while female circumcision remains illegal. (Note how the language makes no clear distinction between the forced genital mutilation of women and the common medical practice of removing a day old infant’s foreskin.)

- Female-owned businesses receive free money from the government, simply because they are owned by females (as verified by a Reason Magazine op-ed, far and away the least biased news source in the history of humanity.)

- The majority of homeless are men. (No doubt due to some mysterious, international cabal of men-haters, and having nothing at all to do with the poor, individual decision-making of said homeless individuals.)

Of course, these organizations say nary a damn thing about the pay wage gap, which in case you haven’t heard, favors men by a ludicrous margin. Nor do these organizations bring up the fact that a majority of Fortune 500 companies are owned by males (almost exclusively of the Caucasoid variety, I might add), and that while women represent a clear majority in the total U.S. population, females only account for about 38 percent of the 113th Congress.

Now, do these men’s rights advocates have some basis in their accusation of legal and educational practice discrepancies among the sexes? Well, seeing as how 59 percent of graduate students in America are female, and that mothers receive primary custody anywhere from 66 percent to 88 percent of the time in U.S. divorce hearings, I think it’s stupid to say that they’re not onto something. That said, if there is such a pervasive bias against men in American culture in general, than how come men, despite being a statistical minority, still maintain almost utter control of the nation’s economic and political institutions?

...and I will give you one guess as to which major cable news website this little exchange comes from...

In that, you start seeing the fundamental absurdity of the “discriminated man” theory. Granted, there may be some institutional peculiarities at play, but by and large, social power is still vested, almost exclusively, in the hands of males in the United States. The same can very much be said of Christians, white people and heterosexuals -- together, a quartet of allegedly persecuted majorities that claim to be marginalized by those that are actually marginalized as peoples.

Even in the midst of all those afore-mentioned demographical changes that are almost certain to occur over the next 100 years or so in the States, the status quo doesn’t seem like it will be getting any less status or quo than it is right now. Unless the combined minorities of America form some sort of militantly anti-whitey voting bloc between now and 2050, it seems very unlikely that Caucasian Americans will lose any of their grip on national economic and political power over the 21st century. While there may be less men than women, and more non-whites than there used to, it’s not really a sure bet that this demographical change will effectively result in more women in “minority” populations obtaining political or cultural power. In fact, through the global expansion of Christianity and English, it’s quite likely that Anglo-Saxon Protestants could actually increase their worldwide, geopolitical clout over the next decade: whatever perceived cultural power the supposedly oppressed white man may lose in a hypothetical “Eurabia” or “Aztlan,” the WASP would almost certainly make up for with a heightened cultural presence in Asia and, irony of ironies, central-Africa.

Realistically, outside of a few, comparatively minor legal policies and institutional practices (which in no way, shape or form seem to have any profound influence on the gender dynamics of social power in the U.S.), there can hardly be considered a systemic oppression of males in America, at all. Rather, most of the cries of “male persecution” are nothing more than the piping of radicalized losers, who attempt to mask their own social ineptitude under ridiculous, synthetic causes such as “involuntary celibacy” or “reverse racism.”

There’s something to be said of a peoples that can be a geographical, economic and social majority -- with utmost control of a nation’s cultural institutions, to boot -- and still claim to be a marginalized population.

And whatever that “something to be said” is? I assure you…it’s probably not worth wasting your time to hear.

Read More