Samhain- Or how all of these holidays were stolen

As kids (and not-so-kids) hurriedly scramble together costumes today for a night filled with candy and partying, we often get too caught up in the holiday to actually remember what it is. Halloween was originally a Gaelic festival called Samhain (Pronounced Sah-ween) that commemorated the end of summer and symbolized remembering the dead. Much of the classic Halloween traditions and actions taken are ripped from pagan myths and folklore (Such as Jack o' Lanterns). The appropriation of these Irish myths originated with the Romans, when they set out to conquer the islands off the coast of north-western Europe. Although Boudicca almost repelled them, the Romans succeeded in their conquest and brought Christianity with them, with only a few genocides along the way. Christianity back then, in case the Crusades weren't blatant enough, didn't take kindly to non-Christians. Another holiday that has only mildly disturbing roots is St. Patricks day. While the modern day spin on it is that it's meant to celebrate Irish culture, it's actually rooted in forced assimilation and eradication of Irish paganism and myths.  So, while trick-or-treating tonight, remember that these holidays are stolen from people that were then massacred. Happy Halloween!

You're either a donkey or an elephant: The absurdity of the two party system

Midterms draw closer and closer. The race is on, and despite some articles indicating a democratic sweep, some saying it's going to be a close one, the vast majority of polls taut a republican victory. It's always between the democrats and republicans- Third parties are rarely mentioned, and when they are, it's as a laughing stock. Although there are two  independents in the senate, they've never come close to winning a major election by any means. This current schematic locks voters into a vicious cycle- when we dislike the leading party, we only have the other party as an option. It's a tyranny of false options, where you get to choose whether you'd like to crash in a red or a blue car. The only people that this bi-party system is good for is...(You'll never see this coming)...Politicians. It allows them to constrict voters to the notion of there only being two choices. That's absurd. There are more than two political ideologies. Voters shouldn't have to pick between the better of two evils, it should be a vote that we enthusiastically endorse. Socialists, communists, libertarians, green partiers, and many more- shouldn't be forced to identify as democrats or republicans just to have a fighting chance at winning. This only further muddles political issues and platforms to confuse and deceive voters. An informed electorate is only useful if there's a way to apply that knowledge. We, as a people, need to stand up to this system. We need to start getting independents names on bigger ballots. Cast more dissenting votes. Start breaking down the caucuses.  Eliminate the stagnant cesspool of a mockery of free will, and politics will start being less terrible all the time.

Survival against living: The ironic path of America

American college graduates have now, more than ever, been spit out into an economy that doesn't want them.  This is especially true when it comes to humanities related majors- politicians on both sides of the aisle  have made comments about how unemployable these majors are. The culture in America is quickly turning into one which fervently supports business/STEM majors and disparages those interested in humanities- because after all, humanities majors can't code or come up with the next tech craze. They don't have the means of producing the next device to make huge amounts of profit, or "advance" humans into the future. It comes down to a matter of money. Graduates are shying away from the humanities because of the lack of potential employability, and our culture is encouraging that. We, as a people, are saying that we want less philosophers and more engineers. While this is a very effective model for making profits, there needs to be a more critical eye pointed at the foundational assumptions behind this standpoint. Namely, that profits are the be-all and end-all of life. What our culture is currently belting out as we dance around the alter of business/STEM is that you aren't worth anything if you don't make large amounts of money. Our consumerist mindset is the most easily observable  consequence of this culture. A person's value is judged by their material possessions and quantity of gold in their bank lockbox. We crave the next iPhone or gadget because it's a status symbol- a symbol of consumption. Our addiction to the concept of wealth is what fosters this culture, and it's something that needs to stop. We're killing the future of humanities for the sake of profit.

This epidemic of profit obsession has a very scary implication- That life is about how well we can survive, not how well we can live. Material possessions are an example of a hording survival instinct run rampant, the exact same as an animal who consumes all food put in front of them. Physical resources are something that we need to survive, not to live. Humans aren't made different from animals by our ability to use computers and make it rain. The distinction is that we're aware of our own state of Being. As we get more entranced with our material survival, we further push aside our understanding of our Being. Profits and pragmatism prevent us from actually being human because we stop thinking. Not thinking to solve problems, not thinking to make money, not thinking to answer a question. Just thinking. Being is intrinsically tied to this ability to think for thinking's sake. While excellent for survival and making material profits, business/STEM encourages technological thought, thought that isn't just for thinking. Humanities mandate non-technological thought, the very thing that defines our Being, that makes us human. If humanities majors die out or decline severely, our station as humans dies out as well. There will be no more intrinsic value to humanity. We'll just be another animal, no different from a dog who endlessly thinks of the clever new way he's going to catch his tail the next time.   

Police problems

Ferguson. It's a name mentioned quite a bit in the past few months. Various terms have been thrown about, accusations and misinformation. One thing, however, stands as a fact: The increasing militarization of the police. Their justification for this is that they're needed to protect against the rising tide of criminals- after all, you don't want a scary man with a gun beating you up, now do you? While many ideas for how to reduce police militarization are tossed around, none of them have actually had any effect. They're all quick-fix solutions that don't address root causes, they're akin to slapping a band-aid onto a stab wound and saying it's all better.  Some are even worse options, promoting vigilantism because apparently everyone is batman now (Though a town full of batmen would be pretty sick). To address the issue at the beginning of the pipe instead of the end of the pipe of brutality, what we need to do is take a look at why we need police in the first place. The answer to that question is fairly obvious: to keep us safe from the evil law-breakers. This is where the problem is. The "evil" law-breakers. In order to justify more police power, there needs to be more and more criminals.  

The American penitentiary system, by many accounts, has failed.  However, I think it's succeeded beautifully for its intended purpose: Producing more criminals. The system incentivizes lesser, non-violent criminals to commit larger and more harmful crimes by cutting their employability and potential paycheck by 40%, in addition to exposing them to in-prison gangs and criminal groups. This locks them into a life of crime, and ravages the local economy of various neighborhoods, continuing this morbid cycle of producing criminals. That's exactly what the state needs though, to justify increased police power. Police power is the most directly observable form of state control, which is control that only benefits those sitting at the top of the system. Police industries are a boon for America's war economy, not to mention being useful for subjugating the people. 

Overall, the difficult transition we need to make isn't one that directly has to do with police. It's prison reform. Focusing our penitentiary system on rehabilitation and reducing crime in positive ways instead of negative ones is critical to breaking down the growing police state that's becoming America. This is what's needed to prevent another Ferguson. 

Fascism and Freedom

There are two extremes: Laissez faire and absolute fascism. Middle ground between these is where many people reside, however most can be boiled down to favoring one or the other. People can support having some aspects fasciszing and others be more siding towards freedom. Everything affects everyone- In some minute way or another, all actions have a connection with all other actions. Now, Fascism doesn’t work unless it’s absolute fascism- The fascism of the Leviathan. The Leviathan’s control dictates everything as according to one ruler, which has nothing to do with the freedom of others. However, with absolute freedom, one being’s freedom is curtailed and infringed upon by another’s freedom. For example, if I had the freedom to cage a man, my action would take the freedom of that man away. All actions, in some form or another, require some investment of a force or tangible object, and either this investment or the results of the action itself have echoing repercussions upon all other actions. The concept of true freedom is impossible unless there is a single being in a vacuum, and even then the limitations of said vacuum would prevent absolute freedom. If true freedom is an impossibility, then we must look at absolute fascism. Absolute fascism is just as much of a fantasy as absolute freedom is- by the definitions of fascism you must have the Leviathan to control others- And then the Leviathan isn’t affected by fasciszing, and instead has absolute freedom. It’s the paradoxical relationship between freedom and fascism that makes the plurality so intriguing. You can’t have either in absolutes, and each only holds meaning when compared to the other.

Scotland Forever

With the Scottish vote to secede coming up this week, the American media has been plastered with various polls and speeches about the pros and cons of Scotland secession. Over in the U.K. (Or, what WAS the U.K. at the time of writing this article), David Cameron's desperately rallying for Scotland to remain a part of the U.K. " So let no one in Scotland be in any doubt: we desperately want  you to stay; we do not want this family of nations to be ripped apart.". Cameron also indicated that the U.K. had always been at the forefront of history, and that they were there 'together'.

Together isn't exactly the word I'd use. Together tends to have the implication that all parties are there willingly. This isn't so much the case for the U.K. Britain, by all measures, is the most colonial state in pretty much all of history, brutally controlling a large portion of the globe at one point in time. Despite their various underhanded economic tactics used in Asia (Like that time they got China addicted to opium), and their navy used to strong-arm other countries into submission throughout the world, I'm going to focus closer to home. Britain is not a good neighbor. They routinely exploit and straight up shank those nearby them (Remember that whole great potato famine thing in Ireland? Yeah, the British caused that.). Their violent history gives Scotland nothing but justification for seceding from their union. Hopefully, a successful secession establishes a foothold for Northern Ireland to secede as well.

Disaster Porn

Ukraine- The name brings up images of fire, marching armies, rubble, and guns. Everything that the current American concept of Ukraine contains is negative, focused on destruction. Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Americans payed very little attention to it, just knowing that it was that place that looks like Russia but wasn't. However, immediately after the disaster of the invasion occurred, it became America's favorite eastern European country. Why? Why is it only in the moment of crisis that we pay attention to Ukraine? Why did we only care about Haiti when the earthquake struck? They're all symptoms of an addiction, an addiction to disaster porn.

Disaster porn is harmfully affecting America, it draws all of our attentions to the overwhelmingly negative aspects of a situation instead of recognizing the positive things about an area as well. We don't think about the way that Ukraine used to be now, we only think about the burning ravaged land that the media portrays over and over again. America's addiction to disaster porn changes our perception of other countries into an apathetically concerned scenario. We portray disapproval of the events going on over there, and yet we keep consuming them as quickly as the news can pump them out. Some of us urge our leaders to get involved in Ukraine, and yet the sluggish movement on the part of the US belays our true apathy towards the situation.

Our addiction to disaster porn is a harmful result of the media's relatively new transition to overwhelmingly visual medias. Pictures and videos became the new words, transmitting much more excitement and "in-the-momentness" that Americans have come to crave. This consumption of disasterous imagery doesn't need to be bad, so long as it spurs appropriate response to it. However, it doesn't. We care about the afflicted area for only as long as we can see imagery of how much it's damaged by whatever events are occurring over there. We never have a long-term investment in the country. And that's something that's got to change.