Thanksgiving.
Time to give thanks.
What am I thankful for?

Life.  The good, the bad, the struggle, the success.  I'm thankful I've been given this much time.

Family. Unconditional love is a good, good thing.  Especially when you're out-of-touch like me.

Love.  Its up and down, heaven and hell, hard and easy, "bitch-ing" and "baby-ing", but, in the end, its good.

Friends.  Not the fair weather ones.  The ones that are there through thick and thin, rain or sun.  Real friends.

The people that believe in me.  I swear to you, I'll deliver on every promise.  Or die trying.

Adversity.  If you were a person, I give you the biggest effin hug.  You make me stronger each and every day.  I don't know who I'd be without you.

My job.  Shit, its a recession.  There's a lot of people without one.  No matter what, it holds me down. (somewhat)

808s+Heartbreak.  I can play this in my house.

My G1.  Probably the best $180 I spent. 

Change.  11-04-08.  I've seen history made.  I've seen unwritten rules broken.  My president is Black! (Chhheah!)

Tears.  As much as I forget about them, they're always there right when I need them.

Jordan Vs.  Honestly, I could rock them everyday for the rest of my life.

Haters.  Hi!

Loss.  It makes Gain so much more attractive.

Stupidity.  If everyone was smart, who would I argue with?

Chili.  The ultimate dish, six days in a row.

Mass transit.  Its my transportation, office, bed, live play, aromatic adventure, daily staring contest, fashion show, reunion center and music testing ground.  But, it is NOT my trash recepticle.  Nor yours.

Shemaghs.  Thanks for making me look like a dick years ago, and every look like a fashionista now.

TGIF(ootball).  For a few months, baseball takes the back seat. 

Fear.  I can finally feel my heartbeat.

Dexter.  I thought I was the only one who had these thoughts.

Lupe.  Mentally challenging for mentally challenged rappers.

It seems that these days Saturday morning cartoonists are taking too many artistic liberties by creating odd "realities" for children to watch. Children see what happens in cartoons and then model the carefree, imaginative games they play at recess on the behavior of cartoon characters. Early morning children's television serves up such visual delights as the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. And who could forget the always irreverent Biker Mice From Mars? Do we actually expect children to digest such desensitizing folly? What happened to the days of yore, when the Brothers Warner informed the country that "hunting wabbits" was the chief concern of the day? And what about the Hal Roach Studio's presentation of a lovable loose woman (the one and only Betty Boop of course,) who sought only happiness with the help of her little pet dog? These works remain a delight today, yet, it must be noted, whether a current 'toon or an classic, only rarely does a cartoon attempt to convey any sort of serious political message or ideological influence to its' spectator. With the exception of the occasional antifascist message in cartoons from the 1940s where Hitler, Hirohito, or Mussolini made the occasional "cameo" guest appearance, political themes in 'toons are few and far between. Or, that was the sad case until the late 1970's.

For, in those heady days a bold Belgian cartoonist by the name of Pierre Culliford first concocted some small blue creatures standing three apples high, which he called Smurfs. After the cartoon-industrial complex known as Hanna-Barbera got a hold of the rights to The Smurfs they took it upon themselves to make them an American classic, and by the early 1980's thousands of disillusioned children like myself tuned in every Saturday morning to catch their Smurfy antics. The Smurfs evolved into a phenomenon of sorts. We all sang the catchy "La la la la la la..." theme song, and many of us had Smurf paraphernalia.

I myself am guilty of having owned a complete set of Smurf drinking glasses in kindergarten, which I acquired at Pizza Hut for a mere 99 cents. We all knew their names; Papa Smurf, Handy Smurf, and Painter Smurf were most often seen, and all the girls loved Smurfette. The Smurfs were also a refreshing break from the cartoons of the 1970's. Fat Albert and Speed Racer were passé, and Scooby Doo (another Hanna-Barbera creation) had long outlived its usefulness as a tool of totalitarian social control. The Smurfs were the dawn of a new era. The Smurfs were to childhood dreams as the Beatles were to puberty. The Smurfs presented moral lessons in a facile, repetitive manner, making it comprehensible to all children with normal cranial capacity. The Smurfs were as American as apple pie. Or were they?

Upon immediate reflection, who could find any imperfections in the colony of a hundred or so blue elves? They were never violent, they never swore, and to the best of my knowledge there was never any nudity in the Smurf village. Children and parents alike were lulled into complacency by this seeming Smurf-topia, only to be blinded to a harsher reality. The Smurfs were communists. "Communists?!", you say. It's hard to believe, and trust me, it was hard for me to accept, as all of my most cherished childhood fantasies were smashed to bits. It was only quite recently, whilst I was engaged in a heated discussion about the wide variety of devious strategies Scooby Doo employs to teach children the fine art of bribery (a lesson for another day,) that I flashed back to the days when cartoons were actually more important to me than sex, and I remembered my beloved Smurfs. Once I began to ponder upon the behaviors of the Smurfs I was forced to realize the truth and the whole "Commie Smurf" theory, as I like to call it, spiralled out of control quite naturally from there.

Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto is an excellent source of supporting evidence for my "Commie Smurf" theory, although Das Kapital remains a far more entertaining bathroom book. Now, I know it can be difficult to differentiate between the philosophies of communism and socialism, for they often go hand in hand. However, we must take care not to confuse the Smurfs with the wretched victims of Stalinism, or a lumpen-proletariat attempting to overthrow the bourgeoisie through class warfare, and please perish the thought of the sickle and hammer as a Smurf icon. Rather, think of communism as a way of life, a social arrangement, if you will. Let's begin with the word "communist." What epistemological root word stands out? "Commune." The Smurfs live together in a small communal village, occasionally retiring to their mushroom huts; no Smurf ever leaves, and no new ones ever arrive. The Smurf village is an independent city-state of sorts, and every citizen is fiercely devoted to preserving the harmony of the entire community. In the Manifesto, Marx says, "In this sense the theory of the Communists may be summed up in a simple sentence: Abolition of private property." Well, all Smurf lands and territories belonged to all of the Smurfs, and there was no way in Hell that any single Smurf could even think of getting away with claiming a plot of land for himself or his own personal benefit or profit.

Land wasn't all the Smufrs shared. Food and provisions were stored in the communal mushroom-shaped huts and were distributed in equal portions to each and every Smurf throughout the year. Farmer Smurf didn't sell his crops to individual Smurfs; it was understood that whatever he grew was for everyone, not for the profit of a single individual Smurf. Each Smurf worked for the common good, another principle of Marx's: Baker Smurf was the universal chef, feeding hungry Smurf mouths, Handy Smurf was there for whoever needed a shelf built or screw tightened, etc.

Individual Smurf occupations are also an important indication that the Smurfs were indeed communists. Whatever their position in the village, be it Painter or Baker, they were allowed only that position and having multiple functions in society was completely out of the question. One episode depicted the Smurfs switching jobs. Vanity Smurf tried to paint, Poet Smurf tried to build, etc. Of course hilarity ensued, but the results were absolutely disastrous for the Smurfs. The moral of that episode was "Stick to what you do best" or to put it in more communistic terms, do the job you have been assigned and don't ask any questions. Another episode depicted the arrival of a new Smurf (Out-of-town Smurf?,) but he was promptly ousted because he had nothing of value to contribute to the common good of the village.

Now, with these incisive revelations in mind, remove yourself from the "Smurf-centric" mindset, and ponder Gargamel for a moment. Gargamel, that bitter, cranky, constipated old sorcerer who lived in the castle overlooking the Smurf village, was their archenemy. But who would be the most terrifying enemy of a village of elfin blue communists? Why a greedy capitalist, of course! Gargamel's main plan for the Smurfs was to capture them and turn them into gold. He sought only personal wealth and prosperity, the primary goal of all capitalists. He was completely indifferent to the ethical consequences of his actions, which would almost certainly result in the complete and utter destruction of the unity of the Smurf social order. Gargamel was greedy and egocentric, creating a dramatic juxtaposition to the Smurfs, who shared and were concerned with the welfare of all their brethren.

Rejection of the intelligentsia is yet another strategy for communist revolution suggested by Marx and effectively employed by the Smurf community. Brainy Smurf was the "square" Smurf, always with his blue nose buried in a book, always spouting off some confounding scientific mumbo-jumbo (note an eerie similarity to the Professor on Gilligan's Island.) Since communism stresses unity through equality, anyone with arcane knowledge of matters which are beyond the scope of comprehension of the village idiot, must be classified as a dissident with the capability to disrupt the common good of the entire social order.

Who knew that the Smurfs, those adorable blue creatures we once held so near and dear to our hearts, could actually be communists? It is a shocking truth, for if The Smurfs can no longer be considered innocent entertainment, then what can? We, the children of the future, have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by Hanna-Barbera, innocently sitting back and being taken in by The Smurfs theme song. I hate to sully your experience of something as pure and good, dare I say as downright delightful as The Smurfs, but it is time that the wool be pulled from our eyes. May the youth who watched The Smurfs adoringly yesterday stand strong today, and let us break down the barriers that separate cartoonists from the common man. Let us breathe the air a little deeper now that we have broken the shackles binding us to the false goodness of television. Let us laugh and be free, like the Smurfs we once knew. Be gone, politics and hidden meanings. Let our children, and our children's children learn of our foolish trust in television, and allow them to learn political philosophy from something, anything, other than cartoons.

My point (and there is one) is this: Perhaps some day media manipulation of politics and taste will end, and when that day comes people will be forced to develop their own likes, dislikes, wishes, dreams, political beliefs, and ideologies without media interference. I'm not saying that The Smurfs turned my generation into communists. What I mean is simply this: the media are a powerful industry, and virtually anything can be subliminally planted into anyone's mind, particularly the impressionable minds of young children. There is no doubt in my mind that The Smurfs undeniably championed communist ideals, and in publishing this essay, it is my hope that I may enlighten a few more people to this important topic of rare consequence, and may perhaps foster greater understanding of The Smurfs evil ideology world wide.

By Kristen M. Sonntag, Esq.

Now I'm mad.  I've been had.

:'-(

Are You A Hypocrite?

by Lonnie Lee Best

***********************************************************************
WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY
***********************************************************************

hypocrite:

1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

***********************************************************************

For this article we must go deeper than the above definitions in order to see internal hypocrisy. The above definitions do not clearly acknowledge the hypocrisy that often comes without public declaration, and is within the self. Therefore, we will define a hypocrite in the following way:

..tr> ..table>

The degree of hypocrisy one possesses is equal to the absolute value of the difference between their beliefs and actions. Of course, it is not possible to actually measure these variables, but this formula does represent the relationship of these variables.

It is my theory that humans have a natural tendency to keep their hypocrisy at zero. Therefore, they have a desire to keep their beliefs and actions equal.

If Beliefs = Actions, then Hypocrisy = Zero
Or
If (Beliefs = X) and also (Actions = X), then Beliefs - Actions = 0 Hypocrisy

Furthermore, I believe that when hypocrisy equals anything other than zero, an anxiety will exist inside the individual. These imbalances can linger for years in honest objective people and only seconds for bias rationalizers. Why is this? It is due to one's honesty and objectivity when evaluating their initial internal feeling following a hypocritical imbalance. Everyone wants their hypocrisy to equal zero. Some do it by changing their beliefs so that they are equal to their actions. However, I say you should change your actions so that they equal your beliefs. Beliefs should be arrived at objectively, and should be a relatively independent variable.

Types of Non-Hypocrites

From my observation I have classified non-hypocrites into two categories:

Tautological Rationalizers are not hypocrites because their beliefs and perceptions of reality conform to support their own desires and imperfections. They can not be hypocrites because their beliefs and perceptions of reality are rationalizations for their actions and are without objectivity. When a state of hypocrisy arises, tautological rationalizers conform their beliefs around their actions to eliminate contradiction, rather than conforming their actions around their beliefs.

Devoted Believers' actions never contradict their beliefs. They are completely devoted to what they believe. Their beliefs and perceptions of reality are not rationalizations for their own actions. Their beliefs and perceptions of reality are the result of either objective logic, blind faith or a combination of the two. Regardless of the source of their beliefs, their beliefs and actions are without contradiction.

Types of Hypocrites

I am going to break hypocrites down into two levels, External and Internal. Within these levels I will classify 4 types of hypocrites based on the consistency between their stated and internal beliefs:

..tr> ..table>..tr>..table>

Honest External hypocrites: Their stated beliefs contradict their actions. However, their stated beliefs are consistent with their actual internal beliefs. Therefore they are also honest internal hypocrites. They have strong convictions but do not always follow through. Causes for this type of hypocrisy will be discussed later.

Dishonest External hypocrites: Their stated beliefs contradict their actions and their stated beliefs are not consistent with their actual beliefs. They often have weak convictions, and it is possible for them to be non-hypocritical on an internal level.

Honest internal hypocrites: Their internal beliefs contradict their actions. Their internal beliefs remain constant despite their contradicting actions. They are honest with themselves, and strive not to conform their beliefs around their own desires, actions, or imperfections.

Dishonest internal hypocrites: stated beliefs are consistent with actions but actual internal beliefs are not. They are often people pleasers with weak convictions.

Now that we have covered the terminology I will be using, I now pose a very interesting question.

What causes one to be an honest hypocrite?

So far, I have narrowed it down to three general factors:

1. Uncertainty of Beliefs: If you are not 100% certain in what you believe, then your actions are not likely to be consistent with your beliefs 100% of the time. A conservative interpreter of reality is seldom 100% certain about anything. This uncertainty can cause one to be hypocritical at times.
2. Carnal Desires: These are inherent human desires that often cause one to act on what the flesh desires, rather than what one believes to be the right action.
3. The difficulty level of the belief system: If one's belief standards of right and wrong are higher than what is humanly possible, then their actions are obviously not going to be consistent with their beliefs.

Now that we know the major factors that contribute to hypocrisy, what should we do? Should we create a belief system that is not too difficult, so our actions will always be consistent with our beliefs? Should we create a belief system that takes into account carnal desire, so that we have no hypocrisy? I think not. That sounds like something a Tautological Rationalizer would do. One's priority should be on Truth.

How should one go about obtaining a belief system?

One should do their best to objectively perceive Reality for what it is.
One should do their best to objectively perceive Truth for what it is.
One should do their best to objectively perceive Morality for what it is.

Once you obtain a belief system in this manner, your perception of reality will be as close to actual reality as you can make it. If your beliefs are humanly impossible after this evaluation, then you will have to settle for being an honest hypocrite!

Now don't get me wrong, you should do everything humanly possible to keep the hypocrisy to a bare minimum. Conform your actions to your beliefs the best you can, but never conform you beliefs to justify your actions, unless you have objectively found flaws in your beliefs.

I leave you with the following:

It is best not to be hypocritical, but I would rather be an honest hypocrite than a person who tries to make truth conform around his or her own desires and imperfections. In other words, I would rather be an honest hypocrite than lie about my imperfections. That is the Hard Core Truth.

Link Exchange

The False and Lazy Charge of Hypocrisy - Thomas M. Sipos initiated this link exchange. By clicking this link you will be forwarded to his article which handles hypocrisy with different semantics. By Mr. Sipos definition, an honest hypocrite (as defined in this article) is not a hypocrite at all. I think it is important to keep in mind that despite our semantic differences, both articles acknowledge the ambiguity of the word hypocrite and how there are honest and even creditable people that are subjectively dismissed under the label of hypocrisy.

There's No Such Thing as a Little White Lie
by Carolyn Ray

Date: 11 Jul 98
Copyright: Carolyn Ray

---

A white lie is allegedly one which is done for someone's good and which harms no one.

There's no such thing. The philosophical view that allows people to think that lies can be harmless is one which counts the self as nothing morally interesting.

Some individualists sometimes say that they can lie without hurting anyone. This is a mistake and a philosophical contradiction on their part, and should not be taken as evidence that a philosophy of individualism can consistently permit lying under any but the most dire circumstances.

So where is the harm in a lie that, for example, no one ever finds out about and that does a someone good? For example, where is the harm in telling someone that you didn't come to his party because you were sick, when in fact you think that the person has an obnoxious sense of humor and you didn't want to subject yourself to it? Obviously, the party host isn't directly harmed if he never finds out, even if you can make the case that telling him might help him curb his antisocial habit and be happier in the long run.

The harm is to the person telling the lie. Lies introduce falsehood and inconsistency into one's mental life. And they are practice for more lies. The more you lie, the easier it gets and the better you get at it. If you do not take strict measures to control the temptation, lying can become a habit to the extent that situations frequently require you to decide not only how to phrase an answer to a question but even whether or not to lie about it.

There is no question that one single lie does not lead to a life of crime, or even to a dishonesty habit. But yet every lie carries some risk with it. And there are actually very good reasons to lie on the rarest of occasions, so they must be chosen carefully. One of philosophy's most famous examples is this: a neighbor bangs on your door saying that a murderer is chasing him. You let him hide in your attic. Unfortunately, the murderer comes snooping, shows you a picture casually and asks whether you have seen the person. Should you tell her the truth, or lie to save your neighbor from likely death? You say you have been away for a few weeks and just got home to your very busy life and haven't been out much. The murderer then tells you that the person she seeks is a criminal, and she would appreciate it if you didn't call the police or tell anyone else. You say that you won't, and you're too busy to bother about other people's business anyway.

Was this the right thing to do? Immanuel Kant's answer is half right, although his reasons are fundamentally opposed to individualism. Kant says that you certainly don't owe the murderer the truth, but you do owe it to yourself to hear yourself speak the truth.

Kant didn't consider a number of relevant factors. First, in general we would rather not allow such an easily preventable death of a fellow human being. Second, we would rather not encourage people who wish to murder by helping them with information. Third, we would rather not have murderers in the neighborhood at all, so we would not let on that we know what is going on so that we have a chance to call the police. In a society in which people intent on murder knew that for the most part they could simply ask people the whereabouts of their victims and be given directions to them, the murderers would have the upper hand.

While it is arguable that you owe yourself the truth, I would argue that in this situation the right thing to do is lie. A very serious and irreversible harm will be done if you blurt out the truth, and a life will be saved if you lie. But here, we are focusing on whether lying does harm even when it is for a good cause.

Yes, this lie does harm, again to the the liar and for the same reason. The harm that will be done to your refuge would be much greater, and so the lie does a tremendous amount of good. But a lie is a falsehood and an inconsistency, as far as your rational faculty goes. A small risk of harm in exchange for a huge certain harm is a rational choice, but the lie nonetheless does you some harm. The only question is how well you have prepared yourself for this lie in advance and what you will do with your newfound knowledge and power after the lie?

Moreover, this lie does less harm than the lie told to the party host. The lie is told to the murderer once, and as soon as you are out of her grasp you can stop telling the lie. But in the case of the party host, you have to maintain your front with him pretty much for the rest of your life or as long as you might run into him again.

In addition, this again is practice. It is not necessarily practice in the sense of getting good at fooling people, although that may happen too. The real harm is not in getting good at lying, but in getting comfortable with lying, with seeing it as a possible option in any given situation no matter how small, and generally being at odds with reality instead of being able to read it off to people as though reading straight from a book.

Since situations do come up that are as serious as the one we mentioned, and you will have to lie on those occasions to prevent some terrible wrong, it is best to be prepared for this by NOT having a history of lying.

hypocrite: a person whose actions contradict their stated or internal beliefs. (Or visa versa)

..tr> ..table>

Lonnie Lee Best's Hypocrisy Matrix
	Honest	Dishonest
External	Stated beliefs contradict actions. Stated beliefs are consistent with Internal actual beliefs.	Stated beliefs contradict actions. Stated beliefs are NOT consistent with Internal actual beliefs.
Internal	Internal actual beliefs contradict actions. Internal actual beliefs, if stated, are stated honestly.	Internal actual beliefs contradict actions. Internal actual beliefs are NOT consistent with stated beliefs.

Currently listening: The Great Chicago Fire -- A Cold Day in Hell By Malik Yusef Release date: 2006-04-07

6:30 AM 

1 Comments

(Add Comment) |

0 Kudos

Translate

Powered by

English

Albanian

Arabic

Bulgarian

Catalan

Chinese

Croatian

Czech

Danish

Dutch

Estonian

Filipino

Finnish

French

Galician

German

Greek

Hebrew

Hindi

Hungarian

Indonesian

Italian

Japanese

Korean

Latvian

Lithuanian

Maltese

Norwegian

Polish

Portuguese

Romanian

Russian

Serbian

Slovak

Slovenian

Spanish

Swedish

Thai

Turkish

Ukrainian

Vietnamese