When it comes to superhero powers, being able to bore people into submission probably isn't on the top of anyone's wish list. It's just not sexy. If you're going to be like most superheroes and walk about in public wearing brightly colored underwear, it follows that you would want to be as sexy as possible.

So superhuman dullness understandably gets overlooked, but that's the source of its power. If you can't be invisible, be so boring that people will look away from you. If you can't have a deflection shield, be so dull that no one wants to get close. You can mock a skunk's self-protection system as un-sexy, too, but it works.

In short, boredom can be an incredibly effective defense tactic.

* * *

That was the point that resonated with me the most as I listened to the audiobook of Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, an in-depth history of how Wall Street caused the 2008 world financial crash. Taibbi starts by noting the lines of defense the "Grifter class" (Wall Street criminals) has against any investigators.

He first laments the fact that some Americans value attitude over intelligence, a phenomenon seen most often among Teabaggers and Sarah Palin Cultists and their obvious contempt for "book learning." Anti-intellectualism offers two benefits to the Grifter class: it allows Wall Street operatives to portray the poor as the ones stealing from the working class, and it allows Wall Street to hide beyond complex rules of financial transactions.

For those who realize book learning has value and that it is in fact the Grifter class ripping them off (and not a poor single mother of three cheating on welfare) the next line of defense is boredom. Try to decipher Wall Street's scams, read through their manuals, law books, financial literature, etc. and you are soon bored out of your ever-lovin' mind. So bored in fact, that only the most determined souls (like author Taibbi) carry on.

To summarize, willful ignorance makes the complexity of Wall Street incomprehensible, but even if you try to learn the way the scam works, a second line of defense awaits: a lethal tedium that endangers even your drive for justice.

* * *

As for me, the boredom challenge explains why real journalists are among my heroes. Thank heavens for Matt Taibbi, Rachel Maddow and the many other reporters and organizations (like Media Matters for America) who challenge the powerful by digging into the facts and/or tracking every word of hateful media. Lazy thinkers like me can simply check the logic, form an opinion, and have a nap before lunch.

This isn't to say Teabagger Nation is fully off base. Once again, I find myself aligned with them in the abstract. I too, have a distrust of complexity. However, because I am intellectually curious, if something doesn't make sense even after thorough examination, I suspect someone is laying the groundwork for deception, or if not, I'm aware I will be easy prey. I've always found it a wise move that if I don't understand something (especially financial endeavors) it's best not to proceed.

Complexity is the overriding way scams are hidden today. I believe that applies not only to Wall Street, but also the Healthcare bill, Law practice, and many of other systems and customs. It's the tool of annoying IT guys worldwide: Instead of teaching you how to do something, or allowing it to be within your grasp, everyone is setting up a fort of job security by obscuring their methods. Yet another reason teachers, who by nature establish an open-source world, are so vilified by authoritarian movements.

Unfortunately, many calls for a "simpler time" aren't requests for clarity but instead a wish for blissful ignorance. The solution to the complexity (and boredom) that the Grifter class hides behind isn't to dumb down the world, but to make it clear. You can add transparency, apply checks and balances, and provide information access. Make things as simple as as possible, but not simpler (as Einstein said).

* * *

What made listening to the Griftopia audio book a poignant experience for me was the fact that I was doing so a week after having been downsized from my previous job. It was a strange form of torment and/or synchronicity to be hearing endless tales of Wall Street sociopaths robbing the world blind. All while I, through no fault of my own, was suffering a financial setback as criminals are getting rich beyond imagining, ruining millions financially, and sticking the working class with the blame.

I suppose this could have filled me with rage, or bitter resentment, but those are emotions I don't do well. I can never sustain them as much as the sociopaths around us do, and perhaps that is part of the working class downfall: our rage for justice must equal or surpass their innate greed, and the innate greed of the Grifter class is vast.

Regarding Griftopia, I never finished it. In the end, Taibbi's book committed suicide. By going into so much detail about the fact that Wall Street scams are complex and boring, the book itself bored me. Even Taibbi's trademark foul-mouthed insult artistry (referring to Alan Greenspan as 'The Biggest Asshole in the Universe' still entertains) couldn't keep me interested enough to finish.

As the reader droned on, I found myself thinking, "Yes, I know. They're ripping me off. I got it, Matt. Wall Street is not to be trusted. I hear ya. Got it. Thank you. I can't say as precisely as you how much they're screwing me, but it's obvious they are from the statistics."

What really turned me off was that I wanted to know the next step. What do we do about it? How do we cobble together this precious resource known as "political will" and reign these criminals in? Perhaps the book addressed it, but I'll never know, because I drowned in the moat of boredom around the ivory tower. The lesson of my tragic story is, we need to have the discipline to get through the boredom, or failing that, we need to support those brave souls who can, which is why despite failing to finish, I highly recommend this book to anyone who is tired of wealth inequality.

Books mentioned in this post: Griftopia by Matt Taibbi - available at Amazon.

===

Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available as an Amazon Kindle eBook. It is also available for reading online. P.S. You don't need a Kindle to read Kindle eBooks! Download the FREE Kindle app for PC, Apple and smartphones. You can then purchase Kindle books or download free ones! Enjoy!

An introduction is necessary here. I wrote the article below about a month ago. It's called "My Party Lost the Election. Is it Time for 2nd Amendment Remedies?"

I always try to stay ahead of my blog schedule so if life interferes, I have something I can post. I was saving this one for the weekend of Martin Luther King Junior's birthday as a tribute to non-violence. The article is a direct attack on one of the most absurd yet most persistent myths in American society: the idea that simply with a gun, and simply by murdering your fellow Americans that you disagree with, you can craft an American society more to your liking.

Basically, I took this myth (what failed Senate candidate Sharron Angle called a "Second Amendment Remedy") and gave it a fictional test drive. That is, I tried to imagine a way in which the fantasy could come true, concluding, as happens when you try to match the abstract with the concrete, that the myth is absurd, impossible and childish.

However, after the recent murders in Tucson (link) I feel that publishing "My Party Lost the Election. Is it Time for 2nd Amendment Remedies?" without any sort of pre-disclaimer would be irresponsible. Being a lover of free speech, I am always very hesitant to blame violent rhetoric on violent action. If you act, you have to take responsibility, no matter what someone said. However, I'm undecided. I think maybe I've erred in thinking the two are so far apart.

We're beyond people not understanding metaphor. When Sarah Palin puts up a map of congressional districts to "target" and uses cross-hairs to mark them, what other interpretation can a deranged un-American loser arrive at? What does that imply other than violence? To play into Palin's money-grubbing imagery, why not have a chomping grizzly bear over the districts? When Sharron Angle says, "look at a second amendment remedy" what does that imply other than "consider murdering those you disagree with?"

The bottom line is this: if you use gun-rhetoric or gun-metaphors then you are dangerously close to an actual terrorist. Is that hyperbole? Hysteria? I don't think so. Why? Because the intent is to scare. To publicly wink at your followers, and send a quiet but clear message to all: "Don't worry. If we don't win the election, we can still murder them."

News flash: guns did not make America great. A military, an organized military armed with guns allowed America to survive. Great ideas made America great.

Below is the original article, mocking the gun-myth and its winking metaphors. Responsible gun owners, if you want to keep your guns for protection against home invasions, I'm okay with that, but please don't entertain the embarrassing gun-revolution-myth that makes The Tooth Fairy and Santa look plausible. Guns are no way to change America.

And with that, let me just say that I hope the families of those murdered find some measure of peace.

Now, the original article –

My Party Lost the Election. Is it Time for 2nd Amendment Remedies?

Well, it's happened. I don't have the government I want, and as Senate candidate Sharron Angle said during her failed 2010 campaign, "If people don't get the government they want, they'll have to start looking at second amendment remedies." (Source.)

That was and will forever be an absurd thing for anyone, especially a potential senator, to say, but who cares? We still don't talk about chickens for healthcare. Why discuss one crazy idea from one crazy candidate who lost?

Because while "chickens for healthcare" was hilarious fun, a huge section of America didn't fall under its spell. The myth that you can achieve civic satisfaction by murdering your fellow Americans was spread long before Sharron Angle's fifteen minutes began and ended. I'd like to give this fantasy a hypothetical run to test its viability: would a second amendment remedy work?

Before we begin, let’s respect this myth. Owing to the purpose of preserving our great nation, gunophiles believe it is patriotic, even moral, to own weapons. More is better. Their source material for the myth is coded into the nation's key legal document. When non-gun-manufacturing CEOs meet their gun-manufacturing kin at the yacht club, the non-gun execs must express nothing but jealousy for such astounding product placement.

As for me, I don't have the government I want and I'm impatient. So according to the gun-myth, it's time for violence.

Wait. Wait a second, before we get started, we need some details. "Rebel!" may be sufficient for a poorly-spelled sign, but in real life we need particulars. Damn specifics! They're the bane of revolutions! So what's your question, son?

A gun is a detail-based life-removal appliance, so um, exactly who should be shot? Everyone suspected of voting for the current government? Or just the elected? But which office? All of them? Can't we just agree to disagree? No! The tree of revolution needs to be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants. There's nothing in that armchair warrior's wisdom about respect! Who is more tyrannical than the majority when majority rules?

Another question, then, if I may. What now? As far as patriots go, we're not talking about my blood, are we? Because sometimes when I read what I wrote years ago, I don't even agree with myself. This could be the shortest revolution ever.

Okay, so shooting all the people who voted for the government I don't like isn't practical. It's probably better to target a particular politician. That is what the myth implies, right? It's never shooting the populace; it's always threatening the people they vote for. Somehow one person makes oppression happen, not his or her support network.

Or should I join the local Beer Belly Militia and run around the forest with sweaty men in a non-homoerotic, totally patriotic way? Do we then storm the capital building and shoot whomever we don't like?

What will the people who voted think? Remember, the supporters of the people we're "taking out" (to use another gun-mythology-approved euphemism for murder) won the election, so my brothers in arms and I are a well-armed minority enforcing our political will with violence.

Wow, that sure doesn't sound like America, but hey, it is now, bitch! 'Cause we got the guns! What next? Hold a re-election? And take a chance it doesn't go our way? Are you crazy? But maybe a terrified populace will get wise and vote for who we want. Mission accomplished!

Unfortunately, the story won't stop there, because now it's time for the people we just kicked out (or shot) to exercise their second amendment remedies. And remember, we were a minority when this started. So now, they outnumber us.

Fairy-tales always imply an end, a "happily ever after." In reality, life goes on. A nation of Second Amendment remedies would dissolve into an endless cycle of people grabbing power via murder.

Most arguments about what makes a true American are pointless, but not this time. One who appreciates American ideals, a true American, understands they are not going to win every election. They are not always going to get the government they want, and they know that killing those who disagree with them (or advocating that) is against any definition of freedom and the very basics of what makes civilization worthwhile.

Or, everyone can pull out their guns and let's just get it over with now. The last person alive can be the sole dictator and sole citizen of the nation formerly known as the USA.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

As an author of fiction, I often hear there are only a handful of stories in the whole wide world and all tales are based on those few. I like to assess that concept with, "Duh" before raising the stakes and noting there is really only ONE story and all stories are a variation of it.

That one story is this: Stuff happens.

I award myself points for smart-assery, but demerits for inaccuracy because I use over-simplification myself. You can really buzz through the news that way. Scanning today's headlines, I've got "Political Sex Scandal" here, "Natural World Dying" here, and "Right-Wing Media Personality Promotes New Book By Scapegoating the Powerless." Nope, nothing new today, but, what's this?

Oh, never mind. It's just the classic: "Religious People Offended Again."

That's the mental bin into which I tossed the news that some Muslims were offended by cartoons of Muhammad. Most items in the RPOA category provide light entertainment (as in the allegedly gay Teletubby) but this time, some Muslims were so offended they rioted, burning and killing. We in the western world are appalled at such barbarity. Everyone knows a civilized culture only riots, burns and kills when their sports team wins a championship.

So because of the violence, this story popped free of my mental "yawn and ignore" file and begged further analysis. A stand needed to be… um, stood. Unfortunately, I was vaguely unimpressed with the knee-jerky reactions exemplified by the sort-of movement, "Draw Muhammad Day."

Some background: after receiving a threat, Comedy Central partially censored a South Park episode because it featured parodies of Muhammad. Those who care about freedom of expression were offended, first at those who made the threats and second at those who seemed to cave into them. In protest, lots of people agreed to republish toons of Muhammad and/or draw their own. "Draw Muhammad Day" was one result.

So, while I agree it's silly to get offended at a cartoon, especially when doing so on behalf of a being you believe is all-powerful (I've written about that before) I must say I'm unimpressed with "Draw Muhammad Day" and the other efforts to reproduce the Danish cartoons that began this anti-cartoon jihad and the anti-anti-cartoon crusade.

Why so jaded? Because offending extreme Muslims proves nothing. It's just too easy. In the excellent documentary Afghan Star (about Afghanistan's answer to American Idol) one female finalist removed her headscarf and took two steps. This was called a "dance" and it sent the men into a murderous rage. They talked (seriously) of wanting this woman executed. For as close as those few simple moves were to a dance, Afghan women better be careful not to trip on any pebbles lest they be branded bootylicious. (Would that be burqalicious?)

All this talk of new generals and new strategies for Afghanistan. Who needs them? Project a music video of any modern female pop star on an Afghan mountain in the night and the Talibanis will spontaneously combust. The Graveyard of Empires has endured countless bombs but is no match for the merciless vibrations of a female's jiggly buttocks.

So now that I've solved the Afghan war, what I want to see next, from the people determined to prove their support for freedom of expression, who think they are so much better than extremist Muslims, is this: I want them to draw and/or publish something that offends THEM. If you're so pro-free-expression, let's see you express something that offends YOU. No more offending someone thousands of miles away, who surely won't riot and burn your home or kill you. You want to really promote free expression? Offend yourself.

Can anyone really do it? I have my doubts. I'm pretty sure I can't. I tried (see above) but it just seems lame. I'm offended by the mentality, but somehow not upset by it in cartoon form. Plus, I couldn't help making the sarcasm obvious. I don't want to go further, because well, I'd be offended. Can one offend oneself?

An effort was attempted in a June 2006 Harper's article (Drawing Blood by Art Spiegelman.) Responding to the Muhammad-cartoon issue, some Jewish artists drew cartoons that allegedly offended themselves. I'm still skeptical. Seemed to me they were simply mocking concepts that they had no respect for, like I did above.

Regardless, the Harper's article was a noble effort and yes, there is a difference between being offended and calling for the execution of the offender. Even so, before getting righteous, I think we all need to pass this test. If nothing else, it will be a lesson in humility. So have at it, my fellow freedom fighters. Nice job getting in the face of oppressive jerks, but can you take the heat as well? Are you really pro-freedom? Can you offend yourself?

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

I've always distrusted pretty-sounding quotations. Too many people think that just because a statement is said concisely, or a famous person said it, or it has a poetic ring, that it's true. Context doesn't matter. It's "set it and forget it" for the mind. More like "just repeat and your thinking's complete."

This happens all the time when people quote America's "Founding Fathers," but just because the founding fathers said something doesn't mean the thought was codified into U.S. law.

Tangent: Notice there are no "Founding Mothers." Gay marriage may not be fully legal in America yet, but the USA had multiple daddies. Scandalous!

Anyway, one quotation I've found to be true as often as not is, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Tangent: So Jesus himself is in Hell?

What especially interested me about that quotation was flipping it around. Since it's often true, that would imply the precise opposite is also often true. But how can the path to heaven be paved with evil intentions? Hold that question, we'll come back to it.

You may have heard of this horrible news story (link.) Here's a summary: a man's son was killed in Iraq. At the funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church (link) showed up with their obnoxious signs, claiming that God was turning away from the USA because our nation tolerates homosexuals, and soldiers can expect to die due to God's wrath.

This is something the WBC does often. Sick, right? No matter what you think of America's endless war(s) anyone with a shred of decency can empathize with a grieving parent burying a child and searching for some measure of peace.

So as the story goes, the father sues the Westboro people, and wins. Awesome! But the Westboro jerks appeal the verdict, and then they win. So now, this poor man is required to pay their court costs, but he refuses, which I believe means he could go to jail.

Now here's a twist that supports the "truth is stranger than fiction" pretty-sounding quotation. Professional blowhard Bill O'Reilly offers to pay the court costs. That right there should be a warning to the Westboro cult: when Bill O'Reilly makes you look like a douche bag, your douche baggery is off the charts.

Yet even as I bust on Billo, I have to say I'm not entirely surprised at his kindness. No matter how much I disagree with him or anyone else, I am sure of one thing: most would never sink low enough to turn someone's funeral into a circus for an agenda unrelated to the deceased or their family. Most would never dream of turning someone's funeral into a circus, period.

To do so is disrespectful, foul and the lowest of the low. Just as free speech has some common sense limits (the "no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" clause) funerals should be off limits to demonstration. I say that as a lover and frequent user of the First Amendment. I promise you that small restriction on free speech will not cause the U.S. Constitution to spontaneously combust.

While I wouldn't know what goes on in the Westboro cult's theoretically existent minds, and they clearly have no hearts or souls to speculate about, it's obvious they want to divide. They want people to turn against gays, kick off an orientation-ocide, if you will.

However, Westboro's attempts at division have the reverse effect because they serve as a common ground. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Straight, Gay, Black, White, I'm confident we ALL realize that the Westboro Baptist Church's habit of disrupting funerals make them the most vile creatures on earth.

Even Jesus Christ himself, the Original Hippie, would take a huge steaming dump on the Westboro Baptist Church people and kick their leader in the shriveled slug carcass that surely passes for his balls.

So in the most oblique way, the Westboro Baptist Church, by being so hateful, gives me hope. They bring Americans together under one big tent of disgust. Their hate brings us together, shows us that despite our differences we share a common bond, and maybe even paves the way to heaven with evil intentions.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

I've never understood the common usage of the word macho.

To be clear, I'm referring to the dictionary definition (ultimate masculinity) and not the informal one popularized by The Village People (ultimate gayness.) The word macho is intended to define the pinnacle of tough, but it ends up representing supreme insecurity.

Understanding that contradiction, it's clear that extreme religion is precisely macho. Because I live west of the Prime Meridian, extremist Muslim behavior is more easily noticed, since Islamic tradition isn't intertwined with our culture and considered a part of just how things are. Examples of Islamic macho/insecurity may be more obvious to us Westerners, but anyone who opens their mind even slightly will notice there is little if any difference among Christianity, Islam and Judaism in the extreme.

At their distant ends, all three focus their restrictions on women. When it comes to the religious fringe, it's all dudes all the time. Yet these are the same people who are also violently homophobic.

Another paradox, yes, and it gets worse. Even the gods of extremism reflect the bi-polar nature of macho. A classic example is when the Taliban claimed they had to destroy Buddhist statues in Afghanistan because the statues were just too much for the mighty Allah to gaze upon. (Link.)

Now I'm just a mortal, but I'm proud of the fact that I'm secure enough not to demand my friends blow up anyone who doesn't worship me. Hey, that's their loss!

So here's my question for religious extremists: If your god is such a badass, why does he need mortals like you to fight his battles? Why is your god scared of statues? Or cartoons? Or same-sex love and marriage? Or women thinking, saying and doing what they want?

Silly extremists! Either your faith in your god's power is lacking or your god is a total wimp.

Actually, we all know the real reason for macho's split-personality, why men (and male-like gods) talk tough but act fragile. I'll break the rules and say it out loud: Because females have all the power. They can do anything a male can except make sperm.

That's not to say I would complain if the world was taken over by women and we men were used simply for sperm harvesting. To the more sultry and flexible of our female conquerors, I say harvest away! Sadly, with advances in reproductive technology, even sperm isn't necessary.

A lot of reports and studies appear to support the idea that extremism is on the rise. How much is being fueled by insecure men, aware of their accelerating (or already present) obsolescence? I swear it's only a matter of time before lesbians take over. Name me a single lesbian that isn't damn good at what she does. You can't do it! That's right, men. We are biologically useless! Accept it! Or make a fool of yourself by acting macho.

One who works against the efforts of power-hungry people of their same "race" are often referred to as race traitors. So, being a male who admits to male pointlessness, does that make me a sex traitor?

I hope so, because frankly, I'm down with that. Oh wait, I thought you said trader. Dang it.

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.