On Rhetoric (again)

Today's comment is: Studying rhetoric has given the ability to more deeply understand all of those little phrases that we all use to make a point or end an argument.
"It takes one to know one", or "easy come, easy go"; "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger", or "It works if you work it" (from AA)
These little phrases that at first seem to be equal and finite, or final, have now become terms to which I have given real value. They can be weighed and compared and if need be rejected. At the same time I cannot deem any one truer than the other, only more useful, more valuable to me and my life experience.
1. It takes one to know one
This is on its surface a stupid little saying used mostly by kids to get out of an argument they cannot win. Kids of all ages that is. It is not stupid. Rhetorically it clearly and cleverly describes a situation of truth with few words maximizing the meaning. To really understand a person you have to "walk a mile in their shoes." This is another way of saying kind of the same thing. However this way of saying it, maybe because of its history of use, does not sound as stupid and therefor is not as stupid. For perception, overuse, or general cheesiness of sayings effect the affect that they have when used, and therefor the truest of sayings can lose power and do not have the intended outcome of use.
2. Easy come, easy go
This saying is so concise and true that it is almost genius. It becomes true genius because it must have been made up by some redneck. Someone who would be described as 'trash' or a 'rube.' Basically someone who comes from a lower class group whose expectation of intelligence are equally low. I say this because only someone who has had nothing to begin with can conceive of something coming and going in and out of existence like a cool breeze. Even if you do not buy my argument, you would have to consider such a simple use of language to be something that anyone of any level of intelligence might say. The irony of it would also be lost on the rich, who might not find the sudden loss of a lifestyle they were born with to be something to chuckle at. At the same time this phrase is meant to be one of comfort to the one it is told to. Only one who has already experienced the lack of means can take comfort in the fact that they are once again in the same position. A more privileged soul might consider the loss to be unfair, where a person of modest means knows that nature is not concerned with fairness. At least not in the way we perceive it. This is a high quality saying in my book, both because of its elegance and subtle humor.
3. Whatever doesn't kill me...
This one is not really funny at all, and can sound quite arrogant. It gives off the perception that an individual has found a way to cheat death, where death was really only cheated due to a series of people and events that lead to the individual in question's seemingly miraculous recovery. I only use this one as an example because of a writer I heard of and can't remember the name of who had cancer. He said that some of the little sayings that people use when talking about the fight against cancer such as the one above should no longer be part of cancer treatment terminology. Its a saying that is too commonly used and yet consistently found to be untrue.
4.It works if you work it...
This is one of many sayings form a cult-light organization that uses rhetoric as a tool to keep its members in line. I personally thought I worked the twelve step program to the best of my ability and did not get the desired outcome: general serenity in sobriety. The automatic response to my complaint would be that I did not "work" the program right. I guess it depends on what the definition of "work" is. The thing that I find disturbing is that there is a saying to counter any claim that the twelve step program is fallible. Hence the cult-like, cult-light status of the group. The narrowness of the program is enough to turn a few day dreamy individuals off all together, but by no means should one underestimate the power of this and other twelve step sayings. They dominate our vocabulary on substance use treatment despite the fact that scientific evidence used to support the system as the only way to deal with drug and alcohol 'addiction' is shaky at best. You do not hear a lot of criticism of the program from the medical community, which could easily give the impression that it is a sound program. But since when is a medical treatment considered sound when there is a success rate of below 20%?

On Politics

There are two ways to look at political parties in America today. You can take the perspective of ideology, where each party consists of a calculable amount of bodies or votes that are made up of systems of organs, organs, atoms, quarks, etc. In this view you can say that the democrats lean towards communism and the republicans towards fascism. However anyone who thinks this accurately describes our current political world is an idiot. This is because of the other aspect of the polis that have brains. Due to this the actual members of the parties look completely different from what their ideologies say. For instance Bill Clinton gutted the welfare system as we know it, and though he gave a speech that rhetorically praised our great welfare state, the consequences were that the system was diminished. On the other hand republicans tend to support corporate subsidies and tax breaks, which despite their insistent rhetorical stance that 'big government' is the enemy, considerably grows the government and the reach that it has. Not to say that democrats do not support these subsidies. In fact the parties are not acting in opposition to their philosophies, but rather acting in the tradition that all parties maintain. A tradition of anti-radical change. Obama may not have used our military machine in the same way Bush did, nor did he however break from the usual pattern of violence when it comes to US foreign policy. The truth points to an image of America as an imperialist nation that supports corporate welfare or corporate socialism. The popular image is that we are a country where each election is a war between those who want to expand our welfare state in terms of supporting the poor versus those who support everyman pulling themselves up by their own boot straps. That is not what history says at all, though it is not completely off. It just the opposite in fact. This does not mean that I support Romney over Obama by any means. Even if there is not much radical change, the pendulum has been slowly but surely moving toward a more fascist and less communist state. Supporting the Democratic party will at very least slightly retard that trend. Only slightly though. I believe in the tactic of counting the bodies and using those numbers to win elections as opposed to what will be known in Ohio as the John Housted method after 2012. That is restricting the number of people who can vote with the assumption that the people who have the hardest time showing up to the polls are the urban poor ie black people ie Democrats. What is significant in the numbers game is remembering that each of those bodies has a brain which makes them less predictable. There is true power in voting. It is the working poor's only line of defense against the wealthy. But that voting power only works in organized and disciplined blocks of votes. Theoretically then it is possible that a group who supports radical transitions and change can find power, and there is nothing that minority opposition can do about it. This however has not really happened in a meaningful enough way that people in general are convinced that their vote really matters. There are some examples however, like medical marijuana in different states, and in a much more meaningful way during Reconstruction after the Civil War. At that time there was a real reform party option that did not resemble either of our major parties today, and could have actually benefited the working poor of America for the first and only time ever. It was crushed, as was the glimmer of hope in the Green Party before the Florida election debacle and the rise of W. Still it is worth remembering and emulating or using as inspiration for a real reform party for real people. Real bodies and real brains together. My last comment on this would be...look to Brazil?
by
Chris 'Cdub' Wood

Ron Paul and Other nonsenSe

Dear Internet,
Hello I am back after a little while. This is actually the first time I am writing since I got a few followers which I appreciate greatly. To start I want to promote a fiend of mine, Casey Wright, and put up a link to one of his You Tube Pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uKSVnimNT8
It is from a few months back a little long, but in it Casey presents evidence that adds to the suspicion that Cheney was connected to 911. I mentioned something like this in my 911 anniversary posting yet it was really just based on my interpretation of Cheney actions and kind of 'poker face' response to the 911 attacks.
Casey also shares a similar view that AA is a morality based way of dealing with drug and alcohol addiction that is pervasive in drug treatment in the U.S. It does not surprise me at all that AA was funded and Bill W. was sponsored and put up by the Rockefeller Foundation. It also makes a lot of sense that Bill W. was able to live with extreme depression and not turn back to drinking. He had more than the meetings. He had his house and food paid for by a book that was able to be published with money from the Rockefeller Family.
So thanks Casey and keep bringing us the Good News.
That brings us to Ron Paul. Hold I will get to that. I Preface by saying that I am in a position where it is hard to get my thoughts down on cyber space. I am a liberal and a progressive and I believe in a free democratic fair version of a welfare state. But I am at this point under no illusion that Democrats and Republicans are significantly different enough to make any kind of meaningful difference. Not historically speaking, and not now. Homer Simpson had it right last Sunday when he contemplated switching to Democratic Party by pointing out that they,"...act like Republicans once they get into office." It is not that they do not do anything that I would consider to be progress, but they all walk a line of making decisions that can help their career and agenda but hurt or ignore the people. I mean look at our "progressive" Democratic mayor. Need I say more?
Politicians and leaders have failed the people time and time again, but politics still interests me almost like a sport. It is not hard to get caught up in the strategy and the out right hustle involved. Hunter Thompson in the Great Shark Hunt talks about the addictive power that running for office has. Knowing the political landscape can become a significant skill and like any good sports gambler knows , the more information you have about the game the more accurately you can post the odds... or even better know how to beat them. It can even be more fun to follow the Republican party because I do not a have a real interest in who wins. In this case I both do not think that Obama will lose a re-election, and if he does I do not think it will penultimately be a big surprise. If he's gonna lose it will be obvious soon enough. I doubt it mostly because the last time a Democrat re-election is was really only due to the fact that Kennedy challenged Carter and split the demographic. That is the reason no matter what other political theorist have tried to say.
Ron Paul is the guy who helps me to see all of this with some real perspective. Some progressive and liberal fiends of mine think he is really scary. He definitely has some ideas that I think are a little extreme, but he still tends to conjure among lefties an unnecessary amount of anxiety and hatred. That is because he has some extreme ideas that are more in line with their beliefs than any policy proposal form the Obama camp. How can I not like someone who on one hand wants leave Iran alone? How can I like someone who wants to repeal civil rights legislation for some strange ideological reason? The answer is I don't have to. It does not matter. Paul's posturing for a second place position in the primary will have considerable leverage over the party and could have real impact on American lives. It does not change the fact that he has a few really good ideas and Democrats should be proposing and implementing those kind of initiatives. Instead they are deporting, increasing drone strikes, and attacking medical marijuana. At this point in time I have to say right on to Ron Paul for proposing we get rid of all of our foreign military bases, and boo for taking an evangelical view on gay marriage. So what. This right now is all in the game,  but I hope we see some real moving and shaking soon, and I will take a little break to relax and study what is going to ultimately cause John Huntsman to drop out of the race (if he hasn't already.)
Sincerely,
Chris Wood

Food and Television

Adam Gopnik on Charlie Rose tonight said that he agreed with the statement, "Food is the new Rock n' Roll." I would argue that actually television is. Not everyone has access to good food, but everyone has a television. I understand that he was saying how he and his friends talk about food in the same way that they used to talk about rock n' roll. But the thing about rock n' roll from that golden era is that it was something that everyone could talk about in any situation. It was something that was a great equalizer. Food on the other hand is what defines exclusivity. Everyone eats, but not everyone is a 'foodie'. and I dare say that not everyone can afford or is privileged enough to understand things like macrobiotic food. I love food. My wife and I are all about making everything from scratch, and we do it mostly out of necessity. We are broke as fuck. And the truth is I do not understand food on the sophisticated level that people like Gopnik do. On the other hand you can talk to anybody on the street about the genius of Steve Carell or Tina Fey. They are rock stars. They get people excited, and have really taken television to a new level. TV is not some thing for rubes, though they can certainly enjoy it. It is a place for creativity and new energy. Food is unfortunately becoming more of a separator. There is a lot of excitement around these new innovations in the world of food, but it is not something that can be blasted across the airwaves for all to have to contemplate and form an opinion on. Nothing can ever take the place of rock and roll, but if we are talking about energy, the foodies are in their own little world, while Tracy Morgan is as American as Elvis.