Category Archive

“Space…the final frontier…”
–Captain James T. Kirk

Since man first looked to the heavens, he has wanted to go there. To fly, to touch the stars, to break the ethereal bonds of Earth and ascend to glory. Since Daedalus turned his mind “to arts unknown” to escape the labyrinth of King Minos, up to the Apollo space program that first brought men from Earth to touch another celestial body, humanity has used the only—and best—tools available to achieve this lofty goal: the human mind and the human spirit.

But since that grand day in July of 1969, when we finally brushed the heavens and returned to tell the tale, we have let the dream wither on the vine, focusing less on exploration and ascension and more on the drudgery of near-Earth industry in the name of mere profit. It’s not enough; humanity’s destiny requires more. We need to once again turn our hearts and minds and spirit to the stars and seek our future beyond the gravity well of our own planet. We must be explorers, adventurers and dare ourselves to leave the cradle of Earth and make our homes in the cosmos around us. We need to aggressively return to space.

The cost is not negligible. As found in On the Shoulders of Titans by Barton Hacker and James Grimwood, as well as the figures from The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, the American space program from Mercury through Gemini and up to Apollo cost $20.5 billion dollars (387, 1 respectively). Adjusted from 1969 dollars to today’s rates that would come to $481.2 billion. That may sound like a lot of money, until one compares it to the outlay of funds for the current war in Iraq. As of March, 2008, costs of that conflict had reached $564 billion dollars in five years, according to Steve Schifferes in his article “The Iraq War: Counting the Cost” (par. 2). He also predicted that by the end of 2009 the war cost would reach $1 trillion (par. 4). What took NASA ten years of development, testing, and technological advancement to spend, the war in Iraq has more than taken up in less than half that time. Removal of our troops, materiel, and bases from that region would free
up more than enough to duplicate the Apollo program from its inception.

Of course, we don’t have to. The technology already exists and requires only refinement and enhancement. NASA’s current space program, Constellation, is based largely on designs derived from the development of the Apollo program forty years ago and technologies refined and honed under the current Space Shuttle program. That greatly mitigates the cost of a renewed program to reach the moon and, after, the other planets of our solar system.

Additionally, we can enlist the help of the rest of the world. International cooperation in space-based endeavors is not unheard of: the International Space Station (ISS) stands as testimony to the possibility of such a joint venture, and the European Space Agency (ESA) is a cooperative space agency with 19 different contributing member nations.

However, despite the possibilities of mitigation and cooperation, many people point out that the ambitious goals of the Constellation program, i.e. return to the Moon, establish a continuous human presence there, and proceed from the Moon on to Mars, will not show short-term profitability. And they are right.

There are some short-term gains to be made. Throughout the 1960’s the American space program employed 400,000 people (Chaikin, viii). In the first half of 2009 America lost 467,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Wouldn’t it be nice to gain some of those jobs back in a short time?

But we must remember that it was the pursuit of short-term profitability that led to the slips in safety standards that resulted in the catastrophic failures of the Challenger shuttle in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. In Challenger’s case, an overly ambitious launch schedule, aimed towards showing the shuttle program as a viable money-making endeavor, led to a NASA culture of “launch at any cost”. In Challenger: A Major Malfunction, Malcolm McConnell noted that “In order for NASA to keep the confidence of its commercial, civil-government, and military customers…NASA’s credo had become ‘Fly out that manifest’” (65). Similarly, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board stated that “during the course of [the Columbia] investigation, the Board received several unsolicited comments from NASA personnel regarding pressure to meet a schedule” (Gehman et. al. 131).

NASA needs to take a longer view, obviously. The profits from space require investments of time as well as money to retrieve, develop, and exploit.

But there are profits to be had. Helium-3 is a much cleaner fuel for fusion reactors than deuterium and tritium, with little to no dangerously radioactive heavy neutrons released in the process. Helium-3 is incredibly rare on Earth, but naturally occurring in massive quantities on the Moon. In 1993, W.M. Braselton, Jr., vice-president of the Harris Corporation said in an address to the United States Space Foundation that “One space shuttle load of twenty-five metric tons [of helium-3] will electrically power the U.S. for one year. It would have a market value of seventy-five billion dollars today and there is in excess of one million tons on the Moon” (qtd. in Burrows 627). Similarly, Robert Zubrin in “The Case for Colonizing Mars” tells us that there is roughly five times the amount of the rare isotope deuterium on Mars as there is on Earth. “Its current (1996) value on Earth is about $10,000 per kilogram, roughly fifty times as valuable as silver or 70% as gold” (par. 10). Near-Earth asteroids offer large amounts of platinum, which is not only a precious metal for jewelry, but a valuable component of super-conductors and super-conductive circuits for advanced computers. They also provide millions of tons of nickel and iron ores, used in many industrial and manufacturing processes and products, ranging from stainless steel and rechargeable batteries to simple wrought iron and common steel used in most building construction.

Besides monetary gains, other benefits can be imagined. According to a 2001 United Nations report on world population growth, the estimated “carrying capacity” of Earth is, on average, 10 billion people (40). A separate United Nations report, World Population Prospects, The 2006 Revision, projects the world population by 2050 to reach 9.2 billion people (9). Colonization of the solar system is an obvious solution. In The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, 3rd Ed., Gerard O’Neill postulates that the material found just in the asteroid belt, let alone the Moon and Mars, would be enough to fashion habitable areas 3,000 times the habitable areas of Earth (113). With appropriate recycling and solar power generation technologies, these habitations would be self-sustainable for hundreds of years.

Others believe in the terraforming of other worlds, specifically Mars. “Terraforming” refers to the process of taking an inhospitable world and making it more Earth-like and capable of easily sustaining human life. The Spirit and Opportunity probes have found significant metallic and mineral deposits on the Red Planet, and orbital surveys of Mars reveal extensive water icecaps at the poles. Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer and manned-mission-to-Mars advocate states “It is the richness of Mars that makes the Red Planet not only desirable, but attainable” (qtd in Burrows 644). Quoting a report by Synthesis Group, a think-tank headed by former astronaut Thomas Stafford, Burrows writes “Space is a unique store of resources: solar energy in unlimited amounts, materials in vast quantities from the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, gases from the Martian atmosphere, and the vacuum and zero gravity or space itself. With suitable processing, these raw resources are transformed into useful products” (627).

Scientific research can be further advanced via aggressive expansion into space. Spurred by a need to refine industrial processes to maximize sustainability and increase profitability over time, money would have to be allocated to the types of low- or zero-gravity experimentation that are currently being performed in small scale aboard the ISS and the scientific missions of the space shuttle. Crystal growth, health effects of zero gravity…increased experimentation in fields like these can only enhance our understanding of material sciences, the universe at large and our own selves.

But beyond benefits both material and educational, there are, believe it or not, spiritual benefits.

Mankind has always felt the urge to explore and expand the boundaries of humanity’s reach and knowledge. From the global explorations of Magellan and Columbus to the incredible voyage from the Earth to the Moon of Armstrong, Aldrin and all who followed them, we have ever striven to move further, fly higher, and know more. It is in our nature, our hearts and our souls. As John F. Kennedy said in 1962 at Rice University “We choose to go to the moon….Not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept…” (qtd. in Chaikin 2).

Many involved in the space program, past and present, advocate an aggressive return to space. Apollo astronaut Ken Mattingly, the ninth man to walk on the Moon, says “We will go to Mars. And who knows what they will find? Once again it will be the journey that is the true test, as much as what you learn when you get there” (ibid. 579). In regard to returning to the Moon, in his book Failure is Not an Option former NASA flight director Gene Krantz says simply: “Our work is unfinished” (384).

The space shuttle program is scheduled to perform its last mission in 2010 with the completion of STS-134.

“It is good for the human spirit to explore beautiful places,” says astronaut Dave Scott, commander of Apollo 15 (Chaikin 403). We need it, for our knowledge, for our economies, for our future…and for the illumination of our very souls.

We need to choose to go back to the moon.

Works Cited

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology. 3 August 2009.

Burrows, William E.. This New Ocean. New York: Random House, Inc. 1998.

Chaikin, Andrew. A Man on the Moon. New York: Penguin Books. 1994.

Gehman, Jr., Adm. (Ret.) Harold, and Maj. Gen John L. Barry, Brig. Gen. Duane W. Deal, James N. Hallock, Ph.D., Maj. Gen. Kenneth W. Hess, G. Scott Hubbard, John M. Logsdon, Ph.D., Douglas D. Osheroff, Ph.D., Sally K. Ride, Ph.D., Roger E. Tetrault,, Stephen A. Turcotte, Steven B. Wallace, Sheila E. Widnall, Ph.D. Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume 1. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2003.

Glenn, John and Nick Taylor. John Glenn: A Memoir. New York: Bantam Books. 1999.

Hacker, Barton and James Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans. NASA Special Publications. 1977. 3 August 2009.

Kranz, Gene. Failure is not an Option. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2000.

McConnell, Malcolm. Challenger: A Major Malfunction. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1987.

O’Neill, Gerard K. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, 3rd Ed. Ontario, Canada: Apogee Books. 2000.

Schifferes, Steve. “The Iraq War: Counting the Cost.”, BBC News, 19 March 2008. 2 August 2009.

World Population Monitoring, 2001. New York: United Nations. 2001. 4 August 2009.

Zubrin, Robert. “The Case for Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra. July/August 1996. 4 August 2009.

This was a paper I did for my Composition Lab. It’s short, I admit; hey, I had a pretty hefty workload, no time to mess around extending things just to extend them. But I thought there were some pretty good ideas in it, so I submit it to you, my readers, for consideration.

“Globalization” generally refers to a movement to help emerging nations develop their economies and infrastructures so they can enter the global market as valid competitors. This goal is exceptionally important to future generations. Improved markets and infrastructures usually lead to improved quality of life. If nations are engaged in open and profitable trade, the tendency for those nations to wage war on one another is reduced. Overall, globalization is a noble goal that can improve the situation of everyone on the planet. However, the current methodologies employed to bring developing nations into the global market are often lacking and lead to worse financial problems for the nations involved. There are three primary means for emerging nations to receive funds for trade and infrastructure improvement: International Financial Institutions (IFIs), corporate investment and development, and commercial loans. All three, either separately or in conjunction with one another, have led to a repeating pattern of economic crises in recent decades. Clearly, a new paradigm must be introduced with an eye towards removing the inherent flaws of the current system.

Many people like to leave globalization efforts and development of emerging nations to private corporations. Private corporate development offers many apparent advantages: a corporation does not impose economic reform as a condition of bringing funds into the country; they do not ask for human rights or environmental reforms, which some developing countries’ governments may interpret as a threat to that government’s sovereignty; there are no political considerations to a corporation’s investment that may be ideologically opposed to an emerging nation’s governing ideology. To many nations, this sounds like free money and jobs. Micah Akuzue states in his article “The US in Global Context” that corporations benefit in turn from such foreign investment by increasing their workforce, either in their home countries, or by outsourcing many jobs to developing nations (21).

This, however, ignores the reality that corporations are, by definition, self-serving entities. Their overwhelming responsibility is to their shareholders. Micah Akuezue contends that a company that has invested in a developing country would be forced by market forces and a desire to stay competitive against other corporations to re-invest in a developing country in which they have a stake (22). This position seems to ignore characteristics of corporations and their philosophy. A corporation has primary responsibility to its shareholders and no one else. Employees, customers, governments and local populace are all secondary in a corporation’s considerations. Shareholders are notoriously short-sighted. If a corporation’s investment in a developing country does not profit quickly and measurably, its shareholders will demand an explanation; if they are not satisfied with that explanation, they will command the corporation to shift its policy and cut its losses. This often has devastating and debilitating effects on the economy of a developing nation as that nation suddenly loses a promised stream of income upon which it was basing improvement projects. It also has to cope with half-finished improvements that have left the infrastructure in disarray.

Corporations are not interested in human rights; in fact, the lack of human rights enforcement may make a developing nation more attractive to a corporation seeking to expand or move its operations. A major incentive for a corporation to invest overseas is the ability to maximize profits by paying local workers lower wages. Lack of workplace standards lead to “sweatshop” environments, which, while morally reprehensible, can be extremely profitable for a company. A company can pay sweatshop workers less money and force them to work longer hours than they would for a first-world workforce. As Alexander Reynolds states in “Between Theory and Fact: Free-Trade Theory and Free-Trade Agreements,” “Sometimes it is exactly a countries’ poor records of protecting such things that allow them to offer a competitive advantage in terms of productive efficiency” (par. 5).

In contrast there are organizations like the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. Created near the end of World War II, these institutions’ aims were, respectively, to adjust and regulate current-account imbalances and manage currency exchange rates and to provide funding for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. These IFIs offer conditional low-interest loans to developing nations, along with advice on how best to change macroeconomic, structural, and human rights policies to better place the developing country in a competitive market position. Their goals are to enhance emerging nations’ infrastructures, economic policies, and market viability with an aim of promoting free and fair trade throughout the world and raising the standard of living for all citizens of all nations. However, the methods these IFIs employ are toothless and ineffective. There is no formal oversight to guarantee that economic policies are revised in line with the conditions of the loans, and there is no way to enforce any of those conditions is met, aside from withholding of funds. This is seen as undesirable by the IMF and World Bank as sustainable projects are considered “successes” even if they mean continued funding of the failing nation, whereas cancellation of funding is often viewed as “failure.” Allan Meltzer brings to light the example of Mexico in the mid-1990s in his article “What’s Wrong with the IMF? What would be Better?” The IMF continued to lend Mexico money, even though those funds were not being used for any of the usual improvement projects; instead, the money was being used to pay high-interest commercial loans that Mexico had taken from private lending institutions. The sole reason the IMF sent more money to Mexico was to guarantee that foreign lenders were protected from the risk of Mexico defaulting on its expensive loans (par. 27).

The lack of ability to enforce conditions, in conjunction with a reluctance to appear to “fail” renders these institutions largely ineffective in meeting their stated aims. Often this leads to “moral-hazard lending”. “Moral hazard arises when the private risk to the lender is less than the risk borne by society,” states Meltzer (par. 39). It may seem ironic, but these institutions, founded on “moral” principles for “moral” reasons, are largely subject to “moral hazard”. It seems clear that these IFIs, on their own, are not the answer to effective globalization. Another way is needed.

Leaving out corporations and IFIs, what alternatives are left? Commercial loans are the same as corporate investment without the added bonus of development and with the added downside of punishingly large interest rates. Direct national lending from one country to another poorer country is undesirable as any funding coming directly from a richer nation is almost guaranteed to be burdened with conditions. These conditions may regard economic reform, governance, and possibly even extend into areas such as defense. The receiving nation would undoubtedly view these conditions as colonial in nature and a threat to the debtor nation’s sovereignty. Additionally, Joseph Montgomery points out in “Globalization as Modern-Day Colonialism” that “[t]hose with the power to make the rules will, except in rare cases, make rules which favor their own continued control and prosperity, as well as break rules without consequence, at the expense of those without power” (par. 2). What nation or government would willingly and knowingly put themselves in such a position of disparate power?

The answer may lie in the formation of a “third party” agency, the goal and aim of which would be the management of funds and projects for developing nations. Funds for improvement projects would not be left in the hands of a possibly corrupt or incompetent government; rather, the funds would be directly controlled by the third-party managing agency to guarantee that they would be spent wisely and correctly. Projects would be implemented by carefully screened contractor companies who would be paid from the agency’s funds. Those funds would be provided by the IFIs, as before, but those institutions and their member nations would be assured that the funds were being used as they were intended, and could more easily rely that those funds would be repaid by a country that had improved its’ viability and competitiveness in the global market. Rigid enforcement would still be an issue, naturally, as any agency would lack any real “stick” to back up a financial “carrot”, but this agency would not be so married to a faulty concept of “success” that it would continue to fund projects if the conditions were not being met. It would be more willing to withdraw the funds and return them to the IFIs in the event the developing country failed or refused to comply with necessary modifications to economic policy, human rights laws, and infrastructure improvement.

Globalization is important for our future. The more countries available to freely and readily trade on a global market, the more resources are available throughout the world. The more countries are involved in mutually beneficial trade, the less likely those countries will engage in deadly warfare with one another. But globalization cannot reliably be implemented through corporations with their short-sightedness and lack of interest in enhancing the most valuable resource on the planet– people. And it should not be left to fangless and craven lending institutions who meekly continue to hand money to emerging nations even when it is glaringly apparent that those nations are losing that money without meeting even the most basic conditions necessary to meet the obligation implicit in acceptance of those funds: to improve themselves and their citizens’ lives so that they can, in turn, contribute to the world’s markets and resource availability. No, another way must be found. The world is too important to leave things as they are.

Works Cited
Akuezue, Micah. “The US in Global Context.” Contemporary Political Issues. Apr. 2008: 21-23.

Meltzer, Allan. “What’s Wrong with the IMF? What would be Better?” Hoover Institution Public Policy Inquiry International Monetary Fund. Fall 1999. 24 June 2009 .

Montgomery, Joseph. “Globalization as Modern-Day Colonialism.” Free Green World. 7 June 2008. 24 June 2009 .

Reynolds, Alexander. “Between Theory and Fact: Free-Trade Theory and Free-Trade Agreements.” Theories versus Realities. May 2008. 24 June 2009

What is it with these presidential nominees and taxes?

Timothy Geithner, nominee for the Secretary of Treasury…you know, dealing with MONEY…had an issue with unpaid back taxes. Now Tom Daschle, former nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services has had to step aside because of some $146,000.00 in unpaid taxes.

Are these guys criminals or just retarded?

Because I’m such an unabashed Obama apologist I imagine scenes in the Oval Office like this…

President Obama: Oh, hey, Tom…c’mon in.

Daschle: Mr. President. You wanted to see me?

President Obama: Yes, yes I did. It’s about this tax thing, Tom.

Daschle: I know, it was stupid…

President Obama: Yes it was.

Daschle: I’m gonna step aside, turn down the job.

President Obama: Okay, that’s a start.

Daschle: Start?

President Obama: Yes. See, I’m very disappointed, Tom. You’re sullying the image of myself, this administration and the Hall of Justice.

Daschle: Hall of…?

President Obama: I meant “White House”.

Daschle: I’m sorry.

President Obama: So I’m going to have to do this…

President Obama steps from behind his desk and PUNCHES Daschle in the COCK.

Daschle: …

President Obama: And if I find out you took a job with the Legion of Doom, you’re a dead man. Got that?

Daschle: …

President Obama: Good. You may go.

Daschle hobbles out. President Obama sits behind his desk. There is a KNOCK at the door, then it opens.

President Obama (looking up): Oh, hey, Zan, Jayna. Glad you could make it.

Wonder Twins: You wanted to see us, sir?

President Obama: It’s about this “Gleek” thing…

*****

Maybe that’s not how it happened. But it should have.

Also, for your amusement, is the following image from my brain:

Have a good one!

You’ll All Pay – Special

© 2004 Joe Conat

So many people have been asking me “why?”I’ve actually received gawping open-mouthed stares. “You? But…but…you! YOU, dude!”

I didn’t want to, okay? What’s the point? Other writers have waxed eloquent…far more eloquently than I, I might add…on the subject and they’ve said all that can be said. We’ve seen the retrospectives, we’ve heard the eulogies and we’ve sung his praises. What more can be said, ultimately? What will my voice joining the chorus do?

What’s the point?

Superman is dead.

The posters all said “You WILL believe a man can fly!” I was seven…maybe eight years old. I believed, man. I believed. Superman was real and he flew and lifted helicopters and there was a powerful force for what was good and right in the world. He was right there! I believed, man, with all my heart and all my soul.

I grew up, of course. We all do. Well…let me amend that. I grew older. I grew older and life kicked me in the teeth a few times, just like everyone else and I acquired some hardness, some cynicism, some “cool” exterior pretensions. Some affectations of disaffection.

But deep down inside, past the biker leather, the Camel Filters, the coffee by the gallon, the beer and the sneer…I believed a man could fly. I believed there was a powerful force for what was good and right in the world.

I believed in Superman.

It actually hurt when Christopher Reeve broke his neck. Intellectually, of course, I knew that the man was not the Superman. That he was mortal…vulnerable. Just like us.

But it stuck in my heart like a little shard of hurt. The disappointment on a cellular level that you can only truly feel as a child. It hurt when Chris Rock reminded us “Superman can’t walk!”

And that’s when the man became the Superman.

Everybody talks about Christopher Reeve’s determination, his indomitable will. His unbending conviction that he would walk again. Not only would he walk again, but everybody afflicted with this sort of grievous injury would, by God, walk again. The word “inspiration” is being tossed about willy nilly these days, but that man inspired me in ways that the “S” shield never could. It was real, man. He was right there, telling me he would walk, telling me it could be fixed. He was a powerful force for what was good and right in the world.

I believed, man.

Well, now the man is dead. His dream, I should hope, shall live beyond his time here with us. He leaves behind his family, his friends and little children like me who believe.

You will believe a man can fly.

I believe a man can walk.

http://www.apacure.com/

You’ll All Pay #27
© 2004 Joe Conat

I’m having a daughter.

Emma Jayne Conat is expected around November 30th of this year. She will stop living solely off her mother and will instead live off both her mother and I.

She will be tiny. She will be fragile and innocent and unknowing.

I’m having a daughter and our economy is in the toilet and we’re losing troops every day in a country we shouldn’t be in and people who fly airplanes into buildings are still out there plotting to do something like that again, maybe even something worse.

I think you see where I’m going with this.

This is why there’s an edge of barely stifled urgent panic when I write or speak about the Bush administration. Dubya the Clown Prince is heading our country and he’s so busy trying to remember how to spell his middle initial and that he shouldn’t pick his nose in front of Matt Lauer while the little red light on the camera is glowing that he fails to look around and see that his assurances of economic prosperity and peace in our time are lies.

Lies.

I’m having a daughter and she will be born into a world of lies. Where the leader of the most powerful country in the world cannot be believed when he says “Good morning”. Where the commander in chief of the most powerful military force in the history of our species cannot strike the right target, cannot see that his foolishness is wasting…yes, wasting…lives instead of safeguarding them, cannot find a way to bring our troops home for the next 20 years.

When my daughter is twenty years old, we will still be occupying Iraq. When my daughter is twenty years old, she will be old enough to go to Iraq, to wear a uniform and body armor.

When my daughter is twenty years old she will be eligible to be splattered across the hot desert sand by a roadside bomb or a rocket propelled grenade. When my daughter is twenty years old she could be killed by a person born on the same day as my daughter, raised under our occupation. She could be killed by a person sharing the same birthday as her, somebody who hates her simply because she’s American and isn’t where she’s wanted.

I’m having a daughter. She will never know what it’s like to not be concerned about terrorism. She will go to nursery school and kindergarten and elementary school, junior high, high school, college…and she will always be aware that somewhere out there is a person…who could share the same birthday…who might be carrying a dirty bomb on the subway she takes. Who is learning to fly a plane. Who might have strapped several pounds of dynamite to their chest and is sitting beside her on the bus. She will never know that she is safe.

I’m having a daughter. She will never know that, if all goes wrong, the government cares about her and will help her if she gets sick. She will always be concerned about insurance and health care and HMOs and who will screw her over the least.

She will never have the assurance of financial security in her golden years.

And if we give Bush four more years, she will never know a time when her country wasn’t dealing with a huge budget deficit.

She will never know of a time when we could touch the stars. She will never know of a time when our goal was to unite humanity and achieve the unthinkable and breed heroes to walk the skies.

That’s what I’m looking at. This is the world my beautiful daughter is going to be born into.

But by all the gods, if I have anything to say about it…and I do…this is not the world she will marry in. This is not the world her children will be born into. This is not the world she will die in.

It is time…it is past time…for us to move along a different path. We cannot…can not…let the world slide into wrack and ruin, let the greatest country in the world veer dangerously off course into madness and the nonsense dreams of an idiot man-child.

We begin by getting Bush out of the White House. And we keep it up by never letting his ilk take the reins of power again.

We have a responsibility, you see. We have to be more aware, more careful. We have to know who we’re putting in charge…and they have to know we know.

We have to hold them accountable. Every decision they make should be met with intense scrutiny, with deep consideration…and, if we think it’s the wrong decision, extremely vocal opposition.

We hold them accountable by holding ourselves accountable. See?

We will never again know a world where this isn’t paramount. Where the people must be smarter and stronger and braver than they were. Where the people have to be less complacent, more aware and industrious. Where we safeguard our planet, our country, our people…and our children…with every fiber of everything that we are.

I’m having a daughter.

One day, for her birthday…I will give her the world.

I want it to be the best gift ever.

You’ll All Pay is written by Joe Conat. You can send him comments here.

Like what you read? Sign up for updates here.

You’ll All Pay #5

© Joe Conat 2002

Okay, so I got an account on LiveJournal. I have friends on there, so…you know, any chance to mouth off, so to speak.

And I have found that other peoples’ mouthing off is really annoying.

There’s one guy…a guy who in real life seems like an affable jerk, but so am I so who am I to say anything right?…and he writes the most annoying pseudo-”poetic” look-at-me-I’m-so-deep-and-cool pretentious self-involved crap that I have ever read. High school goths would go “Dude, get over yourself.” Yeah, that bad.

Which is fine. LiveJournal is a forum precisely for that sort of spew. I have, in the interests of community good feeling, refrained from spitting my bile on every single entry he’s made. ‘Cause, you know…that’s his version of “mouthing off”.

But then…

See, MouthMaster is also on LiveJournal. MouthMaster is a good writer; generally his entries are entertaining, well-thought-out and fun to read. Sometimes informative, too. But, like everyone in the world, he occasionally succumbs to the urge to navel-gaze and then release his conclusions discovered through such introspection out into the ‘net. Not a choice I would make anymore, but hey…the perils of posting while drunk.

So, blah blah blah. Huge introspective “why am I me?” piece. Waaaay long. I told MouthMaster straight out “Too long, didn’t read it.”

On LiveJournal you can reply to and comment on other peoples’ entries. This guy I mentioned…let’s call him the Singularity Anus, ‘cause he’s an asshole and sucks…posts an entire IM conversation that he and MouthMaster had about MouthMaster’s “my pain” piece. The upshot of which seemed to be “You’re trying too hard to be angsty.”

What?

This from a guy who e-mailed a suicide note to a huge list of friends? Apparently because he was feeling “blue” and was hoping that everyone would call and reply and make sure he’s okay? (As far as I know I’m the only one who bothered, and I don’t much like the guy.) This from a guy who’s every entry is a variation on the theme “Nobody understands me. Nobody feels my pain.”?

Well, fuck that, I decided.

I pulled a particularly angsty piece of crap from one of his recent entries, posted it as a reply to his reply and made a snide comment.

Well, okay. It wasn’t the most mature move in human history, I grant you. Still…

This precipitated a chorus of “you didn’t understand my post” culminating in, no shit, “My point was that, though it was angst, I didn’t like the style.” I’m paraphrasing, but that’s essentially it. And I’m all like “Excuse me?”

You didn’t like the style?

Let’s not bother about the content. Let’s not think that if MouthMaster felt it was worth the time to post his self-musings that maybe he wanted to talk about himself. That maybe he was feeling a little lost and alone and was reaching out. Nonononono. Let’s talk about the style.

In a way, it’s a compliment. “Sorry MouthMaster, you can’t write self-involved pretentious crap with any real angst.” “Hey, Singularity Anus, thanks.”

It finally ended with Singularity Anus calling me “elitest” [sic]. Well, yeah. If you count those who think self-indulgent pretension is crap and should be kept locked away in your private little girly journals with the ridiculous tiny lock and the kitty on the cover as elitists, yeah…sign me up. Fuckin’ A, Bubba!

This epic tale is really just getting me around to my point. I think the First Amendment to the Constitution is a grand and wonderful thing. Because of it I can freely post this here column on the Internet without fear of reprisal from the government. Not that the government gives a rat’s ass about Singularity Anus and his whining on LiveJournal. But man, I wish people would exercise a little discretion before they exercise their right to free speech.

I would like to go back in time. I would like to go find Thomas Jefferson and all the other authors of the Constitution and suggest a little amendment to the amendment. Something on the order of:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In regard to the freedom of speech; we, your forefathers and founders of a country we are assured will be “just swell” urge you to take a minute and think whether your fellow citizens really want to hear “no one gets my pain” for the umpteenth time. Seriously. Get a grip, descendants. No one cares. Love, Tom and the boys.

Just, you know, a little sumpthin’ sumpthin’…

And don’t come back to me with that “if you don’t like it, don’t read it” crap, either. The “consumer vote” idea only works if it’ll actually have a chance at changing anything. If I don’t read, you don’t know that I think what you’re writing is electronic and verbal feces on a stick. I have to tell you.

Singularity Anus, at one point during this exchange, went so far as to say “this is why I didn’t want to post my comments”. Like I’m supposed to feel guilty. “Oh, I’m sorry Singularity Anus…now I feel horrible that you find my response to your comments disagreeable. I wouldn’t want to hurt your feelings…” Cry me a friggin’ river, SA, really. “You made me feel bad and question whether I should post in the future.” Good! That’s what I was aiming for, you hypocritical colon stain! Yea me!

You posted on a public forum, buppy, and so a public viewing it shall get. And the public (in this case me) has the right and opportunity and the cojones to publicly step up to the soapbox and call you a worthless waste of skin if I so desire. At the very least, I’ll exercise my right to free speech back in your face and call your comments not worth the bandwidth it took to put ‘em up.

Why? Because, in your fervent desire to “express your inner you” you didn’t stop and think about what you were saying. You came across as an ass, SA, and therefore I feel it my place to tell you so.

And, yes, I came across as something of an ass, too. Tit for tat, I guess.

A plea to all you ‘net posters out there. Think a second. Does anyone care about your inner pain? No, not really. Does putting your inner pain on the ‘net invite rude and sarcastic comments from people like me? Yes, it so does. So…do you have the right to bitch that I sneered at your lameness? Bzzt. No. You do not.

You don’t want my comments? Don’t post. I take a risk every time I post anything anywhere on the ‘net that somebody I don’t like and don’t agree with will comment on it in a derogatory and hurtful way. I know this risk. I have learned about this risk the hard way, through years on BBS’s and other Internet forums. Because of this I have learned:

1.) Do Not Post Drunk. You are not, upon later review, as eloquent or even lucid as you thought you were. You will cover your eyes and bang your head on the desk and go “What. The. Fuck. Was. I. Thinking?”

2.) When you do post something really stupid, be prepared for somebody to jump on it and repeatedly tell you it’s stupid. Happens every time. Suck it up and stop yer whinin’.

3.) If it hurts to have people laugh at your inner pain, do what everybody else does and bottle it up. Release after a thirteen-hour binge drinking fest, cryin’ on the floor of the bathroom and apologizing for puking in the potted fern. Like everybody else. Sure, the embarrassment is the same, but you won’t have the evidence of your idiocy staring you in the face every time you log on.

In short…shut the fuck up. And if you’re not inclined to shut the fuck up, get ready to take it on the chin. ‘Cause nobody thinks you’re as cool as you think you are.

Your “self-expression” is, to me, nothing but mealy-mouthed puling from a frustrated philosopher/poet who doesn’t actually have the brains or talent for philosophy or poetry.

Your “pain” is the same pain as every adolescent (so there goes your “I grew out of MouthMaster’s style of angst when I was sixteen” argument, SA) goes through and most of them eventually realize that, dude, everybody feels your pain. They just call it their own pain and deal with it and get on with their lives. It’s called growing up, and it’s high time you did it.

But, please, go ahead and be free with your speech. It’s your right to do so. I encourage that.

Long Live America. She feels your pain.

Bitch.

“You’ll All Pay” is written by Joe Conat. You can tell him to shut up at conat@martyandgroovechicken.com. He won’t listen, but what the hell, right?