Time Began in a Garden

"In order to attain an adequate conceptual grasp of the unitary nature of physical reality, it is necessary to achieve a complete theoretical suspension of the image of the world derived from perceptual intuition. In other words, physical theory has to effect a rigorously mathematical circumvention of those imaginative limitations inherent in the physiologically rooted cognitive apparatus with which an aleatory evolutionary history has saddled us. Thus, the chief obstacle standing in the way of a proper scientific understanding of the physical world would seem to be that of our species’ inbuilt tendency to process information via epistemic mechanisms which invariably involve an operation of subtraction from the imperceptible physical whole. Phenomenology remains a function of physiology. Perhaps not least among the many startling philosophical consequences of superstring theory is the way in which it seems to provide a rigorously physicalist vindication of Plato: phenomenological perception would seem to be akin to that of the prisoner in the cave who mistakes flickering shadows for ‘the things themselves’." - Ray Brassier, Alien Theory

Is Anyone Up?

 "A determinist standpoint - or any more up to date conception of causality which, while acknowledging the inadequacy of the old determinism, does not deny causality itself nor confer on human thought and will the divine power of being 'uncaused causes' - necessarily involves an uncompromising rejection of so-called free will and of any ethics that is contaminated by voluntarism or moralism: non ridere, non lugere neque detestari, sed intellegere! ('neither ridicule, nor grief, nor hatred, but understanding!') The study of neurosis, in particular, ought powerfully to aid us to understand that it is not possible to apply the notion of 'guilt' in the traditional moral sense to neurotic behaviour, even in its most anti-social forms. This does not mean that we abandon the struggle against all agents of oppression or tenants of privilege of whatever kind, starting with the capitalist class and its watchdogs; or that we can abstain from anger or passionate hostility towards them. But such anger is only the emotional reaction to the extraordinary improbability, if not impossibility, of persuading them to retire voluntarily from the defence of an iniquitous social order, and to the painful necessity, once an attempt of that kind has failed, of countering reactionary violence with revolutionary violence. It is also a reaction to the difficulty of initiating any revolutionary action - whether because of the strength of the dominant class or the acquiescence of the oppressed class (an important element in which is the more or less compelling temptation that each of us experiences to comply with the status quo). Anger of this kind does not involve any mythological belief that there is a range of 'free choice' for the oppressor, who might have elected to play the role of altruist and benefactor but opted instead, who knows why, for that of overlord." - Sebastiano Timpanaro, The Freudian Slip

Righteous

Dan Savage on public homophobes' (specifically in this case, Rick and Elizabeth Santorum) claims that they have gay friends and their perceived victim status:

Opposed to same-sex marriage herself, Elizabeth said she has gay friends who support her father's candidacy based on his economic and family platforms. But her father's doctrinaire opposition to change on these fronts has made her the occasional target at school and on the trail—"never aggressively," she said, though "obviously, there are certain people that aren't [respectful]."

Yeah, Elizabeth, it's tough out there for a 'phobe. You know what else is tough? Losing your home after the death of your spouse because your marriage isn't recognized by the federal government. Seeing your husband deported because your marriage isn't recognized by the federal government.

What really interests me about the HuffPo interview, however, is Elizabeth's claim to have gay friends. Elizabeth Santorum—follow her on Twitter@esantorum2012—has gay friends. Just like her father. And Rick Warren andJoel Osteen and Donny Osmond and Sarah Palin. All the high-profile homophobes seem to have gay friends. Or at least they claim to have gay friends. No one has ever met—and no reporter has ever asked to verify the existence of—one of Rick Santorum or Elizabeth Santorum or Rick Warren or Joel Osteen's gay friends.

Um... political reporters? Stop accepting homophobes' claims of gay friendship at face value. Elizabeth Santorum says she has gay friends who support her dad based on his family platform? That is an astonishing assertion. Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his having compared sex between consenting adults of the same sex to child rape and dog fucking? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his having asserted that gay relationships are a threat to "homeland security"? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his opposition not just to gay marriage, but to any legal recognition of same-sex relationships at all (no civil unions, no domestic partnerships)? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his promise to write anti-gay bigotry into the US Constitution, forcibly divorce every same-sex couple that has gotten legally married in the US over the last decade, and reinstate DADT? Who are these gay people who support Rick Santorum for president despite his opposition to adoptions by same-sex couples?

Who are these faggots?

Political reporters? When Elizabeth Santorum says, "I have gay friends and they support my dad because they agree with him about family issues," i.e. her dad's opposition to gay people having a families of their own, your immediate response should be a request for the names and phone numbers of some of these gay friends. Because that claim requires checking out before you put it in print or pixels. Reassure Elizabeth you'll quote her friends anonymously to protect them from potty-mouthed gay bloggers, they can talk to you on background or whatever, but tell her that you're going to need to verify the existence of these gay friends. Because you're a journalist, not a stenographer. You'll either catch Elizabeth Santorum in a revealing lie—what does it tell us about this moment in the struggle for LGBT equality that even homophobes like Elizabeth and her dadperceive a political risk in being perceived as homophobic?—or you'll land a fascinating interview.

And then there's this:

She is aware of her father's so-called "Google problem," part of a campaign by columnist Dan Savage to redefine the candidate's last name after he compared same-sex relationships to bigamy, polygamy and incest. "Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father's name," Rick Santorum wrote in a letter to supporters earlier this year. "That just makes me sad. It's disappointing that people can be that mean," she said,

I'm sorry I gave Elizabeth Santorum a sad. You know what gives me a sad? This does:

Ed Watson wasn't a "policy thing." He was a human being. And he died in December, still waiting for the Prop 8 decision to come down, still denied the right to legally marry the love of his life.

And you know what, Elizabeth? Making a dirty joke at the expense of a politically powerful elected official with designs on the White House—a man who has pledged to do everything in his power to make sure that gay people continue to lose their homes, see their spouses deported, and watch their partners die while waiting for their full civil equality to be recognized—is whole lot less mean than attacking a minority group and pledging to strip members of that minority group of the few rights they have secured.

Well, This Is A Thing

United States of America: Officially a Third World Country

Well, New York City, anyway:

"Independent Budget Office report on New York city income disparity.

1. The poorest tenth (decile) of the city’s population has an average income of $988, and claim 0.1% of the city’s total income.
2. The richest 10% of New Yorkers have 58% of total income, and the richest 5%, 49%.
3. The average income of the poorest 30% is $6,373, on a par with Egypt and about $1,200 below China’s.
4. The city’s median income—the level at which half the population is richer and half is poorer—is $28,213. That’s roughly the level of Greece.
5. The average income of the top 10% (a category that begins at $105,368) is $387,259.
6. The average income of the top 1% (a category that begins at $493,439) is $2,247,515.

How does the city’s income distribution compare with that of Brazil, a country with a worldwide reputation for stunning inequality?

• The income of the top 20% of New Yorkers is 64 times that of the bottom 20%. In Brazil, that ratio is 17 times.
• The income of the top 10% of New Yorkers is 582 times that of the poorest 10%. In Brazil, that ratio is 35 times."

occupyduniya.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/new-york/

i punched my fist into my face