Need a Stronger Word Than F@ck!!!

It is called action. Ok, prepare yourself, I am about to go off on a tangent:
How images are formed from verbal interaction and then meaning is created, is a concept I have studied underneath studying everything else I had to in school.

One can see this importance of assigning meaning to words stretching as far back as Aristotle, when he “roughly” discovered what we now call the scientific method. He just applied it to everything, all facets of reality, in a work called “Categories,” where he glorified breaking things into their parts….the object of itself vs the object for itself.

This concept led western intellectual thinking for the next 2100 years, UNTIL, ROUGHLY, MODERN DAY, when writers like Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and Derrida, really examined what categorizing people/cultures/societies/ideas really does.  

Roughly, and broadly, there was an acceptance that by breaking things into their parts, it naturally/implicitly created an Other….created bias that was implicit, not knowingly recognized.

To break free of this fearful state and implicit bias that was found to even be attached to our words, philosophers like Wittgenstein, and even writers like Orwell, saw the importance of words. Think of certain words that naturally have a positive or a negative attached to them. Why is that?

It roughly comes down to that old saying, “Just because we can, should we?” Wittgenstein famously remarked, “That which cannot be spoken must be passed over in silence.” Now, he was not saying do not talk because everything is relative….he was commenting, like this meme refers, that words are so important that we should only use them when ACTION does not suffice.

Orwell comments that double speak actually dumbs down the populace by creating too much vagueness in communicating. And if modern times have demonstrated anything it is that anyone can argue any point, whether factual or opinion based, on any of the mediums of social media.

What I have noticed is that action cannot be misinterpreted. Just like the universal emotions we show on our face, action works much the same way……you cannot mistake coming up and smacking me as hard as you can in the face, it serves a very specific purpose, just like other actions, I argue, cannot be misinterpreted.  
I guess the point of this diatribe is that if you need a stronger word, show people whether they please you or not, and obviously with kindness and respect. Make it a game to see how you can impress yourself with your creativeness.
  Just a thought. Thoughts?


Critique of Social Media

Critique of social media policy


Adidas is one of the leaders in the market of sports apparel manufacturing industry, and is a world-famous brand with offices and employees situated all around the globe. Adidas takes a very encouraging but strict approach when it comes to their Social Media Guidelines. Here are some highlights from Adidas’ Social Media Policy:

  1. Employees are allowed to associate themselves with the company when posting but they must clearly brand their online posts as personal and purely their own. The company should not be held liable for any repercussions the employees’ content may generate.
  2. Content pertaining to sensitive company information (particularly those found within Adidas internal networks) should not be shared to the outside online community. Divulging information like the company’s design plans, internal operations and legal matters are prohibited.
  3. Proper copyright and reference laws should be observed by employees when posting online.

For a more in depth analysis, visit their website.


Multimedia Journalist Assignment

Joe Rogan
Joe Rogan

The multimedia journalist under review is not a known, or professional, journalist in any sense of the word. But that is the day we live in, the terms of words are now locked into a battlefield of gray area, vying for a place and position in all of our hearts and minds.

Joseph James “Joe” Rogan was born August 11, 1967, and is considered a multimedia journalist because of his efforts as an American podcaster, sports commentator, and stand up comedian. This triad demonstrates he is well versed in multimedia newscasting, even moreso than the citizen journalist.

Rogan is the host of his own podcast titled The Joe Rogan Experience, a weekly talk show where he converses with people from various backgrounds. Also a comedian, he began performing stand up comedy in 1989 and still performs regular tours to this day. Rogan has worked for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) since 1997, and is now a play by play commentator for the franchise. In addition, Rogan has had roles on the television sitcoms Hardball and NewsRadio and was the host of reality shows Fear Factor and Joe Rogan Questions Everything.


Stand-up comedy

Rogan began performing stand-up comedy in 1989 and has since recorded several comic albums and specials, including Shiny Happy Jihad, Joe Rogan: Talking Monkeys in Space, and Joe Rogan Live from the Tabernacle.


In 1994, Rogan co-starred on the Fox comedy Hardball as Frank Valente, the young, ego-centric star player on a fictional professional baseball team. From 1995 to 1999, he co-starred on the comedy NewsRadio. He portrayed Joe Garrelli, the electrician at WNYX, a news radio station in New York City. In 2002, he appeared on the episode “A Beautiful Mind” of Just Shoot Me as Chris, Maya Gallo’s boyfriend. In 2011, Rogan played his first major character in a movie in the Kevin James movie Zookeeper. He played himself in Here Comes the Boom, a MMA action-comedy starring Kevin James. Rogan strongly supports the legalized use of cannabis and believes it holds numerous benefits. He hosted the documentary film The Union: The Business Behind Getting High, and was featured in Marijuana: A Chronic History and The Culture High. He also supports the use of LSD, psilocybin mushrooms and DMT toward the exploration and enhancement of consciousness, as well as introspection. He was the presenter in the 2010 documentary DMT: The Spirit Molecule.


He has won the Wrestling Observer Newsletter award for Best Television Announcer on two occasions. He was also named “MMA Personality of the Year” four times by the World MMA Awards.

Joe Rogan
Joe Rogan


Rogan worked on the TV series Fear Factor, as a host of the United States version of the show, from June 11, 2001 through September 12, 2006. In 2003, Rogan and Doug Stanhope replaced Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla as co-hosts of The Man Show. His last hosting job was in 2013, titled Joe Rogan Questions Everything and aired six episodes.


In December 2009, Rogan began hosting a podcast with live Ustream and YouTube availability. The podcast features an array of guests who discuss current events, political views, philosophy, comedy, hobbies and numerous other topics. Now titled The Joe Rogan Experience, there are over 11 million listeners.

Filmography: Comedy recordings:

I’m Gonna Be Dead Someday (CD) (August 22, 2000)

Live from the Belly of the Beast (DVD) (May 4–5, 2001)

Joe Rogan: Live (DVD) (September 1, 2006)

Shiny Happy Jihad (CD) (April 10, 2007)

Talking Monkeys in Space (CD & DVD) (2010) Comedy Central Records

Live from the Tabernacle (Digital Download) (December 18, 2012)

Rocky Mountain High (Comedy Central Direct) (2014)

Without Media Assignment

Time spent without media was not that troublesome. During this duration of no media for twelve hours, a trip to Ohio on Saturday, April 31st, 2016, to move one of my buddies was conducted. It was relatively easy to put away all media, since I was driving and the only media that I could focus in on was the radio, which was not turned on; or my buddy, whose brain I picked insistently.

Conversations were conducted that ranged from human pre-cognition, space as information, the dragon-origin mythos, the militarization of the police force, language as a symbol for Reality, and of course media itself in the forms of movies, books, a monuments transition to propaganda, and Hallucinogenic experiences. While this was commencing the thought occurred whether this assignment could be accomplished with another person around, since they could be considered media as well. This experience was not difficult and did continue for twelve hours before we ran out of things to talk about and put the music back on, proud and smug in our accomplishments.

This process also revealed that nothing was missed the most or the least, but just focusing on the moment was the equivalent of finding immense joy through the camaraderie that was being formed. Based on this experience it is apparent that media plays multiple roles in someone’s life: the first being a discussion topic, followed by a filler topic to continue the discussion or make a point, third is even using what you see or hear in media to enact a real situation in life because you already know the outcome and is therefore familiar and perhaps comical/dramatic/etc., and finally media played the basic role of entertaining when nothing could be discussed and Reality did not want to be fully involved.

Data Visualization Assignment

President George W. Bush' speech after 9/11 terrorist attacks
President George W. Bush’ speech after 9/11 terrorist attacks


Tuesday, September 11th, 2001

The worst terrorist attack in United States history occurred as four large passenger jets were hijacked then crashed, killing nearly 3,000 persons. The attack was carried out by four separate teams of terrorists from the Middle East, all operating from inside the U.S. Each team had boarded an early-morning flight, posing as passengers, then forcibly commandeered the aircraft.

Two fully-fueled jumbo jets, American Airlines Flight 11 carrying 92 persons and United Airlines Flight 175 carrying 65 persons, had departed Boston for Los Angeles. Both jets were diverted by the hijackers to New York City where they were piloted by the terrorists themselves into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center. The impact and subsequent fire caused both 110-story towers to collapse, killing 2,752 persons, including hundreds of fire-rescue workers and persons employed in the towers.

United Airlines Flight 93, which had departed from Newark for San Francisco, and American Airlines Flight 77, which had departed from Dulles (Virginia) for Los Angeles, were also hijacked. Flight 77, with 64 persons on board, was diverted to Washington, D.C., then piloted by the terrorists into the Pentagon building, killing everyone on board and 125 military personnel inside the building. Flight 93, with 44 persons on board, was also diverted toward Washington but crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to overpower the terrorists on board.

On Thursday, September 20th, President George W. Bush gave a  much-anticipated speech before a Joint Session of Congress, outlining America’s reaction to the attack.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma


This is story about Al and Bob and their reasons to confess or not to confess on a crime they may or may not have committed.  For whatever reasons, Al and Bob were brought in on charges, and taken to different cells/interrogation rooms; while being questioned and treated roughly the same.

With Al in one room, and Bob being in another, the police tell them they have evidence of crime X being committed by them, and that the other is already squealing and giving out the other.

This would be an intense situation for anyone, since the police are allowed to legally lie to you to get a confession, and even mores, they are telling you your friend/lover/whoever-is-close is siding with the police for said crime.  This is where the dilemma lies, Confitemini Domino et non est differentia in, “Confess or not, the difference is within.”

If you analyze the picture and the data on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, neither Al or Bob know what the other is doing because the police have them separated, interrogating them in separate rooms multiple times with multiple people al with different control questions.  All of which is created, rehearsed, and performed by the detectives to find “the holes” in your story.

Taking this mental, if not in some cases physical, torture into account, the next question that is raised is: What would a rational “thing” do under ignorance, for the “me” and the “we”.  If you analyze the picture, the argument claims that Al and Bob, by each confessing against the other, each get only 5 years, and that is the most rational thing for the “me”.

The trick for the authorities is the unknown factor of what the other associate has told the detective, and the fear of serving 20 years and the other associate being set free and clear of all charges.

This means that the most rational answer or the “We” is that neither confess, and at maximum you get an undisclosed set of time in jail; which is used to persuade people to give up their information, for example: journalists.  So, in other words, by NOT COOPERATING with the authorities and spending a short, undisclosed amount of time in the system is ultimately the best option to take if you are the accused.  The accused would be giving up something, the X, some time for example, but it is not only more beneficial, but more rational, to the group to cooperate (~C) than compete (C).

Now, there is AN IMPORTANT concept that needs to be discussed within the Prisoner’s Dilemma, in relation to confessing.  The story/picture says Al or Bob will get 20 years, while the other gets nothing, but where you have to notice is that this 20 years is really an interpretation for the breaking point of a human being.  The large number, the poor conditions, the FEAR, is meant to entice a confession.  How far will someone go to get information, history has demonstrated there to be no limit; that cannot be said about the human body, psyche, or spirit.  The problem with this extreme is that extreme individuals will go to extreme lengths to alive their goals, using the most heinous methods to extract information.

This is a brief summary of the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and some things to be wary of when analyzing this material: go here for an in-depth analysis, or here or for broad analysis.

I hope a major point that is taken away from this post is that, whether we are talking about  the environment, animals, psychology, economics, social dilemmas, or even the arms race and military escalation, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is about showing people what can be accomplished through cooperation rather than competition.  In other words, the Prisoner’s Dilemma is a sound argument that it can be RATIONAL to COOPERATE, contrary to capitalism, which claims competition is favored.

Now, this also makes me wonder about the difference of authority when analyzed from a competition versus a cooperation platform?

In A Cave Down By The River: Kantian vs. Utilitarian Ethics

There is a story about ten individuals who decide to go cave exploring at a local island.  This cave happened to also be by a water source, and at low tide the cave would be exposed and people could venture into the cave to explore; as long as they are out by high tide they will not get trapped.  On exiting, the first person gets stuck, and the other nine have to make a choice to either use the C-4 explosive they have handy, or die by the inundating water source. Meanwhile, the first persons head is just high enough that they would survive high tide.

The people will base their decisions on either Utilitarian or Kantian ethics.

My first approach to this dilemma is that of the Utilitarian.  Ones needs to understand the thought process before a decision can be made.  Utilitarianism was first brought forth by Jeremy Bentham and is a theory of right conduct that combines three elements:

First, Utilitarianism has a consequentialist structure in that the rightness of an action depends upon the net value of the consequences associated with the action.  Second, What has intrinsic positive value is happiness and what has negative intrinsic value is unhappiness.  Finally, the view is imperialist in that it is the resulting level of happiness and unhappiness for everyone affected that determines the rightness or wrongness of an action.

In other words, Utilitarianism equals by definition an idea that the rightness or wrongness is determined by some feature of consequences of that action, and an action is right if and only if the utility associated with that action is at least as high as the utility associated with any other alternative action open to the agent in the situation. With the situation at hand we must now take into account the interest of the community, but “it is vain to talk of the interest of community, without understanding what the interest of the individual is” (Timmons, p.89).  Timmons also states, “A thing is said to promote the interest, or to be for the interest, of an individual, when it tends to add to the sum total of their pleasures; or, what comes to the same thing , to diminish the sum total of their pains” (p89).  The interest of community, then, “is a fictitious body, composed of the individual persons who are considered as constituting as it were its members” (Timmons, p89).

After understanding the Utilitarian approach, next is the decision, and to do this in a Utilitarian method you need to calculate the Hedonistic Calculus.  This consists of intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity/remoteness, fecundity, purity, extent, and type.  To do this one needs to add up all the herons of pleasure of the consequences of actions, then add up all the dolors of pain of the consequences of the action, and then subtract the dolors from the herons to equal the total utility.  The highest utility would be the correct choice.

Hedonistic Calculus

If a party was stranded in a cave they would need to add up their pleasures, then the pains, and subtract the pains from the pleasures.  This will be the correct utilitarian choice. In this cave situation, the more people that would survive the endeavor would be the correct Utilitarian response, whether stuck in the passage or in the cave.  Meaning, the correct Utilitarian decision would be to shove the C-4 into the proper place to cause the person the  least amount of pain upon detonation so as to save the greater number of people (causing the most happiness) while inflicting the least amount of pain.

The next approach is hat of the Kantian way of thinking which was developed by Immanuel Kant.  Kant has reasons for the failure of Utilitarianism, stating that Utilitarianism has no rules and is too broad a way of thinking.  In other words, an act is right if and only if the maxim of the act can be consistently willed to be a universal law of nature.  Through a maxim, it shows that the moral worth of an action is judged.  Kant’s ethics revolve around duty rather than emotional or end goals; however quantifiable.  Kant states, “That while I can will the lie, I can by no means will that lying should be a universal law,” explaining that his “maxim, as soon as it should be made a universal law, would necessarily destroy itself” (Timmons, p117).

In Kantianism, “The conception of an objective principle, in so far as it is obligatory for a will, is called a command of reason, and the formula of the command is called an Imperative.  Imperatives are only formula used to express the relationship of objective laws of all volition to the subjective imperfection of the will of this or that rational being, the human will” (Timmons, p118).

Imperatives are either categorical or hypothetical.  A hypothetical imperative represents the practical necessity of a possible action as means to something else that is willed.  Kant states, “The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, as objectively necessary” (Timmons, p118).  In other words, hypothetical imperatives have “if” clauses, i.e., if I do not want to burn my house down, don’t smoke in bed.  The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action necessary of itself without reference to another end, as objectively necessary, i.e., do not murder.  Categorical imperatives do not have an “if” clause.

With Kantianism understood, one can now make a judgment of the correct cave situation.  With this understanding to duty rather than emotional or end goal, again it is apparent that the lives of nine hold sway over the life of the one.  So it would be the duty of everyone in the cave to survive while it would be the duty of the one stuck to die so others could live, again sticking the C-4 were the person would feel the least amount of pain.

The next question you would have to ask yourself is what would I do, and why?  Would you look at the situation according to the categorical numbers, or duty, or emotion, or a plethora of other ways when you find yourself in a situation like that?

By getting an appreciation of Utilitarianism and Kantianism, one can have a better understanding  of how people make choices and determines accuracy in a right or wrong situation.  Eleanor Roosevelt may have said one of the greatest sayings to deal with ethics, “Do what you feel in your heart to be right–for you will be criticized anyway.  You’ll be damned if you do and you’ll be damned if you don’t.”

Imperialism and Expansion

It is difficult to not be a little pro-imperialist if you are an American.  We have already used drastic measures to acquire the lands we now possess so why should it be any different if we choose to claim foreign lands that we won by victory of war?  Lands that now have access to the markets of the world.  Who are some in U.S. history that have been in favor of Imperialism and what were their arguments?

A voice in  the time period that urged American expansion was President McKinley (1843-1901) who stated on many occasions that, “I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance mare than one night.”  Then the truth was spoken to him, “That there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the filipinos and uplift and civilize and Christianize them by God’s grace do the very best we could do by them, as our fellow men, for whom Christ also died” (Beisner, p.199).  McKinley’s outlook on the Filipinos was basic, as stated to a group of Methodist Church visitors, “We could not turn them over to France or Germany–our commercial rivals in the orient, that would be bad for business and discreditable” (LeFeber, P. 201).  And that is how you have to think if you want to be in league with other world powers; a kind-of sociopathic mentality.

An 1899 U.S. Senator, Albert Beveridge spoke strongly that, “The Philippines are ours forever, territory belonging to the United States, and just beyond are China’s illimitable markets” (RTAP, p218).  Beveridge furthered, “The Filipinos are a barbarous race modified by three centuries of contact with a decadent race” (RTAP, p219).  Economics are at the forefront of Imperialism, as stated by Beveridge, “The mineral wealth of this empire of the ocean will one day surprise the world, and the wood, hemp, copra, and other products of the Philippines supply what we need and cannot ourselves produce” (RTAP, p219).

President Theodore Roosevelt, the man among men, believed first and foremost that it was important to uphold the country’s honor in the community of nations.  T. Roosevelt stated, “All the great masterful nations have been fighting nations” (American History, p659).  November 6, 1903, the United States recognized Panama and set up a renewable lease on a canal zone, putting into movement the construction of the Panama Canal.  This cunning use of tactics to acquire land in Panama is imperialism in a very true form, even to the point that T. Roosevelt sent in covert ops to secure a sympathetic government that would cooperate with American way of thinking.  T. Roosevelt also initiated the Open Door Policy in Asia and started into motion many future messes in the Philippines, but made a lot of profit in doing so.

General Arthur MacArthur stated, “Our occupation of the island was simply one of necessary consequences in logical sequence of our great prosperity, and to doubt the wisdom of occupation was simply to doubt the stability of our own institutions and in effect to declare that a self-governing nation was incapable of successfully resisting strains arising naturally from its own productive energy” (American History, p.656).  It was supposedly the Filipinos fault that they didn’t willingly choose to be civilized, and the U.S.’s justification for conquering their lands.

Alfred T. Mahan, an influential Naval commander around the turn of the 20th century, brought forth the notion that all great empires have a great Navy.  Navies required things to be an effective force: coaling stations far from home for example.  Mahan also claimed that this military strengthening accompanied the proposition of connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to compete with Europe for East Asia markets.

So, in building the Navy and treating the Pacific like a highway rather than a burden, America would become a military power first, economic power second.  China’s markets and the Philippines natural resources were too much for greedy men.  Not only were the Philippines ripe for conquest, but so was the Hawaiian Islands, many other smaller Pacific Islands, Alaska, and the Caribbean; all were strategic points for controlling the world markets and roads to new markets in China.

A final reason, but in no way exhaustive, for America expanding is Manifest Destiny.  A way of thinking that says it is God’s mandate that we take over the world and educate and uplift all others to our level of thinking.  Manifest Destiny, two words that have been the reason for where we are today, yet no longer hold any value.  Upon completing the previous goal of submitting the North American continent, the same method was then applied to the world.

Why not use the same way of thinking, of conquering, that worked for our fore-fathers.

Senator Beveridge is a prime example of pushing Manifest Destiny, stating that, “It is noble land that God has given us,” about the Philippines. (RTAP, p208-209).  Beveridge also ties in patriotic duty to this concept, so if you do not believe it is God’s will, then you must see this action as a patriotic duty that America expands.

This is all crazy talk!!! Who determines what is right or wrong is a huge responsibility, especially when the fates of millions of people hang in the balance.  Should we have just went in and destroyed any opposition against the U.S. where it is encountered, thankfully that is a debate for those above my pay-grade, but at least now i can make the claim that it is ludicrous.

Our civilization may have started because we went in and took other peoples land and resources, so it shouldn’t be surprising that when we wanted more we just went in and took it.  It should also be surprising that those who were going against imperialism were just talkers, and little to no doing was involved.

At the time the conclusion was simple, America needed to expand beyond its borders if it was going to compete and survive with any of the other world powers.

World Power is a term that incorporates certain truths, one is that trade is involved, two is that there are more likely many conflicts.

Isn’t it exasperating , though, that America stopped expanding that way that it used too?  Also, do you see America caring about the world’s POV more than its own?

Whatever the outcome, debate, or argument, events cannot go about any other way because they are a part of history, it just really makes one think about the way the world would be if America stopped imperial expansion.  Had America continued, yes millions would have lost their lives, but would there have been a greater good in the outcome?  The world lives in fear today that at any moment someone could carry a nuclear weapon in a brief case, or shoot up a communal gathering place.

There was a time for this expansion, when America was the sole owner of atomic weapons,  but that window has closed.  We now live in a world of imminent, mutually-assured destruction.  Is it still a time of expansion?


How did Americans Respond to the Great Depression

Simply, there is no easy answer.  Every American experienced pleasure or pain during those troubled years, and formed bonds with their loved ones or destroyed them unlike anything comparable before in America save modern day.

“There is no longer I, There is We, the day of the individual is over,” Dorthy Parker said.

That quote is the easiest way to describe the response Americans responded to the Great DEpression.  Of course modern day can look at those events and say, well why didn’t you do this or that, but hindsight is 20/20.  To have lived during the turmoil would give those who nay-say a ,different perspective of the world.  “What is going to become of us?  You can’t sleep, you know, You wake up at 2 a.m. and you lie and think” (America’s History, p737).  The depression only one-sided, affecting onyl one culture in America, Whites and Blacks , and everything in between, felt the crisis.  Some prospered but most suffered.

With life nearly impossible in the “Dust Bowl,” as well, many people fled the country and headed into the cities, where poor housing and disease ran unchecked.  Also, with the Riot of 1935 in Harlem, NY, desperate events finally led to extreme measures.  For example, something as simple as a boy stealing a penknife, and then arrested and set free, escalated with rumors that the cops killed the boy.  Riots ensued shortly after, resulting in 125 arrests, 100 injured, and three dead.  This is to show how stressed and harrassed people were that they would set fire to their own homes, but this is also a common act by those living in poor communities as well.

Another response to the depression was President Roosevelt launching his New Desal program his first term.  Roosevelt, who relied heavily on his “Brain Trust” of professors from Columbia and Harvard, promised “Act Now”, and in his first months he participated in a legislative session known as the “Hundred Days,” where Congress enacted fifteen bills enacting multiple social reforms.  Also, after his inauguration FDR declared a national “bank holiday,” and then called Congress to pass the Energency Banking Act.  This permitted banks to re-open if the Treasury Department inspection showed they had sufficient funds. (America’s History, p739)

There are many different outlooks to pursue: economic, social, labor, gender, race, culture, religion, penal, philosophical, environmental.  These are just some of the responses of the Great Depression, do you have your own story, personal or familial?