Waiting to Collide

I had been lost for upwards of 40 minutes, unable to find a spot to turn around after missing the turn for the Sally Beauty Supply.  As I was trapped at a seven minute traffic light (behind the lemmingest people, and in front of the honkiest people) this afternoon it occurred to me that I fucking hate Boston.

I hate the people.  They’re all sonsofbitches with worse temperaments than me.  The percentage of the population made up of Dudes and Princesses is disproportionately high for the quality of the local colleges.  I hate the gridlock.  I hate the lack of greenspace.  I hate the dog unfriendliness.  And the pretention.  I hate that I seem to only attract professors.  I hate how expensive food is.  I hate the taxes.  I hate the humidity.

…Socialism, Rushkoff!

The most dangerous Socialist is the man who can describe the roots of Individualism, and then meanders away from arguing against the validity of Individualism as an ethical and political platform. The casual listener accepts the transition and gets swept up in the flashy oration. (I’m inferring that his argument would be “We are more powerful as a whole.” The value of power exists at the individual level. What is good for me/my troop/my tribe/my offspring? Power is simply the ability to realize that goal.)

My primary beef with modern Democrats is their reluctance to call Socialism “Socialism.” It is dressed up as the New Deal/National Healthcare/Welfare for the simple sake of slipping past bad connotation. No blue-blooded American would vote for Russian/Chinese/Cuban politics — but realistically, the only way to realize a Socialist ideal is through Communism. Big government.* Raising taxes. Using those taxes to pay for public services that don’t benefit you, but perhaps your neighbor, or your neighbor’s neighbor, or John and Jane Doe.

Don’t get sucked in. Listen to the words. Consider the ultimate goals of the party you are voting for, and the ultimate outcome of those goals. You have that computer in front of you BECAUSE our society values the individual. You have that car, that house, those jeans, because you worked to earn the currency to purchase them. Your effort, your ingenuity, is what is valuable.

It is impossible to value the individual and subscribe to this rhetoric. Pay attention.

*I am not a supporter of Bush; I am a dutiful Libertarian who throws her vote away on ideals.

I watched a mouse rape another mouse today.

Now, some alarms should be going off. Mice can’t rape each other!

It sure looked like rape, with all the biting, running, pinning, and horrible mousy squeaks. I would not say that she was in the mood. He got what he wanted. Barring that she may be into the rough stuff (what does a mouse use for a safety word?), there was one mouse that forced another mouse to fuck.

But mice can’t RAPE each other!!!!

We don’t hold animals accountable for their actions. They don’t comprehend what they are doing to another animal, human, or stuffed toy. They are not held accountable for what they do to us. If a mountain lion ate me, *I* would be at fault for making myself available for consumption. I would argue that this is the primary reason that animals ought not be considered ethical agents — their actions are ethically neutral. (People, on the other hand, have the power to behave outside of this animalistic realm, and are, therefore, responsible for their actions.)

However, in the entertainment industry, there is a fierce movement to ascribe human qualities to animals (anthropomorphization). Take Disney, for example. Everything from Bambi to 101 Dalmatians, and from The Lion King to Brother Bear. The reason for this is simple: Hamlet is Shakespeare, The Lion King is a dumbed-down, kiddie version of Shakespeare — put a sentient animal in it, and its suddenly a kids movie (and profitable). As not yet fully rational creatures, children inherently identify with animals. The complex behavior and language belongs to the adult world, as does the concept of responsibility.

Nothing new here. But if we go on to examine the impact of anthropomorphization on children (and adults who never outgrow the fantasy), we can observe the detrimental effects.

I would ague that we selectively anthropomorphize animals in the sense that we offer them all of the benefits of ethical systems, but require none of the responsibilities. In the case where a mouse rapes another mouse, if we replaced the mice with humans, the Wrong becomes immediately apparent, but because animals are involved, there is no culpability. An animal cannot subscribe to, or even acknowledge, morals or laws, and cannot be expected to behave ethically. All while we strive to treat animals ethically (minimize pain, prolong life, or non-interference in cases of wildlife).

Benefits without requirements. Animals cannot behave as humans, and cannot make ethical choices, and we still offer them the perks.