Rick Roderick on the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche

Having gotten halfway through the collection The Portable Nietzsche, I look forward to picking it back up in weeks or months to come. Just haven’t felt up to reading as much over the past year.

In the interim, I’ve stumbled across this lecture series (circa 1991) from professor Rick Roderick of Duke University on the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche:

On Nietzsche as Myth & Myth-maker:

On Truth & Lie:

On Nietzsche as Master of Suspicion & Immoralist:

On the Death of God:

On Nietzsche and the Eternal Recurrence:

On Nietzsche and the Will to Power:

On Nietzsche as Artist:

On Nietzsche’s Progeny:

First excerpt from the book “The Power of Myth”

Tonight let’s transcribe an excerpt from the book The Power of Myth (1988) by Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, beginning on the bottom of page 7 of their interview:

MOYERS: You’re saying that marriage is not just a social arrangement, it’s a spiritual exercise.

CAMPBELL: It’s primarily a spiritual exercise, and the society is supposed to help us have the realization. Man should not be in the service of society, society should be in the service of man. When man is in the service of society, you have a monster state, and that’s what is threatening the world at this minute.

MOYERS: What happens when a society no longer embraces a powerful mythology?

CAMPBELL: What we’ve got on our hands. If you want to find out what it means to have a society without any rituals, read the New York Times.

MOYERS: And you’d find?

CAMPBELL: The news of the day, including destructive and violent acts by young people who don’t know how to behave in a civilized society.

MOYERS: Society has provided them no rituals by which they become members of the tribe, of the community. All children need to be twice born, to learn to function rationally in the present world, leaving childhood behind. I think of that passage in the first book of Corinthians: “When I was a child, I spake as a child. I understood as a child. I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

CAMPBELL: That’s exactly it. That’s the significance of the puberty rites. In primal societies, there are teeth knocked out, there are scarifications, there are circumcisions, there are all kinds of things done. So you don’t have your little baby body anymore, you’re something else entirely.

When I was a kid, we wore short trousers, you know, knee pants. And then there was a great moment when you put on long pants. Boys now don’t get that. I see even five-year-olds walking around with long trousers. When are they going to know that they’re now men and must put aside childish things?

MOYERS: Where do the kids growing up in the city—on 125th and Broadway, for example—where do these kids get their myths today?

CAMPBELL: They make them up themselves. This is why we have graffiti all over the city. These kids have their own gangs and their own initiations and their own morality, and they’re doing the best they can. But they’re dangerous because their own laws are not those of the city. They have not been initiated into our society.

MOYERS: Rollo May says that there is so much violence in American society today because there are no more great myths to help young men and women relate to the world or to understand that world beyond what is seen.

CAMPBELL: Yes, but another reason for the high level of violence here is that America has no ethos.

MOYERS: Explain.

CAMPBELL: In American football, for example, the rules are very strict and complex. If you were to go to England, however, you would find that the rugby rules are not that strict. When I was a student back in the twenties, there were a couple of young men who constituted a marvelous forward-passing pair. They went to Oxford on scholarship and joined the rugby team and one day they introduced the forward pass. And the English players said, “Well, we have no rules for this, so please don’t. We don’t play that way.”

Now, in a culture that has been homogenous for some time, there are a number of understood, unwritten rules by which people live. There is an ethos there, there is a mode, an understanding that “we don’t do it that way.”

MOYERS: A mythology.

CAMPBELL: An unstated mythology, you might say. This is the way we use a fork and knife, this is the way we deal with people, and so forth. It’s not all written down in books. But in America we have people from all kinds of backgrounds, all in a cluster, together, and consequently law has become very important in this country. Lawyers and law are what hold us together. There is no ethos. Do you see what I mean?

MOYERS: Yes. It’s what De Tocqueville described when he first arrived here a hundred and sixty years ago to discover “a tumult of anarchy.”

CAMPBELL: What we have today is a demythologized world. And, as a result, the students I meet are very much interested in mythology because myths bring them messages. Now, I can’t tell you what the messages are that the study of mythology is bringing to young people today. I know what it did for me. But it is doing something for them. When I go to lecture at any college, the room is bursting with students who have come to hear what I have to say. The faculty very often assigns me to a room that’s a little small—smaller than it should have been because they didn’t know how much excitement there was going to be in the student body.

MOYERS: Take a guess. What do you think the mythology, the stories they’re going to hear from you, do for them?

CAMPBELL: They’re stories about the wisdom of life, they really are. What we’re learning in our schools is not the wisdom of life. We’re learning technologies, we’re getting information. There’s a curious reluctance on the part of faculties to indicate the life values of their subjects. In our sciences today—and this includes anthropology, linguistics, the study of religions, and so forth—there is a tendency to specialization. And when you know how much a specialist scholar has to know in order to be a competent specialist, you can understand this tendency. To study Buddhism, for instance, you have to be able to handle not only all the European languages in which the discussions of the Oriental come, particularly French, German, English, and Italian, but also Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese, Tibetan, and several other languages. Now, this is a tremendous task. Such a specialist can’t also be wondering about the difference between the Iroquois and Algonquin.

Specialization tends to limit the field of the problems that the specialist is concerned with. Now, the person who isn’t a specialist, but a generalist like myself, sees something over here that he has learned from one specialist, something over there that he has learned from another specialist—and neither of them has considered the problem of why this occurs here and also there. So the generalist—and that’s a derogatory term, by the way, for academics—gets into a range of other problems that are more genuinely human, you might say, than specifically cultural.

MOYERS: Then along comes the journalist who has a license to explain things he doesn’t understand.

CAMPBELL: That is not only a license but something that is put upon him—he has an obligation to educate himself in public. Now, I remember when I was a young man going to hear Heinrich Zimmer lecture. He was the first man I know of to speak about myths as though they had messages that were valid for life, not just interesting things for scholars to fool around with. And that confirmed me in a feeling I had had ever since boyhood.

MOYERS: Do you remember the first time you discovered a myth? The first time a story came alive in you?

CAMPBELL: I was brought up as a Roman Catholic. Now, one of the great advantages of being brought up a Roman Catholic is that you’re taught to take myth seriously and to let it operate on your life and to live in terms of these mythic motifs. I was brought up in terms of the seasonal relationships to the cycle of Christ’s coming into the world, teaching in the world, dying, resurrecting, and returning to heaven. The ceremonies all through the year keep you in mind of the eternal core of all that changes in time. Sin is simply getting out of touch with that harmony.

And then I fell in love with American Indians because Buffalo Bill used to come to Madison Square Garden every year with his marvelous Wild West Show. And I wanted to know more about Indians. My father and mother were very generous parents and found what books were being written for boys about Indians at that time. So I began to read American Indian myths, and it wasn’t long before I found the same motifs in the American Indian stories that I was being taught by the nuns at the school.

MOYERS: Creation—

CAMPBELL: —creation, death and resurrection, ascension to heaven, virgin births—I didn’t know what it was, but I recognized the vocabulary. One after another.

MOYERS: And what happened?

CAMPBELL: I was excited. That was the beginning of my interest in comparative mythology.

MOYERS: Did you begin by asking, “Why does it say it this way while the Bible says it that way?”

CAMPBELL: No, I didn’t start the comparative analysis until many years later.

MOYERS: What appealed to you about the Indian stories?

CAMPBELL: In those days there was still American Indian lore in the air. Indians were still around. Even now, when I deal with myths from all parts of the world, I find the American Indian tales and narratives to be very rich, very well developed.

And then my parents had a place out in the woods where the Delaware Indians had lived, and the Iroquois had come down and fought them. There was a big ledge where we could dig for Indian arrowheads and things like that. And the very animals that play the role in the Indian stories were there in the woods around me. It was a grand introduction to this material.

MOYERS: Did these stories begin to collide with your Catholic faith?

CAMPBELL: No, there was no collision. The collision with my religion came much later in relation to scientific studies and things of that kind. Later I became interested in Hinduism, and there were the same stories again. And in my graduate work I was dealing with the Arthurian medieval material, and there were the same stories again. So you can’t tell me that they’re not the same stories. I’ve been with them all my life.

MOYERS: They come from every culture but with timeless themes.

CAMPBELL: These themes are timeless, and the inflection is to the culture.

MOYERS: So the stories may take the same universal theme but apply it slightly differently, depending upon the accent of the people who are speaking?

CAMPBELL: Oh, yes. If you were not alert to the parallel themes, you perhaps would think they were quite different stories, but they’re not.

MOYERS: You taught mythology for thirty-eight years at Sarah Lawrence. How did you get these young women, coming to college from their middle-class backgrounds, from their orthodox religions—how did you get them interested in myths?

CAMPBELL: Young people just grab this stuff. Mythology teaches you what’s behind literature and the arts, it teaches you about your own life. It’s a great, exciting, life-nourishing subject. Mythology has a great deal to do with the stages of life, the initiation ceremonies as you move from childhood to adult responsibilities, from the unmarried state into the married state. All of those rituals are mythological rites. They have to do with your recognition of the new role that you’re in, the process of throwing off the old one and coming out in the new, and entering into a responsible profession.

When a judge walks into the room, and everybody stands up, you’re not standing up to that guy, you’re standing up to the robe that he’s wearing and the role that he’s going to play. What makes him worthy of that role is his integrity, as a representative of the principles of that role, and not some group of prejudices of his own. So what you’re standing up to is a mythological character. I imagine some kings and queens are the most stupid, absurd, banal people you could run into, probably interested only in horses and women, you know. But you’re not responding to them as personalities, you’re responding to them in their mythological roles. When someone becomes a judge, or President of the United States, the man is no longer that man, he’s the representative of an eternal office; he has to sacrifice his personal desires and even life possibilities to the role that he now signifies.

MOYERS: So there are mythological rituals at work in our society. The ceremony of marriage is one. The ceremony of the inauguration of a President or judge is another. What are some of the other rituals that are important to society today?

CAMPBELL: Joining the army, putting on a uniform, is another. You’re giving up your personal life and accepting a socially determined manner of life in the service of the society of which you are a member. This is why I think it is obscene to judge people in terms of civil law for performances that they rendered in time of war. They were acting not as individuals, they were acting as agents of something above them and to which they had by dedication given themselves. To judge them as though they were individual human beings is totally improper.

MOYERS: You’ve seen what happens when primitive societies are unsettled by white man’s civilization. They go to pieces, they disintegrate, they become diseased. Hasn’t the same thing been happening to us since our myths began to disappear?

CAMPBELL: Absolutely, it has.

MOYERS: Isn’t that why conservative religions today are calling for the old-religion?

CAMPBELL: Yes, and they’re making a terrible mistake. They are going back to something that is vestigial, that doesn’t serve life.

MOYERS: But didn’t it serve us?

CAMPBELL: Sure it did.

MOYERS: I understand the yearning. In my youth I had fixed stars. They comforted me with their permanence. They gave me a known horizon. And they told me there was a loving, kind, and just father out there looking down on me, ready to receive me, thinking of my concerns all the time. Now, Saul Bellow says that science has made a housecleaning of beliefs. But there was value in these things for me. I am today what I am because of those beliefs. I wonder what happens to children who don’t have those fixed stars, that known horizon—those myths?

CAMPBELL: Well, as I said, all you have to do is read the newspaper. It’s a mess. On this immediate level of life and structure, myths offer life models. But the models have to be appropriate to the time in which you are living, and our time has changed so fast that what was proper fifty years ago is not proper today. The virtues of the past are the vices of today. And many of what were thought to be the vices of the past are the necessities of today. The moral order has to catch up with the moral necessities of actual life in time, here and now. And that is what we are not doing. The old-time religion belongs to another age, another people, another set of human values, another universe. By going back you throw yourself out of sync with history. Our kids lose their faith in the religions that were taught to them, and they go inside.

MOYERS: Often with the help of a drug.

CAMPBELL: Yes. The mechanically induced mystical experience is what you have there. I have attended a number of psychological conferences dealing with this whole problem of the difference between the mystical experience and the psychological crack-up. The difference is that the one who cracks up is drowning in the water in which the mystic swims. You have to be prepared for this experience.

MOYERS: You talk about this peyote culture emerging and becoming dominant among Indians as a consequence of the loss of the buffalo and their earlier way of life.

CAMPBELL: Yes. Ours is one of the worst histories in relation to the native peoples of any civilized nation. They are nonpersons. They are not even reckoned in the statistics of the voting population of the United States. There was a moment shortly after the American Revolution when there were a number of distinguished Indians who actually participated in American government and life. George Washington said that Indians should be incorporated as members of our culture. But instead, they were turned into vestiges of the past. In the nineteenth century, all the Indians of the southeast were put into wagons and shipped under military guard out to what was then called Indian Territory, which was given to the Indians in perpetuity as their own world—then a couple of years later was taken away from them.

Recently, anthropologists studied a group of Indians in northwestern Mexico who live within a few miles of a major area for the natural growth of peyote. Peyote is their animal—that is to say, they associate it with the deer. And they have very special missions to go collect peyote and bring it back.

These missions are mystical journeys with all of the details of the typical mystical journey. First, there is disengagement from secular life. Everybody who is going to go on this expedition has to make a complete confession of all the faults of his or her recent living. And if they don’t, the magic is not going to work. Then they start on the journey. They even speak a special language, a negative language. Instead of saying yes, for example, they say no, or instead of saying, “We are going,” they say, “We are coming.” They are in another world.

Then they come to the threshold of the adventure. There are special shrines that represent stages of mental transformation on the way. And then comes the great business of collecting the peyote. The peyote is killed as though it were a deer. They sneak up on it, shoot a little arrow at it, and then perform the ritual of collecting the peyote.

The whole thing is a complete duplication of the kind of experience that is associated with the inward journey, when you leave the outer world and come into the realm of spiritual beings. They identify each little stage as a spiritual transformation. They are in a sacred place all the way.

MOYERS: Why do they make such an intricate process out of it?

CAMPBELL: Well, it has to do with the peyote being not simply a biological, mechanical, chemical effect but one of spiritual transformation. If you undergo a spiritual transformation and have not had preparation for it, you do not know how to evaluate what has happened to you, and you get the terrible experiences of a bad trip, as they used to call it with LSD. If you know where you are going, you won’t have a bad trip.

MOYERS: So this is why it is a psychological crisis if you are drowning in the water where—

CAMPBELL: —where you ought to be able to swim, but you weren’t prepared. That is true of the spiritual life, anyhow. It is a terrifying experience to have your consciousness transformed.

MOYERS: You talk a lot about consciousness.

CAMPBELL: Yes.

MOYERS: What do you mean by it?

CAMPBELL: It is a part of the Cartesian mode to think of consciousness as being something peculiar to the head, that the head is the organ originating consciousness. It isn’t. The head is an organ that inflects consciousness in a certain direction, or to a certain set of purposes. But there is consciousness here in the body. The whole living world is informed by consciousness.

I have a feeling that consciousness and energy are the same thing somehow. Where you really see life energy, there’s consciousness. Certainly the vegetable world is conscious. And when you live in the woods, as I did as a kid, you can see all these different consciousnesses relating to themselves. There is a plant consciousness and there is an animal consciousness, and we share both these things. You eat certain foods, and the bile knows whether there’s something there for it to go to work on. The whole process is consciousness. Trying to interpret it in simply mechanistic terms won’t work.

MOYERS: How do we transform our consciousness?

CAMPBELL: That’s a matter of what you are disposed to think about. And that’s what meditation is for. All of life is a meditation, most of it unintentional. A lot of people spend most of life in meditating on where their money is coming from and where it’s going to. If you have a family to bring up, you’re concerned for the family. These are all very important concerns, but they have to do with physical conditions, mostly. But how are you going to communicate spiritual consciousness to the children if you don’t have it yourself? How do you get that? What the myths are for is to bring us into a level of consciousness that is spiritual.

Just for example: I walk off Fifty-first Street and Fifth Avenue into St. Patrick’s Cathedral. I’ve left a very busy city and one of the most economically inspired cities on the planet. I walk into that cathedral, and everything around me speaks of spiritual mysteries. The mystery of the cross, what’s that all about there? The stained glass windows, which bring another atmosphere in. My consciousness has been brought up onto another level altogether, and I am on a different platform. And then I walk out, and I’m back on the level of the street again. Now, can I hold something from the cathedral consciousness? Certain prayers or meditations are designed to hold your consciousness on that level instead of letting it drop down here all the way. And then what you can finally do is to recognize that this is simply a lower level of that higher consciousness. The mystery that is expressed there is operating in the field of your money, for example. All money is congealed energy. I think that that’s the clue to how to transform your consciousness.

MOYERS: Don’t you sometimes think, as you consider these stories, that you are drowning in other people’s dreams?

CAMPBELL: I don’t listen to other people’s dreams.

MOYERS: But all of these myths are other people’s dreams.

CAMPBELL: Oh, no, they’re not. They are the world’s dreams. They are archetypal dreams and deal with great human problems. I know when I come to one of these thresholds now. The myth tells me about it, how to respond to certain crises of disappointment or delight or failure or success. The myths tell me where I am.

Stopping for now on page 15. This book in itself is a transcription from their filmed in-person discussion, much of which is viewable in a video by the same name, available on Netflix.

American Drug War: The Last White Hope (Pre-Release Cut)

“American Drug War: The Last White Hope: Pre Release Cut”:

Given the released documentary as a gift, and it’s also available on Netflix. It’s valuable in opening up the inquiry and getting people thinking about following the money trail, offering up cases for us to look into for ourselves, like the Iran-Contra affair and the coca situation ongoing in Colombia and previous CIA and DEA employees speaking out about their knowledge of related department misconduct.

Personally, while I don’t stand in the way of the legalization of marijuana, I favor decriminalization. Anything you’re capable of growing for yourself to consume should be exempt from taxation. That’s like if the government came up with the idea to tax us for the vegetables we grow in our own gardens.  Psshhahh, right.

Thoughts on American criminality

Just a thought. What do you suppose a “criminal” is? A law-breaker, yes, but why? Because they won’t conform to standards written into law. And why is that? Because they’re all simply a bunch of thugs?

Well, I think there are a few reasons as to why. One important one is that there are too damned many laws on the books criminalizing so much of our behavior to where undoubtedly we all break laws and likely routinely. Misdemeanors maybe, but still. The point is it’s difficult living tightly restricted, and it triggers rebellious instincts in some of us.

Which leads me to the second reason which is that it is my belief that some of us are wilder than others, and by that I’m talking in terms of being “primitive” vs. properly domesticated by the new standards being set. It asks of us to be completely nonviolent and even hold back on displays of affection. It asks of us to accept employment conditions that are weird and not in most people’s best interest outside of the immediate concern with earning an income. What’s deemed acceptable and legal labor is another matter riddled with contradictions.

We’re asked to live as wage and debt slaves, to entertain ourselves through life, to think positive thoughts about the future, to trust two political parties that are obviously out of control, to trust that lawmakers have our collective best interest at heart (despite them not even reading what they’re signing into law), to believe that science from here on out will solve all of life’s problems and mysteries and that machines are preferable to human labor due to efficiency given the top priority. We’re asked to accept so much bullshit, and for what?

Some buck back. Some live under the radar so much as they are able. Some prefer not to have the IRS all up in their business (and those who need the IRS up in theirs are major corporations who are given the green light to pay the lowest percentages). Some are just tired of this society and all of its games and hogwash, and they just want to live out their days unplugged from as much of it as possible. I can’t blame them.

Then there’s the people who actually deserve to be labeled as criminals, and they include murderers (without warranted cause as in the case of self-defense), rapists, child molesters, thieves (but even there we get into some gray area over what constitutes private property in all cases, because we live in a time when biological material is being patented by major corporations charging a fortune for access to needed information; also a time when wealthy individuals and major corporations have the ability to buy up huge amounts of land and dictate how its resources are used, even when the resource in question is water — they claim ownership of it — and THEN they go far enough to pressure lawmakers to pass restrictions on residents collecting rainwater).

But anyway, I digress. Other criminals include pyramid schemers and corporate crooks (white-collar criminals rob people of FAR more money than all black-market-level thieves combined), those who seriously abuse and use others, arsonists, bribe-accepting politicians, embezzlers, and who else am I forgetting? Basically people who demonstrate a complete lack of regard for being responsible for seriously harming others. How that’s being defined and carried out today though is a far cry from what would be suitable and sustainable.

Now nearly anyone can wind up labeled a criminal, without even knowing it. And some people just accept that this is the way life goes and that all laws shouldn’t be followed, because not all laws are created equal. How much respect do we really have for the fool who abides by laws that work against his well-being? Or the laws that aim to determine his or her private and personal affairs? Or the laws that tell us what we can or cannot do with our own bodies? We realize law-makers can be wrong.

It’s kinda like being labeled as poor — over time you grow used to it and it no longer seems all that degrading. Who’s a criminal? According to how shit’s set up today, we all are. And personally, I don’t grasp the big pull toward being more law-abiding, because right about now is when our resistance is needed. Unless you’re interested in more bullshit. Because that’s what’s coming. More restrictions, more laws, more rules, more governance, more micro-managing, and more hostility and resentment as a result. Sound like fun to all of you?

Apparently most folks don’t mind, or at least they’re more worried about escaping negative consequences than stepping up or truly going their own way. If “your own way” is the same way as the status quo, does it make sense to claim it as your own?

There are dangerous criminals out here in society, that’s a given, but we see law enforcement efforts being directed toward busting people for growing weed in their basements and for older teenagers dating younger teenagers. Really people? That’s why we deserve to be taxed as much as we are? That and to fund neverending war.

Why do I even tease myself with believing people are interested in regaining the reins here?

Time for bed.

Neil Postman on Cyberspace and Technology

This interview of Neil Postman is said to have been recorded in 1995:

Neil Postman discussing his book Technopoly on CSPAN2’s Booktv:

Flow: For Love of Water

“Flow: How Did a Handful of Corporations Steal Our Water?”:

More information on this film can be found on its official site.

We Enablers (Monday evening in May rambling)

If Americans, feminists in particular in this instance, cared so much about the conditions confronting Arab and African women and children, we wouldn’t be allowing our government and military to bomb and invade them. Because witnessing your child getting caught up in the crossfire isn’t exactly an improvement on living under patriarchal command. Neither is seeing your home and city be reduced to rubble. But we don’t care all that much apparently. Popular as it is to chat about the horrors of genital mutilation (god awful as that reality indeed is), for most folks living far removed from “those people” it’s more about philosophical and theoretical arguments, not actual human beings and not trying to get down deeper to the bottom of what’s happened to humanity. Because if we dig down deep, we come up with blood on our own hands too. We American women are not innocent, we’re not mere bystanders. We’re voters and tax-payers—in other words, we are enablers.

Breaking these chains requires placing the focus on oneself and recognizing the carnage we help perpetuate. In coming to terms with our own selfishness and greed, with our own fear and cowardice, our own lack of concern and our failures and shortcomings, we come to see how easy it is to be swept with the tide and to wake up one day in a world we do not recall co-creating. But we were there, standing idly by, entertaining ourselves with the latest fashions and bickering over the news of the day. We use the stories of distant people to bolster our arguments with one another, sheltered oceans away and content to remain blissfully ignorant of what all is being done in our names to them. Much better to keep the focus on the other guy, on some stranger we can stereotype and make light of, to distort distant people’s reality into an abstract exercise for our own amusement. Because if we really did care, we’d ask what it is we’re doing (or not doing) that is grievously harming others, and we’d take individual action to rectify these wrongs, by whatever means we are able. Right?

But no, it’s much easier to finger-point and to argue from comfortable perches.

We don’t care because we don’t know what it’s like, we can’t relate, our imaginations being so warped and narrow. For all the heinous shit we can imagine, it’s apparently too much of a stretch for us to see ourselves in the role of predator unto others, whether that be directly or indirectly, intentionally or inadvertently or due to a lack of curiosity on our parts to seek out the truth wherever it may lie. One such truth is that we each are working to pay taxes that fund our military machine that is directed by politicians (whom we also elect to power) who belong to parties that are bought and paid for by major monied interests who push to carry out agendas devoid of any regard for those unlike themselves, which is nearly all of us throughout the world. In this game, humans are treated like pawns, and we are rendered completely disposable and interchangeable. Yet we fund this scheme, unwittingly perhaps, believing there can be no other way and that it is outside of our control, as if we are barnyard animals caged in by electric fencing, awaiting our day to be led to slaughter.

Cowards, that’s what nearly the whole lot of us are. We’re accepting life lived on our knees, preferring to remain alive at all costs, even if that means selling our souls completely and watching hell on earth unfold all around us. We talk the big talk and we butt heads over this or that piece of legislation, but then tomorrow we’ll rise and shine and head to work so as to generate more money to feed the beast that’s killing in our names. We’ll bitch and bicker over how many cents on the dollar we’re earning compared to him or her while sipping our mochas and shopping online. We’ll gripe about common courtesies and hurl undue insults at one another, then return home to cook dinner and to snuggle up to our pets, flipping on the television and tuning out. The media doesn’t report on much of the mayhem done in our names anyway, and if it does there’s always CSI or Jersey Shore to retreat to.

And as we snuggle in at night under blankets sewn by serfs in China, we’ll take our Lunesta so as to bypass the dreams of how our time on this planet may be better spent.

Nevermind. Just roaming thoughts of a woman sitting in her Taiwan-manufactured computer chair, ruining her lungs with smoke, sipping water out of a plastic bottle, waiting for the clock to roll around to the time for my next job appointment. Hypocrisy-in-action?