Lesson Eight: Silent Deviance

Deviance, in terms sociological terms, is the behaviors of an individual or minority which are generally disapproved of by society at large. The most common examples that present themselves are crimes. However, while all crimes consist of deviance, not all deviance constitute crime. It is in fact possible, to have an anomie of altruism. Examine the theory of anomie, the supposed "normlessness" and isolation of a subculture which erodes the norms of society, not in the negative, but in the positive. In recent American history, the Civil Rights movement was a form of minority (no pun intended) dissent which gave way for a positive social change.

It is important to differentiate altruistic deviance and anomie from a political cause and/or platform. Whereas the concept of a government like democracy may have arisen from an altruistic anomie in a monarchy, the democratic platforms of liberalism and conservatism are individual philosophies within the government entity which propose a certain method on how to carry out the initial ideal. To put it in childlike imagery: Do not pull left and right, but move forward. It would be unrealistic to expect the individual to conduct a Civil Rights movement caliber endeavor. Those things take time and coordination. However, there are things we can do as individuals on an everyday basis.

The next time you and your family are having a picnic and your parents get in a fight with your little brother about politics, do not waste your time picking sides or trying to sway one person to one school of thought. These battles of ideals accomplish nothing, but create tensions and rifts amongst those with which you must unite with. If you see your friends start to debate about the debt ceiling, or the sequester, be silent, get up, find a cigarette butt or two on the ground, and throw it away. It is not constructive to argue with someone regarding the merits of their personal philosophies on how to help the general public. Best case scenario is you win. You convince them that the ideals they hold are meaningless. You convince them that their philosophy on how to help people doesn't work, can't work, and shouldn't be tried. You convince them that doing nothing would be more help to society, then doing what they think is right.

Allow a Republican or Libertarian teach others about personal responsibility. As it is their passion, they will have the most convincing arguments about how and why an individual should be personally responsible. For the same reason, let a Democrat or Socialist teach others about taking care of others. Both ideas are essential, and it is as pointless to argue which is better as it is to argue whether red is better than blue.

One should also be aware, that arguing that one should not argue about politics in the midst of a political argument, is arguing. Do not quote this at the dinner table. Just shut up, and clear the dishes. Sort the compost from the recycling from the waste. Your silence in action will speak louder than any rhetoric.

Drones, and the Alien Abduction of Michelle Obama

My uncle makes weapons. Crazy weapons. Sometimes I think he's pulling my leg, and other times I'm not so sure. Sometimes it seems crazy enough to work. Here is one of those stories:

According to my uncle, there is exists the capability to link certain types of missiles, or in other cases, UAVs (unmanned arial vehicles) together such that one remote location can control multiple units. These drones can shoot a missile into a window-sized hole from several miles away. These are the drones you've heard about on the news, and the ones that have everyone running scared. But from what I've been told, the unmanned missiles don't necessarily have to even see a window to find a target. Granted there are other obvious ways around visual obstructions such as heat vision and what have you. It's the what-have-you's that peak my interest. The system my uncle told me about was an audio based system. It's actually pretty cool. Each missile (or maybe it's a drone, who knows) is equipped with a highly sensitive microphone that listens to things happening on the ground. More specifically, these microphones are programmed to listen for the sounds of engines and the sounds those engines make on various terrain. For example, the person on the computer could say, "I'm looking for a six-cylinder truck or SUV driving on sand." The program then scans the area the UAV is in and reports back, "Okay, there are two in this area, one here, and another one there." Or if you wanted, you could ask, "I'm looking for a tank engine on pavement." It would then not only report back locations X, Y and Z, but it would store and track that information as you made your next decision. Now, say you have about thirty of these things flying around, all networked together. You could then say, I want ten missiles on X, five on Y, five on Z, and the rest can stay in observance for anything else that might come try to help. Bombs away.

Leaving President Obama's new drone policy at the door for the moment, let's take a look at the ethical ramifications of just that scenario previously described. What we have is one man, or maybe a small team of CIA operatives in Virginia, God knows how many miles away from the actual target, unleashing a technical storm of doom upon some enemy combatants armed with Jeeps and rifles from the 1960's. Notice how we call these people enemy combatants, instead of combatants of war in our war on terror? The late Bill Hicks had a comment on this. Mr. Hicks would say that to have a war, "You need two armies. Two. See the difference?" A situation like this can't really be called a battlefield, because there is no real battle. In one minute, there are some very angry non-Americans, and the next minute there are none. A battle implies a fight takes place.

Let's examine the benefits of this kind of weaponry. Clearly, it gives us the upper hand in any sort of military conflict. Superior firepower was never anything to scoff at. It keeps soldiers from battle, and they stay relatively safe. A UAV is much lighter and more efficient to fly than a piloted aircraft. You also don't have to train an expensive, error prone, heavy pilot. If one gets shot down, there is no letter sent home, and no tears shed. These drones can be used for information gathering without risking the lives of pilots, and there are other non-military uses for them as well. Most of them are security involved, but geophysical surveys are generally conducted by drones these days.

I'm going to put on my utilitarian cap for a moment for this next part. Using UAVs reduces the number of civilian casualties in combat. The reports suggest that in certain, more unfortunate drone strikes, many more civilians are killed than enemy combatants. Some studies suggest that the ratio is 10 to 1, another suggests that two thirds killed are enemy combatants. Recently, there was a drone strike in Pakistan that led to the death of eight German tourists. This figure, while tragic, should be taken in perspective of older conventional weaponry used in the 20th century. During World War 2, if an army thought a person of interest was in a specific town, they would bomb and burn down the entire town. If we take a look at the German blitz, or the firebombing of Dresden, we see a much different strategy. In lack of accuracy, go for surface area. Burn the whole thing. The firebombing of Dresden resulted in twenty-five thousand deaths according to official reports, although some German studies reported figures between one and two hundred thousand casualties, mostly civilian. There is something to be said for the fact that we can at least now contain the destructive power of our weaponry to say a building or two.

The usage of drones removes us from combat, not only physically, but mentally as well. People controlling these drones probably won't go through some of the mental anguish that our Vietnam veterans suffered. If instead of having to walk into a complex and plant explosives, or murder everyone inside, you can do it from behind a screen with a little crosshair, you're essentially just playing Call of Duty. Although terrifying to say it, a child could do it. This can be seen as a good thing, or a bad thing. It trivializes the death of another human being by framing it in the same way a child plays Resident Evil. In the old wars, if you shot or stabbed a man, he was right there in front of you as he bled to death. Soldiers had to walk through the destruction they caused. They had to smell rotting flesh. They had to dig graves. Looking at those same people as glowing infared splotches in a crosshair, and then incinerating them with a hellfire missile removes this aspect of combat. Again, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Does this make killing too easy? Does it remove, or perhaps heavily dampen, the consequence of guilt a human being SHOULD feel from having taken a life?

In moving our military capabilities more towards UAVs, we stop making war or combat a matter of us vs. them. It is about choosing who is next to die. It is no longer a question of self-defense, because there is no risk of personal harm to the remote pilot in Langley. There isn't even a real risk of harm to the drone. From four miles up and flying at hundreds of miles an hour, no firearm could feasibly hit a passing drone. If you recall the scenario presented at the beginning, these systems can listen for tank engines on gravel, sand, jungle growth etc. An enemy tank in the Middle East poses no threat to American soil. Yes, technically our bases and embassies could be at risk, but would that logic not also grant a foreign nation the right to send a missile of their own at an American armed force for being near their embassy?

The problem facing us as the American public is that there are so many unanswered,and some unanswerable questions.

If we have the technological and espionage based know-how to build strong cases against enemies; enough information to prove a person guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt; enough information to forgo a fair trial and jump straight to the execution. If we have the ability to locate these people and track them half-way across the world - Do we need to kill them? Is the information at hand not enough? If we know who they are, where they are, down to the room in which they are staying, how much of a threat do they really pose? (The guy hiding in a cave doesn't seem to stand much of a chance against an army of flying death robots. Some might argue that they purport dangerous and extreme, radical ideas. They may argue this, but are doing so in defense of a nation that believes in the freedom of speech.)

These questions would not be considered valid to anyone charged with defending the nation because they could not test these propositions without inviting the potential perceived risk of harm to our country. It is the position taken by the FBI when they attack home-grown terrorists. If you are unfamiliar with these situations I will provide you a brief rundown. Basically, an undercover agent will approach a person suspected of being radical, or prone to undertake terrorist activities. The agent, disguised as a fellow militant, will offer to provide the suspect with money and equipment to pull out a terrorist attack. They will make up a fake plan to blow up a building, and then the agent will hand the suspect a cell phone and saying something to the effect of, "if you dial three and press send, the bomb will go off." When the suspect presses the button, another FBI agent answers on the other line and arrests the suspect. There have been controversies over this tactic being entrapment. However, like the question posed above, whether or not the suspect would or wouldn't have actually carried out a terrorist plot, whether or not they posed a real threat to Americans living in America, a person charged with the defense of a nation can't really take that risk.

But there are other issues regarding the lives of truly innocent people who happen to coincidentally be around truly dangerous militants. Bystanders. How are civilians of a nation in conflict to know if they are in a military state, or a danger zone, if there are no more soldiers on the ground? With soldiers on the ground, they would at least know they were on lockdown, and that they were being scrutinized. If a drone were about to strike, would there be soldiers on the ground trying to clear civilizans from the area, or would that be considered a compromise of the mission at hand? I find it highly unlikely that moments before a hellfire missile comes flying through the window, Barack Obama calls the terrorist up and says, "Now let me be clear, I have a drone flying overhead. If I say Oxford Tango Yellow Three, under the powers granted to me by the executive branch, you will cease to exist. Surrender and you will live as a prisoner of war under the conditions of the Geneva Convention, please and thank you." I find it more likely that there is a list of targets, a cavalcade of eyes on the floor identifying and locating those on the list, and then a very bright light, a loud kaboom, and the feint smell of burning jerky.

Here is a distinction. America was more or less okay with the atomic bomb, a much more devestating weapon, because we trusted our government to do the right thing, and to never use it without dire need and a good cause. In that utilitarian sense, we did it to end the war quickly. It was a time where people still believed in the idea of rallying together for a great cause like democracy and freedom. Today, we have such little faith in government. Not only do UAVs represent a terrifying next step in military capabilities, but it also signifies the ever expanding reach of espionage equipment. It's not just that these things can evaporate us from miles away, but that they can watch, listen and evaporate us all at once. The atom bomb was pure death. Where it went, people died. A drone evaluates its target first. It tells the world that by its judgment of your nationality and political values, you may or may not have the right to live in the land of the free. The atomic bomb gave us assurance that conflict was near an end. The drone feeds into the paranoia that it will never end.

Let's take that utilitarian cap off now. The weaponized UAV makes a wrong choice easier to make. Killing is wrong. If these terrorist cells are the criminals our government says they are, then according to the foundations of our own justice system, not only does the burden of proof lay on the prosecution, but that the criminal is entitled to a fair trial. We are denying a trial for these individuals. Now, it is completely understandable that these are supposedly dangerous people who would not be taken to court willingly, and capture may not be an option. Its understandable that some Americans have different role models and heroes than other Americans. Some like Bruce Willis. Some like action movies. However, Clint Eastwood is not everyone's role model. Some do not look up to Steven Segal. The individuals some see as role models were those who made change through non-violent measures, and died asserting those non-violent measures. Martin Luther King Jr., John Lennon, Ghandi were cool absolutely, but Jesus was basically an X-man. Jesus had superpowers. They may have died, but they made lasting change. George Bush is still alive, and Muslim extremists still hate us a whole lot.

In regards to President Obama's drone policy, it isn't a matter of him misinforming the public to pass the Patiot Act. It is a matter of the administration choosing to not inform the public at all. Let's not get bogged down in trying to decide which is worse, because they are both deontologically inexcusable. A lie of omission is a lie. A lie is a lie. Killing people is killing people.

Funny thing: With just a touch of mental jiujitsu, Barack Obama technically has the right to hellfire missile any employee of HSBC. How? Well, the Patriot Act would absolutely classify a person embezzling money for terrorists as an enemy combatant. Barack Obama can hellfire missile an enemy combatant. HSBC embezzled money for terrorists. Barack Obama can technically hellfire missile employees of HSBC. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be just fine. This is of course all just fun with the transitive property of equality. You know: Math.

It just doesn't seem logically viable that you could create peace through violence, no matter how contained that violence is. We could get the the technological point where we release a robotic bee, it flies into Afghanistan and drills its way into a terrorists head, but there will still be conflict. There will still be outrage.

Imagine if you will, that incredibly advanced aliens invade the United States. They have lasers that outmatch any weapon we have. They can disarm our weapons from space. They claim to be here in our best interest, but come armed. Their beloved leader says to us, "Americans are using too much oil, and the planet cannot be sustained. We are here to liberate you from your addiction. If you use oil in any way, we will kill you because you are an agent of eco-terrorism. To make an example, and to show you that we see you as all equal, we will now hang Michelle Obama for using too much aerosol based sprays and hair straightener." Elmo would strap himself to a C4 jacket and jihad those alien bastards. If another entity were to come to America and said there was something fundamentally wrong with the way our society functioned, aka the car, we would be incredibly resistant to that idea. Even if the aliens used a good set of values to justify killing the first lady, the act of violence would invalidate any rhetorical argument that organization of aliens would set forth. We would only rememeber the violence.

Following Rules

There exists a dilemma in governing. In the age of the Cold War between good ol' American freedom and the Communists, it was commonly expressed that Communism, while a nice ideal, was atrocious in practice. It led to corruption amongst the empowered and laziness within the proletariate. Socialism lost a lot of steam through the Germans, and today we are in the midst of the erosion of faith in unhinged capitalistic greed. It would seem then, that from these examples, there exists no form of government, no philosophy or code of ethics, that is free from corruption and abuse. As stated in previous installments, the ideals behind the Christian church institutions - noble and beautiful as they are - have been overshadowed by the abhorrent acts committed by those in the high command within the institution.

The rules and guidelines set by these philosophies of capitalism, socialism and communism cannot be judged as the impetus which creates corruption, but that corrupt agents acting within the system, abuse and erode the moral fibre which the initial institutors intended. The guidelines are tools to be used, roads to be traversed, for an assumed decent general population to act within to ensure prosperity. Knowing that a system that sets forth a list of rules could be corrupted, the philosophy is always amended by a justice system - another set of rules and philosophies to administer reparations.

However, as we have just learned from the HSBC debacle in which the U.S government chose to not pursue criminal charges against a bank accused of moving funds for terrorist organizations and drug cartels, (instead opting for a superficial, mostly ceremonial fine of a few months profit) the system of justice can be abused as well.

The rules then, are tools to be used. How one uses that tool is open to interpretation. Take a hammer for instance. A hammer can be used to construct something, or it can be used to destroy something. A screwdriver can be used to make something more sturdy, or it can be used to stab someone in the eye. A woodchopper can be used to clear debris from a tree fallen on a road, or can be used to dispose of state's witnesses and other assorted minions from Jackie Chan films.

When a person violates a rule, they are to be punished. The rule would allow an avenging party to commit acts against the guilty party, that they (being ideally, perfectly good citizens) would normally not commit. If I may be perfectly honest, I find rules to be absolutely ridiculous. A good person needs no rules because they will be considerate enough to not allow their actions to negatively effect others. A bad person will not consider rules that will obstruct their means, and use rules in their favor to further exploit other law-abiding citizens. By this logic, rules then are ideally designed to guide those "middle-grounders" who have yet to make up their mind, again ideally, towards a life of goodness and morality. However, those agents who wish to sway the "middle-grounder in question" may be themselves moral or immoral people, who will use guidelines to suit their own needs. While it is easy to see how a moral individual can use guidelines like the outlaw of murder to convince someone not to kill, it may be more difficult for one to show how those rules can be used to encourage someone to kill. Allow me to demonstrate: It is simply a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy in a governing nation's attempt to ban murder or (for the sake of contemporary issues) assault weapons. In pointing out the hypocrisy of the governing entity, the rule then can be dismissed as an agent of the hypocritical entity. This is how angry atheists tend to belittle those of faith.

Watch out, here come some high flying semantics...

Is it not ridiculous that Americans be given the right to bear arms, but that the government try to keep their arms at a consistently higher caliber? Is this not effectively disarming the public? I may say, "You can have a knife, but only I can carry a sword," to which you may disagree, but how heartily can you disagree when I am the one with the sword? If we are not to kill, then why is it that the government is allowed to deploy the army to kill? If you were to join the army and then slaughter a village in the name of patriotism, would you not be awarded some medal of valor? What makes a casualty of "extended-military-conflict" different from a casualty of war, or a murder victim? Consider for a moment the drone program. Is it not enough that we as a public can be drone-stricken at any moment, but that we must also not be allowed to fire more than ten bullets in a row?

Please keep in mind, that these are all stupid arguments only capable of swaying faulty-minded utilitarians, and those who already wish to break the rule in question. In no way do I believe any of the arguments I have just presented, I simply wish to demonstrate how one might use the hypocrisy of rules with a splash of semantics to encourage one to disregard the rule of law, using the rules in law. Killing is wrong. Murder is murder. I love Barack Obama and all his crazy ass death drones. See the first installment for more.

What we need is not more rules and punishments, but to cultivate within ourselves a trust in our Jimminy Crickets. Mr. Cricket, in the real world, is a much more vengeful spirit. We are all outraged by injustices. If you were to go out on a Saturday night and you saw an abrasive, drunk man push his wife or girlfriend to the pavement, most of us would experience a blood crawling urge to push that man back. However, it is the general rule, that the police are the party responsible for that abusive man's actions, and therefore any interference on your part is an obstruction of that justice. This is reality, and it is stupid. The police never arrive in time. The police may even be there, and choose to do nothing.

Story time: Once upon a time, I was walking home with my friend Tim. A small Asian man named Irwin punched me in the face while walking across the street. He then proceeded to throw his friends, who happened to be tiny Asian girls to the ground. (Let's overlook the part where a group of four Asian girls tried to defend my honor) As this is happening, a patrol car drives by. They did not stop. They flashed their lights and said through the megaphone, "Get out of the road." Then they drove on.

In respect to the area in which we live: The Bay Area is probably one of the greatest places in the world. However, it does contain some of the highest unsolved murder rates in the nation. We cannot rely solely on the police department to protect us in a time of threat. This is not an advocacy for gun ownership. Guns are silly. This is an advocacy for acting on that natural instinct to defend goodness itself. It is a power that seems to take very little energy, yet projects an incredible effect.

Story time: I knew a girl named Crystal. Several years ago, we were walking around town, and a guy cat called her from his truck. She was mid-sentence, and I wasn't entirely sure what was said to her (although from the tone, I could infer the gist). With no effort at all - the kind of reaction that takes place when you tap the knee with a joint hammer - she flung her whole body around and screamed at the guy that he could not talk to her in that way. It was an explosion that took me, and half the block off guard. I could feel the volume of her retort in the back of my spine.

These kinds of angry outbursts are, in hindsight, viewed as forms of courage. In another instance I was recently informed of, a good friend of mine was standing in line for coffee while a dissatisfied patron was verbally abusing the barista. Partially out of hunger, but mostly out of disgust for the treatment of the barista, my good friend Ellen not only stood up for the barista, but verbally accosted the dissatisfied patron back. Like Crystal, this action of verbal outburst, in this context, is an act of courage. It is an act of defense for something noble, whether it be dignity for a fellow human being, or the dignity of one's self. It would in fact seem, from my own personal experience, that withholding these kinds of defenses and calls to action, exhibit a greater amount of energy. It takes more out of a person to hold their tongue, and to allow an injustice to pass by.

In a similar respect, if a person were to intervene on behalf of the wife having been pushed to the pavement by her husband, they would be seen as a courageous individual defending someone from harm. There would be little to no public backlash if that individual were to administer a severe blow to the head, a blast of pepper-spray, or the shock of a taser. It was in the name of defending a helpless individual.

Conversely however, if the perpetrator had already been incapacitated, or offered no further resistance, and that force was re-applied, then it moves from an act of retribution and defense, and moves into the realms of grim indulgence in violence. There is the reality of individuals who join certain branches of the military with the sole intention of finding a legal means of exercising death. This kind of violence, even if administered against a heinous criminal, is wrong for it is done for the wrong reason. Yes, we should enjoy our work, but in dealing with justice, one must enjoy justice, not administering punishment. In regards to the abuses in Abu Grahib, the offensive components of the photographs came not from the strange stress positions the prisoners were put in, but from the perceived enjoyment the personal seemed to receive from administering that punishment. We as a public were well aware that far worse forms of torture and prisoner abuse had been in practice through the reports from Guantanamo Bay, and while there were no pictures, it would still seem as though that most of the offense could be attributed to the fact that the military police seemed to so enjoy the humiliation of the inmates.

There is no lesson attached to this segment. Good people will follow rules because they are good people. Bad people will break the rules because they don't really care. True "middle-grounders" will not be swayed towards morality or its opposite by the rules themselves, but by the agents which present a convincing enough rhetoric or life experience. There is no perfect government, because a government is a mechanism operated by its imperfect users. It is not the external tool we must try to perfect, but the agent and internal operator who must improve.

Lesson Seven: Fear No Evil

Evil is nothing.
It is how a victim perceives an aggressor's confusion.

What can evil do,
but threaten you will death?
What can evil do,
but liberate you from its immediate presence?

Evil is nothing.
It lacks the conviction of many, and generally only concerns one
maybe two.

Is it not sad,
one who cannot be satisfied?
Is it not pitiable,
when those he deems unworthy
slowly slip away?

Evil is nothing.
It is not a force to be reckoned with but a void worth filling
for hope's sake.

How To Save The World

People are wonderful things. Nothing is more precious than the life of a baby. However, there are far too many babies. Humanity has reached and passed the point of diminishing returns in regards to population, and this has posed many potentially catastrophic dilemmas. It comes down to an issue of resources, and an issue of greed. Currently, we still have enough for everyone, but suffer from the issue of certain demographics wanting way more than they need at the expense of others. In a highly narcissistic light, this can be viewed as a method of population control, but it is an unsatisfactory, ineffective and morally objectionable method. The wealthiest nation on Earth, these here United States, is home to about fifty million families who struggle with hunger. This is also a nation that sports a television program called Man Vs. Food, so as we can see, there is a strange dichotomy.

This issue of greed will be made obsolete once we add a few billion more people to the pot. Eventually, through sheer public outrage, those people who have it all will be dragged into the streets and hanged or eaten. Not only has this been a proven aspect of history through instances like the French Revolution, but they did it in Batman also.

That does not solve the actual resource issue, it only delays it slightly. We will still have the predicament of having way too many people to feed, and far too many gas tanks to fill. As we approach that unsustainable number of people, our most ingenious minds will concoct highly imaginative methods of feeding the masses. From this insatiable desire comes the fall of mankind. If we turn on the television that brought us such fine programming like Man Vs. Food, you may have noticed a trend in the exotic food industry that is leaning towards insects as delicacy. Eating beetles in a mainstay in other parts of the world, and let it be known that in China you can get a scorpion kebab as street food. On our own home front, there are restaurants in New York and other metropoli in which you will be served your meals in complete darkness; at the end of said meal it is revealed that you just ate crickets with your salad. Even in our own Bay Area, there are institutions in which you can order mealworm ice cream. The point being: people are beginning to catch on that insects are not only a rich source of protein, but that they are plentiful and less objectionable than eating rats and pigeons.

As the world nears its end, we will notice the consumption of insects as becoming a more common and acceptable thing. They will be sold in bags, roasted and lightly salted, or barbecue flavored and all will be fine and dandy for a short time. In the process, we will also inevitably create a booming insect industry, and before you know it, ants will receive the same government subsidies as corn and soy. Jobs will be created. New fast food chains will sprout up. Bugs will be the new lobster with garlic butter.

But this is America. We like things big. We want a bug burger that is just one giant bug on a bun, topped with bacon, avocado and three kinds of cheese. Thus begins the Genius Genetic Engineer's quest to create a giant, delicious bug that can be fed corn an soy bi-products, or in an ideal sense, feed off of landfill findings. That engineer will make one crucial error. Instead of engineering a bug that will eat corn, soy and garbage first, and then work on making it bigger and bigger, the engineer will focus on making many different, existing, species of bugs gigantic, then see which one tastes the best, and finally they will see how they can get it to eat garbage. It was an oversight a lot of people would make - bugs live in garbage, so they must already eat garbage. They're bugs.

The catastrophic result: America creates an armada of massive insects that are completely unmanageable. At first the defense industry thinks its a miraculous mistake. They take hoards of guitar sized ants and deploy them on our enemies, but this is a shallow victory. America's original intent was clearing a government so that we could exploit their resources, but the giant bugs ate those resources - and multiplied! Within a few years, the world has become overrun by giant flying bugs of all varieties: Bees the size of cars, ants as big as the bees, and mealworms as long as a double bus.

In a panic, the U.S government decides to make supersize predators to deal with the insect armada. Giant spiders were the first thought, but then after rewatching the David Arquette movie regarding the subject they move on to lizards, somehow forgetting the Japanese film genre that deals specifically with the issue of gigantic reptilians.

If you've ever read the butter-side up Dr. Seuss book, it is fairly easy to predict what happens here. Dinosaurs. The great circle of life comes to fruition, and the dinosaur roams the Earth once more, feasting on massive mealworms and the last remaining Americans.

Pretty terrifying huh?
Do you want to prevent the second coming of dinosaurs?
It will take a lot of work, and a lot of "little things" that can be addressed in your everyday life.
First things first, stop fucking so much.
Secondly, and more importantly, we need to take better care of the planet. Outside of the advice repeatable from having watched Al Gore's movie, the Educationally Independent has little to offer on Earth saving knowledge. For more, we will turn the reigns over to our good friend from college, an inhabitant of Park City, Utah, and overall upstanding citizen: Heleena Sideris


Heleena is (ready for a vowel based nickname?) Engaging in Environmental Endeavors Actively. For those of you who haven't figured out the little name generating game, your first name is stripped of its consonants, and an acronym is created out of the remaining vowels, which is based on some aspect of your personality. EEEA - which is also the sound of joy most people make when they meet Ms. Sideris - recently related some of her experiences from traveling to a landfill in Costa Rica. There, she encountered not only mountains of garbage, but actual "buzos," which after some crude research, the Educationally Independent shall define as, dump folk. These dump folk somehow manage to make a living out of sifting through trash, much like Charlie Kelly and Frank Reynolds from the television show "It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia." While is it commendable that these people have managed to survive off of refuse, effectively becoming an organic recycling system, much can be said about our present mindset that has allowed for the creation of so many landfills, and migrating oceanic garbage islands.

According to the EPA's website, there are currently twenty-four hundred landfills in the United States currently operating, or recently decommissioned, as well as five hundred additional landfills which are being used to harness natural gasses. However, in regards to years past, other random Yahoo Answer searches claim that the total number, active and otherwise, is around ten thousand.

EEEA provided a few incredibly helpful tips in the conservation effort that can help reduce your daily output of stupid, plastic bullshit.

1. Bring tupperware to restaurants for leftovers.
This is a brilliant one. Not only can you save food, reduce the usage of styrofoam, and refrain from saying, "You know a starving kid in China would be really grateful for that food," (which is funny because in China they're starting to say, "You know an overweight yet starving American would really appreciate that food.") but we can also stop people from making, and subsequently saying "shrinky-dinks," which is quite possibly the most irritating combination of phonetics available to the human tongue - unless of course, it is some hyper-nostalgic individual who will say, "Hey, remember when you could use number 6 plastic styrofoam containers to make shrinky-dinks?" We must all make sacrifices.

2. Buy things in bulk to reduce overall plastic usage.
A side-story: There is a new Chinese/Vietnamese restaurant in San Francisco. In a traditional Chinese bakery, all the delicious buns are kept behind a glass window, and the patrons place the order, which is packaged in a pink cardboard box, and tied together with pink plastic twine. In this new establishment however, they seem to find it necessary to plastic wrap each individual bun. In this way, they can have a side-walk display, where all the old Chinese ladies can pick their own pastries and rest assured that the sixty cent food item will keep much longer. This is how you corner the Chinese market - cheap food that lasts a long time. There is an orange in my refrigerator from November that is still perfectly fine. God help us. ***Update!!! These individually wrapped plastic pork buns are actually incredibly unsafe to eat, and should be avoided at all cost. I don't know where it is, so just stay out of Chinatown unless you have an experienced guide. -E.I *** Old Chinese women are also incredibly frightened by Al Gore, and so have little awareness of the environmental issues of today. In order to reduce the usage of plastic from this demographic, San Francisco had to speak the language of old Chinese women. They implemented a ten cent charge for any bag rendered in a grocery store. Now, they all have their own carts and tote bags.

3. Reuse plastic bags. (With the natural exception of those used to pick up pet feces)
This includes things like zip-lock bags. There is no shame in washing a zip-lock bag. The only thing that can happen is your next lunch may taste a little bit like your last lunch. Bacon-flavored anything is a bonus, so really, you're welcome.

Thanks Heleena.

In addition to these clever Earth saving measures, there is another that is not explicitly an environmental philosophy, but a life philosophy passed down by ancient Chinese wisdom. Live simply. It is impossible to phrase this more perfectly than the Tao te Ching. For life changing reading, go here:

http://www.wright-house.com/religions/taoism/tao-te-ching.html

(While I personally find this to be the most amazing thing ever, I do struggle to remember the teachings on a daily basis.)



The benefits of a simple life go beyond the overall planetary benefit. There exists that friend group, or neighborhood association, who seem insistent on constant competition with one another. Who has a bigger wine cellar, a whiter staff of house-help, a more German sedan, a higher number and grander quality of children? Do all the kids have iPhones? Are your wife's fake tits perkier, firmer, even? Can your watch function at a deeper sea level? Is your house fully covered in wi-fi? Is your keyboard and mouse wireless? Is your TV wireless? Is your home-phone wireless? Is every member of your family more bombarded with various bands and frequencies of wireless energies than the Thompsons? Is that weird buzzing feeling you get in your thigh when you don't have your phone on you, but it feels like you're getting a text message, more buzzy?

Life becomes so much easier, so incredibly stress free, when you can look out your window at your neighbor re-waxwing his BMW and think, "I don't fucking care to impress that individual. I don't care to work harder in order to make someone I don't care for, jealous of the things I don't want or need. I don't feel like expending the energy of putting on a fake smile, concocting some nonsense excuse to go over to their house, and flaunt the stupid things I don't want or need. I don't care if my computer is more than four years old. I don't care if my phone can't make light-saber noises. I don't care if my car seat doesn't warm my ass and massage my back. All I want out of my day is for my clothes to match the weather, my meals to quench my cravings, my company to be enjoyable, and for my poops to not hurt too much. Everything else is bullshit."

The day we realize that those friends we feel the need to materially compete against aren't really great friends, will be a very good day. The day we realize that the novelty and endless entertainment we find in our computers and the internet does not come from the devices themselves, but the people - their imaginations, and dreams, compounded and digitized - behind the veil, that we value. You do not love the Call of Duty disc. You love the community discovered in the multi-player, and the atmosphere created by the artist. You do not love the plastic head-set, but the capability of coordinating with a kid in Wisconson at three in the morning who is so dedicated to your squad that he is absolutely going to - with great irony - fail a history class on World War Two.