Archive for the ‘Anarchy Journal Constitutional’ Category

eanda logo

By @anarchyroll

America’s identity is its middle class. What makes America different than every other country that has come before it? The economic middle class…..guns, and obesity.

For real tho, it’s the middle class. We invented it. Before the United States of America there was no middle class. There was rich and there was poor.

What the middle class literally is, as well as what it metaphorically represents are both why people immigrate from all over the world, not just from the third world, to be in America. A country with an economic ladder for all people who work hard as opposed to caste systems? That concept is worth risking life and limb to millions of people each year. Legally and illegally people want into America.

Freedom/democracy is great too, but what good is freedom if you’re poor? What good is living if you live under literal oppression or economic oppression where there is only the super rich and the super poor? America, the land of opportunity; where ordinary people can simply work hard and be rewarded monetarily in a manner that enables not just animalistic survival, but also comfort, upward social mobility, and land ownership.

The socioeconomic middle class is Americana. Baseball, apple pie, barbecues, two week vacations, two car garage homes with a white picket fence. The images created by those words are the America middle class; the great reward for all born or adopted citizens who buy into the concept of American exceptionalism by giving their blood, sweat, and tears to a job for the middle two quarters of their life.

Without a middle class, America has no true identity. Freedom? Democracy? Those both existed before America. Flags? Bald eagles? Sports? White people oppressing minorities? Those all existed before America too believe it or not.
pew11

There is a saying; Don’t tell me about the labor pains just show me the baby.

One can look at that chart and say there are still plenty of people in the middle class. One can point to the people who have improved their income status over the past ten to forty years. Both are valid points. There is still a middle class in America and people have moved economically upward out of the middle.

Want another valid point? Both democratic and republican presidential candidates are dedicating equal time to talk about the erosion of the middle class. In this polarized political era, for both sides, to completely agree on a non national security/terrorism issue?

How can the erosion of the middle class be immune from political party polarization? Sure they’ll disagree on how to fix it, but to be in complete agreement of the present moment problem? Sounds like what happens when a person reaches a midlife crisis. And a midlife crisis is nothing more than an identity crisis.

The erosion of the middle class is America’s identity crisis.

Are we a caste system? Are we an oligarchy? Are we a republic? Can our economic and political systems ACTUALLY co exist? Should we just buy a sports car?

The real questions always start with Who/What/When/Where/Why and How?

Who; has benefited from the erosion of the middle class?
What; exactly has been happening over the past thirty years to lead to this erosion?
When; was the middle class the most robust?
Where; specifically did the wealth lost by the middle class go?
Why; was the middle class so vibrant at its peak?
How; can the economic principles of then be adapted to modern time?

If one asks these questions, and does a few basic Google searches, the answers become pretty obvious pretty fast. But the answers to these questions don’t actually require searching the internet do they? Deep down inside, we all already know what’s been happening. We know where the middle classes’ money has gone. We know whose benefiting from the loss of the middle class. We would like to tell ourselves we don’t know why because we want to see and believe the best in people.

Have you heard the phrase, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

How about; All is fair in love and war.

Class War has been the new Cold War for about thirty years, which wouldn’t ya know, is about how long the Cold War has been over, and is how long the middle class has been eroding.

logo 2

By @anarchyroll
12/8/15

Do you have a pro wrestling themed podcast, blog, or website? Are you a retired pro wrestler or pro wrestling personality? Do you make the choice to sit through every minute including commericials of WWE presented television every week? If so, you likely think the current state of WWE is half a drop of sweat from tiping over the point of no return into the doomsday pit of armageddon, hell, and Impact Wrestling levels of no return.

If you are not one of the types listed above but still watch and pay attention to pro wrestling on a casual or slightly dedicated status you likely think the current state of WWE is somewhere between; meh, could be better, and damn good wrestling but the promos are too scripted.

I am not a fan of the current product WWE is presenting on television every week. I think it is too predictable, formulaic, and presented in a tongue and cheek manner as PG as it has been in the last ten years.

However, the negative bias against WWE by those who choose to dedicate their time, energy, and focus on a weekly basis has reached levels previously reserved for terrorist attacks and Star Wars prequels.

If you choose to watch every minute of the seven plus hours of content WWE produces every week, it is easy to loose the forest in the trees. To think that the current product is the worst ever, which I have read and heard on numorous sites and podcasts is to also choose to ignore or not remember WWE in 1983, 1993, 1995, 2003, 2010; WCW from 1994 through the birth of the nWo ; ECW of Syfy ; and TNA Impact Wrestling from 2011- present.

To have such a viciously negative paradigm of WWE while ignoring the good to great work being done consistently by Ring of Honor, New Japan Pro Wrestling, Lucha Underground, and Pro Wrestling Guerilla makes the bloggers, podcasters, and haters part of the problem as much as Vince McMahon’s unwilligness to change/evolve/retire.

Choose to not watch, not cover, not report on the bad and to focus on the good of alternative pro wrestling. That is what I have done. I stopped watching WWE on a consistent basis during the Road to WrestleMania 21. John Cena and Dave Bautista have never been my cup of tea after 2004.

I still watch WWE, but not as often. I will read results before choosing whether or not to watch except for the big four ppvs (Rumble, Mania, Summerslam, Survivor Series). I instead choose to spend my time, focus, and money supporting ROH, NJPW, and the indies. From 2003-2009 I also happily did so for TNA.

But it is not WWE’s actual quality that all these podcasters and retired wrestling personalities hate. It’s that if they don’t choose to cover WWE someone else will. The fear of being unpopular and irrelevant. The fear WWE hasn’t had since March of 2001.

Sheamus isn’t that bad of a champion. Roman isn’t that bad of a lead babyface. Neither are my preferred choice. If were up to me the wrestlers currently feuding for the IC and NXT titles would be the faces of the company. But…..

WWE is not obligated to live up to the expectations of my imagination and personal taste.

Just because you have a blog, podcast, Twitter account, and/or a history in the pro wrestling business doesn’t mean WWE owes that to you either.

Accept that and cover them with some integrity and respect for journalism/broadcasting or accept that you are as thick headed, immature, and unable to evolve as the people booking the current WWE product.

That being said…..

CVw_aAkUYAErdjZ

 

 

 

By @anarchyroll
12/6/15

Do you know who Edward Snowden is? Probably.

Do you have an opinion on Edward Snowden? Definitely.

If there’s one thing that I have learned since Snowden popped his whistleblowing cherry, it’s that everyone has an opinion about him whether they know who he is or not. He is either a hero or a traitor. There is no in between or gray area for the masses for this man.

He is either the alpha patriot or the omega cyber terrorist. He either deserves to be given a medal or a noose around his neck.

The United States government on the record believes Edward Snowden to be a traitor who if ever captured will be tried as such. The United States and our allies are the good guys of the world. We protect the masses from the bad guys preemptively when possible, and defeat the bad guys by force when plausible.

Europe generally, and the European Union specifically have been an ally of America for quite some time. The Allied Powers of Word War II naturally comes to mind. One need not be up to the minute on international relations, politics, or events to know that Europe and America have a very positive and professional relationship regardless of specific country or state.
The European Union Parliament recently voted to give Edward Snowden asylum and to offer it to him with as little difficult as possible.

Can you imagine the EU doing this to someone the US government labeled a communist traitor during the Cold War

It’s not a radical example at all. Snowden is currently in Russia.

How can Snowden be a traitor of the highest level in the United States yet our greatest ally is now formally welcoming him with open arms? This was not a random, one off, toothless statement by some drunk politician. This was the equivalent of the United States Congress offering asylum to a man that a country like France had labeled a traitor.
Edward Snowden has become the very public face of a very private world. The world of big data, cyber crime, cyber warfare, and privacy in the digital world.

For better or for worse, whether one agrees or disagrees with his method, Snowden has brought about as important a conversation that can be had in the digital age. One can be the biggest supporter of government surveillance while still admitting that Snowden has spurred a healthy debate on the issue.

Do we not have the right to at least know we are being watched and recorded every time we use our smartphone, tablet, laptop, desktop, and any other device that is connected to the internet? The fact is, most people, especially in America simply didn’t know or assume this before Snowden.

A whistleblower is different than a criminal. A whistleblower is different than a traitor. Is that not why the people behind the Pentagon Papers were not executed for treason?

It was very easy to paint Snowden as a traitor to America since he leaked government secrets to the public and has since taken barely secret residence in Russia. The EU formally offering him asylum turns the black and white into a very murky shade of gray.

Considering how many broadcast news stations have had in person interviews with Snowden since he received asylum in Russia indicates that he is not America’s most wanted. After recent terrorist attacks and mass shootings across America and its allies, it is clear that Snowden is not a terrorist even if one views him as a traitor.

If however, he has been formally offered asylum by America’s greatest and longest standing allies…how can he be a traitor?

mm@C4logo2

By @anarchyroll
11/29/15

All good things come to an end and nothing lasts forever…except diamonds of course.

Whether or not Spectre is the end of the Daniel Craig era proper, the spirit of change that Craig’s run as 007 has certainly passed. That much is made obvious by even a casual fan of the Bond franchise and/or someone who has seen all four films in Craig’s reign (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall, Spectre).

The name of the film was in advance, a not so subtle signal to the return of the franchise’s glory days.

From Dave Batista’s character being a nod to Jaws, to the full fledged return of the Spectre organization, and its leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Whereas Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace forcefully took the franchise in a bold new direction, Spectre is a return to the classic Bond archetype better and for worse.

The prior Craig films would often give a twist and a tip of the cap to prior Bond iconography. Even at times seeming to poke fun at some of the archetypes the franchise created and leaned heavily upon over the course of the last half century. Spectre at times seemed like a parody of the franchise made by the franchise to set up the future of the franchise.

Both Bond girls become stereotypical Bond girls and do so rather quickly. Bond’s car and gadget(s) are presented in flippant manners. The reveal of Christopher Waltz’s character as Blofeld is done in a setting/location that is a composite of the most stereotypical Bond villain hideouts and locales.

One must wonder why they ever diverted the franchise off course if to only bring it right back on it after less than a handful of films. I liked the new direction the Craig films took. But Skyfall was more of a traditional Bond film, so there were really only two films that upended the franchise to chart a new modern course in the modern era of major motion pictures.

Die Another Day although not as bad as some remember, certainly jumped the shark with virtually every aspect of the Bond franchise. A reboot to some degree was warranted after the invisible car chase. But to come full circle and go right back to tongue and cheeky within ten years and four films of the gritty, edgy, more realistic 007 seems trite at best and lazy at worst.

I’m all about a return to the roots. Bring on the lazers, jetpacks, and sexual innuendo named women. Why not make the next film a tip of the cap to the Austin Powers? At times, that’s what Spectre felt like.

I never cared that the franchise was being upended and made grittier when the Craig era started. I cared that the money making franchise started making quality, stand alone, artistic films again. The previous films (Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Skyfall) had cinematography that rivaled any other film that came out that year. The mise en scené of almost every frame was great filmmaking. A quest to make art seemed to replace the thirst to make more money.

Spectre was indeed a return to the classic Bond archetype. For better and for worse.

Those classic Bond movies were made for popcorn entertainment and for making money. Perhaps the gears of the money making machine that is modern motion picture making finally chewed up and spit out the artistic spirit of the franchises’ modern era. Perhaps that has something to do with director Sam Mendes and star Daniel Craig both vehemently stating they don’t want to return to the franchise.

Perhaps what is old is simply new again.

If that is the case, where can I place a substantial monetary bet that the title of the next Bond film will have the word Gold somewhere in it?

image

By @anarchyroll
11/14/15

What is a life worth?

Which lives are more valuable than others?

What makes a life or a group of lives more valuable than others?

There has been so much justified sadness and anger at the terrorist attacks on in Paris. But ISIS has been killing people by the hundreds in the Middle East for quite a long time now. The war in Syria has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, literally millions of people.

The news media has reported these facts. The refugee crisis in the Europe grabbed plenty of headlines. President Obama has spoken about Syria publicly. Russia’s direct and indirect involvement there has been international news more than once. But public outcry, sadness, and prayers have been at a minimal if not absent from the discourse completely.

Over 100 dead civillians is a big number for a terrorist attack. It is a tragedy. It is sad. It is horrible in every sense of the word. But why are those lives worth more attention and mourning than the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths that ISIS has contributed to in the Middle East?

There’s no right or wrong answer. These questions are not being asked from a pedestal. But they are questions worth asking and worth thinking about in between news updates from the blood stained streets of Paris.