I am officially declaring my self-nomination for the “Best Blog Title Evar” award. It descends upon YOU, gentle reader, to support my drive towards victory. Expect some kind of campaign/propaganda posters in the very near future; since I myself haven’t actually installed Photoshop yet, I’m now looking pointedly at Gerry here. I fully expect something along the lines of this, except maybe replace the word “Hope” with the phrase “Comma Bitches”… and I feel fully justified in being this unreasonably demanding of Gerry within a satirical context. I plan on holding my Presidential Campaign press conferences in a similar manner, as well: “Mr. Coincon, Mr. Coincon, Sean Hannity, Fox News; how do you respond to the accusations that (except for ego, apparently) you’re nowhere NEAR qualified to be Leader Of The Free World? And I heard you’re French, too!” “Ah, Mr. Hannity, you raise some excellent points, and as always I admire your candor. In response, I feel that the only effective way to affect effective effects towards cleaning out the corruption-ridden cesspool we call a government is for someone with both thorough NON-experience in government and philosophical/intellectual integrity to man the helm. Start setting a positive course, as it were. The entire reason I hold these press conferences on a DAILY god damn basis is NOT to advance my own agenda, as is the norm for politicians (which, as per your own aforementioned observation, I am definitively NOT)… I subject myself to the rapacious attentions of the Media this frequently so that the American People may instead ask of me whatever questions they desire so that they might evaluate my philosophical/intellectual integrity. I want the American People to get to know ME and have confidence in ME as a person instead of the letter in parentheses to the right of my name… or the lack thereof, in my case. That being said, Mr. Fuckface, I have a small request for YOU… first, take a big step back… and literally FUCK YOUR OWN FACE! I don’t know what kind of pan-pacific bullshit power play you’re trying to pull here, but Asia, Jack, is my territory. So whatever you’re thinking, you’d better think again! Otherwise I’m gonna have to head down there and I will rain down a Godly fucking firestorm upon you! You’re gonna have to call the fucking United Nations and get a fucking binding resolution to keep me from fucking destroying you. I’m talking about scorched earth, motherfucker! I will massacre you! I WILL FUCK YOU UP!”
So I’m bored this evening at work (11PM to 7AM; the Graveyard Shift, so named because if you pull it long enough YOU WILL FUCKING PERISH) and started reading back over some of my old blog posts. Mostly correcting spelling errors (of which I’m not proud; I prefer all my drafts to be FINAL drafts), but also reassessing my views at the time of writing and reconciling them with the information at my disposal now. For example, I’m gonna have to write a “Taking Hostages, Part 3″ article pretty soon about how, although I grudgingly supported the original Auto Industry Bailout, I now believe we should NOT give the Big 3 ANOTHER bailout because they claim the first one wasn’t big enough. If those incompetent assclowns are now asking for an additional $21 billion while simultaneously complaining about the oversight measures that come along with the “Ok, We’ll Save Your Incompetent Clown Asses” funds… look, I’m sorry, I’m just strongly philosophically opposed to the attempt to legislate competition-crushing business acumen. If you’re refereeing a rugby game and one side is losing big time because they’re having barbecues and doing kegstands and shit instead of playing the damn game, you don’t pause the game, issue Mk 19′s and pillboxes to the entire losing team (“because if we don’t bail them out, they might LOSE!”), and then call “time-in” as if you have a fair game going on now.
I’m actually rather fond of that last metaphor. It’s not entirely coherent, perhaps I could have gone with something more pertinant to the idea of giving a company enough funds to crowd their successful competitors out of the market… but I really, really like the idea of a rugby team trying to run against a platoon of emplaced machine-gun grenade launchers. Somehow, I see a solution to our overcrowded-prisons-problem in that metaphor, as well. Someone oughta make a movie. Anyways.
IF I ever do make some kind of effort to actually get elected President, integrity is going to be my primary qualification. I’m not going to have many others of a governmental bent. The best course might be to go for something more local, like a Senate seat or something, do that gig for a while, and then try for the Presidency with the qualifications of both integrity and having not fucked up while in the Senate, which appears to be extremely difficult and should thus be pretty damn laudable nowadays. The Bill Janklow one there is my favorite: how, exactly, does one manage to get away with 100 days in jail and three years probation after running a stop sign and fucking killing someone? Wait, wait, what? Fucking hypoglycemia, are you fucking kidding me? Are you telling me that if I give myself Type II Diabetes by eating horrible shit food every day for years and then starve myself a bit before I go shoot up a daycare then I, too, can receive a punishment far out of proportion to my crime? Or do I have to be a FUCKING CONGRESSMAN FIRST?!?
But I digress. The point here (I THINK I’ve been aiming at one… maybe this is one of my rare “venting” articles) is that a big part of my decisionmaking process with respect to a given issue involves the assimilation and application of new data into my baseline for that issue. There’s a cool decisionmaking cycle I found in a sniper training manual called OODA, for Observe, Orient, Decide, Act; the cycle derives best possible action from constant reevaluation of baseline. “Baseline” is a concept that encompasses one’s sum total understanding of a situation; for a sniper, it involves facets of both enemy, ROE, terrain, mission, and what one had for breakfast; for me, all the data/facts surrounding an issue combined with my ethical/philosophical derivation from those data/facts could be said to compose my baseline. For a person, especially a leader or lawmaker, to adopt a position or platform and then fail to abandon – or at least revise – that position upon receiving information that invalidates that position… such a thing denotes a lack of integrity, and a lack of integrity renders that person unfit to lead. I am undoubtedly biased in this respect, but I don’t particularly give a shit what career qualifications a person who would lead possesses; I am much more concerned with a person’s ability to attempt to determine the course of action in any given situation that is “best” for the people dependant upon him for leadership. I realize that the value of “best” is debatable from differeing ethical value systems (thus the constant conflict between (D) and (R) in whatever sphere you care to name); I contend that only value systems derived from reality (and not wishful thinking (the D’s), a lack of intercultural competence (the R’s), or a gross misunderstanding of human nature (both)) are valid benchmarks for determining “best” in any given context; I further contend that only a philosophy that is based in observable data and is in a constant state of reevaluation of its own precepts in the light of new data can be considered “derived from reality”.
My final contention, indeed the postulate of my entire personal philosophy, is that only true, unbiased open-mindedness enables an entity (person, group, government, etc.) sufficient susceptibility to new data to form responsible opinions and courses of action. Admittedly, that last sentence there is a mouthful, and is likely to be interrupted with spurious cries of “nuh-uh!” (or your local equivalent; I’m paraphrasing here) before it can be successfully posited. Therefore, I choose to give a name to this philosophy, so that it may be introduced with the maximum of alacrity and a minimum of jackassus interruptus potential: I choose to call this the Sentient philosophy.
The entire force of moral righteousness (though I cringe a bit to use such a term) of the Sentient philosophy derives from this ridiculously high degree of intellectual integrity. The reasoning behind the bizarre title of this article (look, I know YOU might not find much funny about Rock beating his wife Scissors and the beaten Scissors going on to take out her rage at society upon fellow convict Paper as they cross the prison yard in April of 2013 (thus completing the traditional Rochambeau cycle and proving forever that you give what you get) but it did give me a chuckle as Paper eventually recovered from her injuries, became a model inmate, left prison on good behavior and went on to become a Congressperson… and we all know those guys defeat Integrity on a regular basis, so there. Satire!) is that the platforms of the Democrats and Republicans are just that: platforms. Having a combined set of unshakable beliefs/values gives the members of the respective parties a strong (ok, maybe not “strong”, but at least definite; “We very definitely believe in the stupid shit we believe in, regardless of its utility to society or its grounding in the real world we all theoretically inhabit”) foundation from which to speak… and when challenged with fact, the platform serves as a Rock (rather like faith, amusingly enough) to which the challenged can retreat and stand upon confidently and throw poo at the assailant. But if, as I think I’ve tentatively established, the Rock of conviction is seated upon sand… upon a set of supporting ideas that cannot be said to be truly derived from the Real, but rather more from expediency and prejudice and blind idealism… then exactly how strong is the Rock of conviction? It seems, from both an ethical, philosophical, and intellectual point of view, that Integrity (and, by association, the Sentient philosophy) can much more successfully provide what is “best”, or at least what is effective. Integrity does, indeed, cover Rock. IF, that is, the American People give a shit about improving their lot. Such remains to be seen.
…Comma Bitches.
Oh yeah, almost forgot: for god’s sakes people, this article DEFINITELY needs some feedback. Not only is it part of the whole Integrity thing I was harping on earlier, it also lets me know if I have any chance of helping this country out. Short of reestablishing the monarchy (which would entail its own set of problems… first and foremost, who would you trust enough to make Monarch?) I don’t see any other way of breaking the corrupt cycle of our present two-party system (which is actually a ONE-party system if you look at it… why else is there fucking LEGISLATION in place that makes it HARDER for a third-party candidate to get elected to ANYTHING than it is for a R/D?) than for the American People to elect someone who ISN’T a politician. Subliminally, I’m trying to get my own third-party movement started a decade out from when I’m old enough to run… but I also feel that putting forth any kind of ORGANIZED effort towards that end (fundraising, canvassing, baby-kissing, putting ugly signs in people’s yards that convey NO information beyond screaming “Vote For Me” or “The Other Guy Is A Bit Crap”, etc.) is a violation of the Integrity that is my reason for running in the first place. So I choose to take a more no-solicitation approach: not only is it much cheaper (and I beez the poor) but I’m of the opinion that if I have to do any advertising outside the merit of my ideas themselves, then I’ve sold out. I DO, however, need both feedback from America (ok, whoever reads this blog) AND any data that contradicts my current viewpoints that I’ve obviously missed (otherwise I wouldn’t have the erroneous viewpoint at ALL). So please, dear god, if you have any of either, bring it to my attention. Peace outside.
Also in the running for title of this blog was “Integrity Covers Rock; Rock Goes Home, Beats Scissors; Scissors Murders Rock In His Sleep, Gets 20 To Life, Cuts Paper In Prison”, but I liked the idea of the pain of Scissors’ past slowly twisting her from the inside, leading her into progressively more violent acts, until the final culmination of her trying to kill Paper in jail. Taking out her hatred of Rock ON Rock would be more just, but somehow doesn’t fit the whole “Cycle of Violence” thing I was going for… what motivation would Scissors then have for cutting Paper if Scissors had already exorcised her Rock based daemons by killing Rock himself? I think she would go all serene and shit in the aftermath of Rock’s death… police would find her sitting lotus-fashion in a spreading pool of Rock’s blood, having stabbed him in the femoral artery with – get this – a pair of scissors. Irony!
Of course, that could never really work from a narrative perspective because EVERYONE knows that Rock Beats Scissors and NOT the other way around… even IF Scissors was able to work up the courage necessary to take the fight to Rock, it would not avail her. Rock Beats Scissors, that’s just the way it is. So now, with the belief that she can NEVER get out from under Rock’s heel on her own power, Scissors is forced to hold all her rising hatred deep inside, leading her into progressively more self-destructive behaviors… and when Rock finally left her life after a horrible accident at the plant (Rock was crushed to death by a falling pallet… stacked with reams of Paper, fortunately enough… investigation was difficult due to Rock being Covered by Paper, bwahahaha) she was freed of the fear holding her back from going out and doing the things she’d always wanted… like staging a heist of the Ark of the Covenant from the Louvre’s secret subbasement. People contend to this day that she really WANTED to get caught, and her lawyer used such belief successfully to get Scissors sent to a minimum security prison… where Scissors and Paper had their fateful meeting. Paper was really just an innocent bystander in this whole affair… maybe not COMPLETELY innocent, she did try to shoplift all those thongs from Victoria’s Secret, but did Paper REALLY deserve the fate she received at the hands of Scissors? I contend that Paper was simply the wrong metaphor in the wrong place at the wrong time… and Scissors finally encountered someone whom SHE could dominate as SHE had been dominated. But it all worked out ok in the end, as Paper used the experience to become a better person, eventually making a successful bid as a Texas Representative.
Well, Coincon, I admire you for not ‘selling out’ and trying to win the public’s vote.
In fact, you don’t need to spend $$$ on media if you don’t want to. All you have to do is smooze and sell yourself to those voting in the electoral votes. As long as you win the electoral votes and lose in the popular vote, you still win. George Monkey Man Bush (W is actually an M) did it, so can you!
Meh. I despise smoozery. This will probably be the thing that makes me NOT win, but if people can’t support me for my ideas/character without me trying to trick them into doing so, I’d rather not have their vote. I know that’s what EVERYONE does nowadays, but I feel that the smoozing thing really undermines the entire purpose of Democracy… that purpose being the rule of Reason over Fear, Faith, etc. If I can only win through propaganda, like every other politician I’ve seen since being born, then I’d rather not win at all. Damn you Integrity, you take away all my fun. This is why people of Evil alignment have the best parties.