Bill Cosby

The black coup against Cosby is just more proof that self-interest now trumps racial identity for an ever-increasing number of Americans. After all, Cosby was once among the most revered, respected---indeed, beloved---men in black America. But now that he's had the temerity to acknowledge the dysfunctional, self-retarding state of inner-city black culture, he's persona non grata in black circles. In fact, many blacks would sooner pull the lever for a white-guilt candidate who perpetuates their safe and comfortable "victim" identity than for a black man who suggests that black behavior might have something to do with the black circumstance. Meanwhile, in white America, the same thing is true, as historically racist segments of conservative white America are now embracing black candidates who espouse conservative principles. And why? Because a lot of so-called racial strife is actually less to do with race than with disparate value systems. And to a greater extent than ever before, we now prize values above race.

Wolves

Having lived in Montana from before the wolves were introduced, I have some practical realities to point out. 1)Reintroduced is a misnomer. These are Canadian wolves, a larger species than the original in the area. That's a small distinction, but an accurate one. 2)In Montana, except in the Park (because man made that illegal), man had replaced wolves as a predator and man was carefully controlling the population of deer/etc. Nature has seen many extinctions over the years and it is not appropriate to view new balances that are reached as being "out of balance." Such thinking would require us to eliminate all modern creatures and restore the most ancient variety when taken to its logical conclusion. "Mother Nature" as it has been termed is always shifting. It would be good to acknowledge that man is part of nature, not outside of it. 3)It has been documented that wolf packs do, contrary to popular belief, kill for the sake of killing and leave the prey to rot. This may possibly fall under the category of training the young in hunting, but the result is that wolves do indeed kill what they do not eat. 4)I am well aware, from a source I will not name here, that the number of wolves present in the park and in Montana is suppressed/under-reported. This is done deliberately and has been done deliberately from the early years of the program. For years, this prevented the wolves from being made available for hunting/population control. 5)Compensating ranchers for their wolf kills comes from the state or private entities, not the federal government which controlled the introduction. This compensation does not cover the overall cost to the rancher as the wolves cause an overall loss amongst the herd sold each year in body weight.

Mental Illness

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun nuts want more guns, and gun haters want less guns. The United States has a large population and a certain number are mentally ill and some of the mentally ill are dangerous. Instead of arguing over gun rights, why are the great minds not trying to figure out how to determine which mentally ill are in need of in patient care and how to pay for the care? There are few if any actual diagnostic tests for mental illness. Collection of symptoms and drugs that might work or help mostly trial and error.

Approximately 60 million Americans take antidepressant drugs in America, reports of 14,000 adverse reactions, even 140,000 would indicate that they have little effect as far as promoting violent behavior. The shooter knew exactly what he was doing, he was not forced to shoot anyone because of the regime of prescription drugs he was taking. Perhaps simply hold the person responsible responsible and not engage in a desperate attempt at finding an excuse for why they did something is a better approach? As far as the 'person' who ran down those people during SXSW, to my understanding he wasn't on any antidepressants, which excuse for his behavior is going to be proposed?

Pornography

The real irony here is that the author imagines that she poses a significant threat to the patriarchy. I hate to break it to the author, but the author is serving and utterly re-inscribing the power of the patriarchy with every exchange of her sexual labor for money. The patriarchy is based on a power differential in which one party, women, are the underclass, those without, those who come second and the ones who serve. In this exchange, you are entering the commodity relation as the weaker party, the party who needs money, the one who must sell her sexual labor as a commodity. Don't forget that is is the patriarchy that has the power and the money to "command" your labor as such. Any worker can imagine that their sale of the labor commodity "empowers" them. But the objective conditions are otherwise. Objectively, there is no parity between you and the patriarchy that employs you. You are the one in need of money; the sex industry is the one with the money. You are the one who must work; the sex industry is the one who profits from your labor by selling the surplus value extracted at the point of labor, your labor. You are paid a fixed wage, I would imagine, while the sex industry reaps profit for doing nothing.

You can believe what you want to believe; but your belief is actually false consciousness. You're being exploited just like every other worker, and in this case, in a much more intimate way. Your body is literally becoming the spectacle of the commodity, a commodity that obscures the real social relations between people, the people who made it. Your sexual spectacle is being erected to dazzle others with a false sense of participation in an act from which they are ultimately alienated, objectively.

This is not a moral judgment. It is an economic and social analysis. In the end, you are a worker, a laborer, the one exploited. The sex industry, the emblem of the patriarchy, is the one profiting from your work. I don't feel sorry for you. I just think that you are seeing life as if through a camera obscura: upside-down and inside-out.