TOW 24: IRB

Judging at face value.. or rather, the back cover synopsis, A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius by Dave Eggers seems like a soberingly self-aware account of loss, responsibility, and the bond of two brothers after their lives are forever changed with the death of their parents. It seems like a sob story, but a sarcastic, thought provoking sob story. However, when one gets past the first thirty pages of the book relating the immediate aftermath of the main character's parents' death, the book's tone changes, and we are left with the author's very self centered accounts of his life in San Francisco as a young, counter-cultured adult, and the hijinks that ensue (the main character's little brother, who is supposed to be the main point of conflict during the memoir as he is now under the care of his ill-prepared older brother, plays a cursory role). So while the book masquerades as a provoking work of "hope and hysteria", it is really just a book written by a hipster, about hipsters, for hipsters. So while I may not have gleaned A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius's (AHWoSG) original purpose, what I did gain from reading it is that throughout modern American history there has been a systemic subculture of "hipster-dom" and that this subculture will forever be (although under different monikers) a part of American culture.

AHWoSG takes place in the 1990's, long before we labeled the plaid-wearing, IPA-drinking, beard-grooming young urban folk as "hipsters". However, the main characters in AHWoSG display many of the traits that define the subculture we now identify as hipster. A hipster is simply a name for the counter culture of young individuals who have renounced conformity in the name of cultural revolution and what the define as the lifestyles and attitudes of the future. The main character and his friends have left behind the normativity of life back in suburban Chicago for San Francisco: a land of young folk and "ahead of the curve" culture. They believe that they are revolutionaries, going against the grain to change the way the masses think by being ironic or avant-garde in the low-budget, too-cool-for-you-to-know-about magazine that they produce. This subgroup of young people who believe in going against the norm, going against the ideas of their parents and grandparents, and seemingly (operative word being seemingly) changing the world has been a large part of American culture for at least the last century, and AHWoSG provides just a snapshot of that group as it manifested itself in the 1990's. The magazine editors in AHWoSG compare their work to that of "The Factory", the place where Andy Warhol and friends produced their art in the 1960's. This comparison is pivotal, because it shows that the group we now identify as hipsters have been around before, but just under different names. Whether it be the folksy Beatniks of the 50's and 60's, the Warhol inspired punk culture of the 70's and 80's, AHWoSG's pre-2000's paragons of young adult angst, or today's Brooklyn-bound unicycle enthusiasts, we will always have a relatively vocal group of young folk who, for better or worse, are bent on changing the world.. for the hipper.

TOW #23: Visual

The U.S.'s corporate tax has long been a point of contention in the United States. Many liberals believe that a high corporate tax places responsibility on the richest of Americans (well, not "people" but "corporations", unless you believe corporations are people). Conversely, conservatives believe that raising the corporate tax will force away business to unregulated overseas markets. This view is what Chip Bok, a cartoonist for magazines such as The Times of London and New York Times, depicts in his April 7th cartoon showing businessmen setting sail from an enraged Barack Obama and the "world's highest business tax". While many conservatives may fear this mass exodus of business, in reality many corporations don't even pay the corporate tax, making evident the need for an even stronger corporate tax.

America's largest corporations largely do not pay taxes despite their grossly inflated revenues. Due to innumerous tax loopholes and off shore accounts, corporations pay close to none of the U.S's 35% corporate tax. According to Forbes, Apple only pays 11% of its income in taxes, and General electric paid only 9% of its 2 Billion dollars in revenue. To put this in perspective, 2 of the world’s highest grossing corporations are paying less than the 15% income tax on persons making only $10,000 dollars a year. This disparity in the taxes paid by corporations versus people is startling, and weakens the argument that the United States is forcing their own businesses out. Due to this, it is easy to see that the corporate tax rather than being relaxed, should be strengthened in order to hold big businesses accountable for their revenues. Corporations in no way will be hurt from these taxes, and it will be the first step in reducing the gaping void between the rich and the poor.

TOW #22: Losing in Battle, ISIS Gains by Attacking the 'Gray Zone' of the West

Following the bombings in Brussels in late March, the already fervent anti-ISIS hysteria in the U.S. has reached soaring new levels. It has precipitated a frighteningly acute Islamaphobia among tense Americans, which has manifested itself into intensifying anti-Muslim and isolationist political rhetoric. Even as ISIS loses large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq as reported by Karl Vick for TIME Magazine, America's fear of the amorphous jihadist group grows. Politicians, media and citizens alike fervently propose ways to stave ISIS's terror; however, this frenzy does not weaken ISIS but rather gives them exactly what they want--it helps them win.

A main goal of ISIS is to eliminate the "gray zone" (more on that later), and America's Islamaphobic response to ISIS attacks has catalyzed the "gray zone's" implosion. ISIS's online magazine describes the Gray Zone as "any society in which Muslims and non-Muslims coexist" and ISIS wishes to "destroy the gray zone." The Brussels attacks can be seen as a direct attack on the Gray Zone as Europe is largely a Gray area in that Muslims and Non-Muslims coexist there. The U.S. is also a Gray Zone. However, after the Brussels attacks, Paris attacks, and San Bernadino shootings, many politicians have proposed feigned protective strategies that would threaten America's "grayness" so to speak. Republican presidential nominees Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have both expressed their desire to homogenize the American population. Cruz proposed the policing of areas with high concentrations of Muslim citizens, and Trump went even further by proposing a direct ban on Muslim immigrants. These reactionary and fear-mongered responses do not help to assuage ISIS's terror but instead fan the flames of ISIS's war by separating Muslim people from peoples of other ideologies.

In the past, America has had a history of demonizing groups when faced with a foreign threat, and today is no different. It was Eastern Europeans in the first Red Scare and Socialists during the HUAC hearing, but today it is Muslims in the age of ISIS. This demonization and isolationism might create a veil of safety for Americans, but it is a false veil. America's fearful rhetoric hurts American citizens and strengthens ISIS's aims, fracturing the diverse population that characterizes the American ideal. So, if we want to make America great again, then we'll have to make America gray again.

TOW #21: Neurasthenia: The Disease of Living Too Fast

During the turn of the century, as industrialization brought people to the bustling cities and typical gender roles began to fade, a disease known as neurasthenia was created to explain what today we would classify as work related stress. However, according to turn of the century physicians, the rigors of modern living reduced the "nervous energy" of a person and made them lethargic, achy, or generally in a state of malaise. The "cure" for neurasthenia was to (at least for men) take an extended vacation to the great outdoors. In an article for magazine, The Atlantic, author Julie Beck establishes how neurasthenia was complete rubbish used to establish rights of the privileged. However, the heart of neurasthenia as it relates to the American theme of overworking oneself still holds true today, and there is still some merit to slowing down every once in a while.

When neurasthenia was in vogue, Americans were just beginning their indsutrial, enterprising spirit. Today, we uphold this spirit as much as ever as we delve deeper into our jobs, seemingly never leaving a screen or our phones. As our level if work related stress increases to the point of insanity, the need for a break is ever important. The average American works a steady job five days a week, and often brings this job home with them, constantly being connected to social media, email, etc. While this constant connection may be a good thing in terms of increasing our productivity and the ease with which we carry out every day tasks, it also can be exhausting as we are in constant connection with those around us. This increase in our stress levels thus precipitates the need for a mental break, as was the cure for neurasthenia back in the day. Today, rather than taking month long excursions to dude ranches in Wyoming like Teddy Roosevelt did to cure his neurasthenia, it is necessary that we slow down from our stress in other ways. Taking a few hours away from our screens each day, or designating a day each week to get outside and away from our work and technology may behoove us more than we think. Taking up a yoga class, going for a walk in the woods, or simply taking a well deserved nap could provide the respite necessary to cure us of our modern day neurasthenia. 

TOW 20- IRB

The psychological ramifications of cancer to caregivers and loved ones of those who have passed away are often burdensome and life altering. Dave Eggers' Pulitzer Prize nominated book A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius takes a look at these ramifications in a manic, confused, daydreamy way. While the narrator of the non-fiction account shrouds his pain in irony and humor, it is obvious that those who have lost loved ones to cancer suffer from psychological effects much deeper than just loss.

In his book, Eggers, who is also the narrator, skips directly from the death of his parents (both to unrelated cancers and within months of each other) to months later where he acts as the sole caregiver of his young brother Toph. The situation would seem to be a very hard one for a young adult to deal with, being handed so much responsibility in such a short time, but Eggers seems completely unfazed and rather happy about the whole situation. He describes their situation as "collecting on what's coming to us, each day we're being paid back for what is owed, what we deserve, with interest". Eggers initial description of his situation seems selfish and relaxed, but soon one can see that he is really just unstable. His manic attitude shifts his thoughts immediately from "Should I lighten my hair? Does that whitening toothpase really work?" to "Maybe I'm already sick. It's already growing inside me. A tapeworm. AIDS. I have to get started, have to get started soon because I will die before thirty". His thoughts about the mundane easily shift into a slippery slope of unjustified death and despair that shows his mental instability. Thus Eggers psyche is not just affected by sadness and loss, but his entire mechanism of sane thinking has been rocked by the events which have transpired, and the situation he finds himself in. 

Cancer often lingers long after it takes the life of someone, and that is shown poignantly in A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. While many people may pretend to be unfazed by their loss, the truth is that cancer can greatly rattle those it affects for life.

TOW 19: Visual

The second amendment may protect American's right to bear arms, but that doesn't change the fact that gun violence is responsible for the deaths of 30,000 Americans each year. In this ad by gun control activists Moms Demand Action, the images of two children holding two very different objects are juxtaposed. One child holds a Kinder Egg, a popular European treat where a toy is encased in a chocolate egg, and the other an assault rifle; however, only one is banned--the Kinder Egg. This ad effectively shows the absurdity of gun laws: that a seemingly harmless toy is banned to protect children, but deadly fire arms are not. It would seem through this ad that the banning of assault rifles is an obvious necessity in the U.S. However, the author's goal of banning assault weapons in this ad has yet to reach fruition, and in fact probably never will. 

After each mass shooting that occurs in what seems like more frequent increments, there happens to be a period of time where Americans express their outrage regarding lax gun laws. And each time, it seems as if there might be progress made regarding the regulation of guns; however, no matter how many times outrage is expressed, there will never be any progress made. While this seems pessimistic, it is merely the unfortunate truth that is the consequence of a bitter and unbending system. Anti-gun activists continually advocate for gun bans similar to those in Australia and GB, however gun rights groups like the NRA hold so much sway within the American political machine that not even background checks will be approved by congress. The paranoid American is in constant fear of Big Brother taking away their second amendment rights, and this leads them to be against any form of gun regulation. Due to this, even the most minuscule goals of groups like Moms Demand Action such as banning extended magazines will never be reached.  

It seems obvious in this advert and to the majority of the first world that guns and absolute safety cannot coexist. Despite this, the fearful pro-Second-Amendment fervor of Americans will keep any progress from being made. So for now we will saved from the abomination that is a Kinder Egg, but at least we will be able to carry our heavy duty, extended magazine assault rifles. 

TOW #18: Is Trump Unstoppable?

When orange-faced-filter-lacker Donald Trump announced his campaign for presidency what seems like eons ago, we all thought it was a joke. What did this loud, touped, casino monger think he was doing in politics? He'd never last... or so we thought. But, unfortunately for women, Muslims, blacks, hispanics, minorities in general, and basically anyone with a modicum of respect for the American political system, Trump is still going strong--and getting stronger. This underdog--if the word underdog can be used to describe a white anglo millionaire--has led the polls non-stop for months and has won primaries in New Hampshire and now South Carolina. As the nation watches Trump seemingly run away with the Republican nomination, one question (raised by David Graham in The Atlantic) remains: is this angry human Dorito without a volume setting unstoppable? As much as I and many others would hate to believe it, the answer for now is unfortunately yes.

The Republican nomination will go to Trump not because of his careful oration and pandering skills (seemingly winning traits in any other candidate) but because of the opposite: he says whatever he wants. Trump is a filter-less, anti-PC gladiator in the primetime-network-news-channel-Republican-debate Thunderdome. Frightened turtle in disguise Jeb Bush and chew toy Marco Rubio have become Trump's ragdolls: they act as the pussyfooting establishment foils to Trump's blunt, dark horse honesty. Trump has said many things that would in any other presidential race before this would have torpedoed a campaign. From commenting on pundit Megyn Kelly's "bleeding" to feuding with the pope, Trump has run the gamut of offenses. However, each blunder is less of a blunder and instead acts as a surge for Trump. That is his strength, and that is why he is unstoppable. Like a cancer, checkpoints and defenses that should have stopped Trump long ago have failed and instead his support multiplies and metastasizes across the country with staggering unpredictability. People like that Trump says what he wants, that he doesn't pander to outside interests. He represents a refreshing (?) change from the robotic establishment Republican nominees of the past like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingerich and John McCain. Trump's anti-establishment rhetoric is somewhat revolutionary, and thus unstoppable...

...For now. While Trump has bested his Republican foes, assuming he wins the nomination he will still have to face a democratic nominee next November. And while his gung-ho, tell-it-like-it-is strategy may appeal to the majority Republican demographic, he still has to win a majority of Americans--Democrats included. So while the runaway Trump train may be rolling its way to the RNC now, it has a long way to go before it reaches the White House.

TOW #17: The Perils of Presidentialism

The United States' government, with its executive, legislative and judicial branches always checking and balancing each other, is the pride of the patriotic American people. However, this government is more of a Frankenstein's Monster than an Adonis. In his 1996 essay, Professor of Political Science at Yale University Juan Linz reveals the perennial instability of presidential governments compared to their parliamentary counterparts. While it cannot be denied that there are some merits to the U.S's presidential government, it is historically obvious that America's presidential government is highly unstable.

Linz argues in his essay that the dissident powers of legislative and executive branches in the American government have long been a fault line in the U.S. government. This idea, which essentially points out the dangerous clash between the president and congress regarding who holds the democratic "power of the people" has been a long running theme in American government. During the presidency of accidental president Andrew Johnson, this political disparity almost destroyed the American political structure. Johnson disagreed heavily with the legislative majority Republicans regarding how to carry out Civil War Reconstruction. Johnson ignored the party's obvious majority opinion in the Senate and House and vetoed all bills passed by the party. Heavily annoyed by this stalemate, Republicans impeach Johnson on illegitimate grounds. Johnson was not removed from office and a crisis was averted; however, had he been removed it would have set a dangerous precedent that the legislature could remove the president at any time just because they didn't like his policy. Thus, the constant power struggle between the executive and legislative branches undermines the stability of the American Government.

Despite the relative instability of American Government, there are still benefits to the American political system. The constant checks and balances between the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches protect the country from polar decision making and excess political expediency. French philosopher Montesquieu believed that government needed checks and balances between its major institutions in order to ensure that no one interest could carry out highly polarized actions. The American system of government upholds this belief as the presidential veto, legislative power to pass bills, and judicial review allows all governmental decisions to be checked before being passed into law. This means that no rash decisions (hopefully) will be pushed through the government into law, but also means that almost nothing ever gets done. So while this system may provide necessary checks, it also is extremely inefficient and overall largely unstable.

America has thus far been able to operate with relative effectiveness under our current system of government. However, as Linz shows in his essay and as history has shown us, there are many faults in America's system that will inevitably lead to its downfall. The question that remains is when?

IRB Intro #3: A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius

I generally try to stay away from "feel good" books with a tragedy that ultimately leads to a warm and fuzzy moral about the triumph of the human spirit--sentiment makes me nauseous. Due to this, I thought that A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (just look at the title) by Dave Eggers would be the same type of heart-warming-turned-into-a-made-for-TV-Lifetime-movie memoir that I try to stay away from. However, after seeing the book crop up in various lists of top nonfiction reads online, I decided to check it out. The book is a "memoir" by Dave Eggers, but its clear that the book is trying to chew off more than the title memoir would imply just based on the reviews. The book is about Eggers' hardships as the sole guardian to his little brother after both of his parents died of cancer. While this sounds like the prime subject matter for soppy, sad, beach reads, apparently the book is rather known for its sardonic nature and bitter self consciousness. In other words, it has been likened more to David Foster Wallace than Jodi Piccoult. This makes me extremely interested in reading this book as I really do not know what to expect, and I hope to gain (perhaps) some moral or philosophical insight into the more human side of loss through reading this.

TOW #16: IRB (2)

Sebastian Junger's book War, an account of his time in the Korengal Valley of Afghanistan during American occupation of the country in the late aughts, spends much of its time humanizing war. Junger focuses much of the first half of the book on the relationships between soldiers and the psychological effects of war that are seldom seen in press clippings of numbers of dead and progress made. The human aspect of war is a very important part of Junger's attempt to show war at its rawest and most honest, and in the second half of the book Junger also highlights the distortions between the progress we think is being made oversees in short news clippings and what is actually happening. In comparing the distorted and overly optimistic view of the U.S's progress in Afghanistan to the haphazard reality, Jungr effectively shows how war is much less black and white, and (in the case of Afghanistan) much more dire than the average civilian American would know.

Junger's account of the war in Afghanistan is far from saccharine. Much of the book consists of first hand accounts of the bloody, gruesome firefights between the Taliban and Battle Company on the Abas Ghar in the Korengal Valley. The death's of Americans are frequent and ironically unheroic, and the deaths caused by the American's follow in the same way. However, if you listened to military press officers, who presented only part of the truth about the war (the positive truth), you wouldn't know that. Junger shows this distinction to the average civilian by comparing the truth of war (which he has been describing throughout the entirety of the book) to what he calls "Vietnam moments". According to Junger, "Vietnam moments" were when journalists "weren't so much getting misled as getting asked to participate in a kind of collective wishful thinking" (Junger 132). Junger provides an example of this when he recounts how "more American soldiers were killed that year than any previous year before" (Junger 132), but this was distorted as being the cause of soldiers "taking the fight to the enemy"(Junger 132). This tweaking of the facts often distorts the public's perception of a war, and simplifies it into a black and white conflict that is an easier pill to swallow. Through showing the disconnect between how the war is presented and how it actually is, Junger demystifies the often-shrouded-in-mystery nature of war. This, along with his harrowing descriptions of the fear felt by soldiers in firefights and the connection between soldiers, does not necessarily argue against war but seemingly shows it in its rawest and most unadulterated context.

TOW #15: Visual Text

The line between body acceptance and complacency is a fine one indeed. Should acceptance of one's body mean complacency in terms of health goals? Can you love your body but still strive to become healthier? The short answer is yes. However, there is still controversy surrounding the reconciliation of body acceptance and fitness goals, and this can be seen in the iconic sports company Nike's controversial "Find Your Greatness" ad. The ad has come under fire for its image of an obese child struggling to run down a street. Detractors of the ad believe that the image is demeaning to the child, and portrays him in a body-shaming, unflattering light. Despite this, the ad's striking and blunt imagery effectively creates a rousing and determined message that forces the audience to, in accordance with Nike's famous mantra, just do it.

The visual was released in a 2012 pre-olympic ad campaign containing diverse images captioned "find your greatness". The campaign strove to contain not only images of physical-adonis-pro-athletes, but also average people in order to show that greatness resides within everyone. This particular image's stark placement of the struggling obese child against sprawling fields and an open road creates a very powerful effect. The audience can feel the perseverance of the child who, when faced with nothing but open road, continues to run despite his physical hinderances. The setting sun in the background and the emptiness of the frame hyper-focuses the audience's attention to the running boy, and simplifies the image to nothing but a boy and his goal, at odds with each other but destined to meet. The placement of the words "Find your greatness." written in sans serif font with all capital letters underscores this perseverance by not fussing with motivational words but bluntly stating the ultimate goal of everyone's physical endeavors--to reach greatness. This message, characterized by the running boy, causes the audience to see a nobility in striving for greatness, and shows them that greatness manifests itself differently for everyone. It shows that greatness, no matter if it is just running a mile or winning a marathon, knows no excuses and can be achieved by anyone as long as they put in the work.

This image can be criticized for its portrayal of the boy; however, criticizers cannot deny the power of the image's message of undying determination in the name of greatness. This image appeals to any person who has ever debated not going to the gym, ending their run early, or slowing down their game pace. If they simply recall the image of the running boy, they will remember that greatness knows no boundaries and can be achieved by even the most unassuming of athletes.

TOW #14: The League of Extraordinary Assholes

In our modern world of regulated capitalist democracy it is increasingly easy to see the inflated entitlement of the wealthy or privileged, whether it be while we are driving, in line at Starbucks, or waiting for luggage at the airport. While we look on from our relative squalor compared to these paragons of privilege, it is easy to see how their false air of superiority can contribute to, as University of Toronto Philosophy professor and writer for The Walrus Magazine Mark Kingwell rather gracefully calls it, "assholery". While this characteristic disregard of other human beings is often reserved for the privileged, Kingwell argues in his op-ed that there is a logical reason for "jerkiness", and that this "jerkiness" can be manifested in all of us whenever we are in a position of superiority.

Kingwell writes for the common man--but with an academic's flair--and deftly illustrates the tenets of "jerkiness" by defining and then providing examples for its various parts. He paints the picture of the jerk in everyone, saying that most people "may not be a jerk most of the time--except when I feel myself superior". By defining the superiority complex that enables jerkiness, the reader is able to connect to the concept of jerkiness, for they themselves have probably felt entitled in their superiority at one point or another. In order to reinforce this idea of "jerkiness", Kingwell provides examples of where jerky superiority might be manifested. He gives an example of  feigned superiority, saying "Thus servers, clerks, students, cashiers, and—especially—strangers can be seen as easy targets. Without fear of reprisal or loss of status, indeed with a sense of confirming it by getting one’s way or securing an advantage, jerkiness can seem justified".  Through showing how jerkiness grows and rears its ugly head, Kingwell thus shows that jerkiness is not just reserved for the over-privileged (who he describes to be not just jerks but rather at a more unsavory level of entitlement) but can be seen in all of us when we lose our sense of empathy and see ourselves as better than others. Thus, Kingwell begs the question, are you or have you ever been a jerk? And for most of us, the answer is yes.