The Audio Stylings of Chris Levens
"I'm a Gangster"

•

I think racism disclaimers are funny.

An example of a racism disclaimer is something like this:
I married a {fill in minority group here} so that shows that I'm not a racist.

Or like this:

She adopted a {fill in minority group here} child therefore she is not racist.

Don't be fooled -- racists can marry and adopt minorities.

I think there is a misunderstanding about racism. It appears that many people think that racism can only exist in an institutional form. An institutional form of racism is like slavery, or Jim Crow laws, or a company policy forbidding the employment of a certain race, or membership in a racist group or allegiance to racist dogma.

I think racism can take numerous forms including non-institutional forms.

The definition of racism that I find the most useful is something like this: Attributing certain traits to certain races; i.e., Race X has trait Y. This means that a racist can be in favor of equal rights for minorities. Racism doesn't need racist policies in order to exist.

I bring this up because American racism towards Arabs was exemplified for me over the holiday weekend. The example took the form of a racism that didn't know it is was racist, which is probably the worst kind of racism. At least the self-conscious racist can feel guilt or shame for their racism.
 10:24 PM   •  6 satisfied customers!!  

•

A few posts down in the comments section, Stratkey asked, "I'd be curious to see another post from you on how you think PS fits in with your Christian belief system and its exclusivist claims about truth it makes."

I'm not sure how to answer this in any sort of systematic way. Even if I could, it would be way too laborious for a blog post. Yet I want to address Stratkey's question.

So, I think the best way to address the question is by asking Stratkey, or anyone else, to narrow the question down for me. Maybe pick a specific area where PS and Christian belief are irreconcilable. This way we can deal with the subject in bite-size chunks.
 2:04 PM   •  6 satisfied customers!!  

•

Jihad

I know very little about Islam. But one thing I do know seems to be largely misunderstood in the USA. When many of my fellow Americans hear the word ‘Jihad’ they think of a military effort to dominate the world by Muslims.

Contrary to this view, a Jihad is a Muslim military effort to recapture their conquered territories and to end the oppression of their people. The difference is that a Jihad cannot be used to take over the world and to conquer new territories, only to restore what was theirs –according to Islam.

I was reminded of this difference when I read in the OC Register about the new al-Qaida communication tape that was sent to the USA. In this tape Ayman al Zawahri said, "The mujahedeen (holy warriors) will keep their weapons pointed at you until you leave our lands and cease backing our corrupt leaders."

When Jihad is phrased this way it ceases to seem so unreasonable. In fact, it makes the USA look like the unreasonable party. I mean, if our love for movies like Red Dawn tells us anything about popular American sympathies, then we would do the same sorts of things if the U.S.S.R. had invaded and taken over the USA. It seems natural for natives to defend their homes from invaders. So why are we occupying their territories and supporting their corrupt leaders? No wonder why they don’t like the American way of life – it’s brutal.
 10:07 AM   •  12 satisfied customers!!  

•

Epistemological Capitalism, by Johnny T.

Fear of Postmodernists and Poststructuralists/Deconstructionists is common, especially in conservative circles; so common that I’m not going to prove this point, I’m just going to assume that it is part of our collective experiences.

Why are these theories such a threat?

I think the answer has something to do with a fear that the above mentioned theories will undermine our social organization for the worse; that somehow, if we all were Poststructuralists, our world would spin out of control and chaos would ensue.

This fear is misguided. In my opinion, there is a serious secular benefit to the above mentioned theories. The benefit is similar to the economic benefit of a free market. In a free market, competition weeds out the week by privileging those who can maximize efficiency; economic survival of the fittest, so to speak.

I would argue that Poststructuralism takes the spirit of Capitalism and applies it to the epistemological realm. In a Poststructualist framework, no belief or position or perspective is privileged; every belief competes with each other for our consent. The beliefs that get adopted are the beliefs with the most compelling arguments. In a Poststructuralist world, there is a dynamic of epistemological survival of the fittest. In essence, as I see it, Poststructuralists, and Postmodernists by extension, are epistemological capitalists.

The secular benefit of these theories is that only the best beliefs will survive – at least in theory. The week beliefs (the beliefs that are less efficient at organizing our experience) will be exchanged for beliefs that do a better job. This is a process of continual epistemological refinement. Why is that something to fear?


 8:45 AM   •  13 satisfied customers!!  

•

I like things that are old.

I like things that are new.

I don't like new things that pretend to be old.

And I really don't like new things that pretend to be old that cost a whole lot more than new or old things.

Right now, I'm wearing a jacket/sweater that is new and pretends to be old.

I don't like me for wearing it.

I got it for free and it doesn't look bad.

I like free things.

I don't like shopping for clothes and I'm not about to return it. It works just fine and like I said, it doesn't look bad.

My likes and dislikes are in conflict.

I'm conflicted but I'm not really worried about it.

I'm happy when I don't care about being consistent or unified.
 12:02 PM   •  2 satisfied customers!!  

•

Breaking news!

The Axis of evil has changed membership. The USA, UK and Israel have been inuagurated as the new Axis of Evil.


 11:03 AM   •  5 satisfied customers!!  

•

The controversy over the Holocaust Convention in Iran has displayed something that has captured my attention.

The issue itself isn’t that interesting – to me it is like listening to people denying the moon landing, JFK assassination theories, and similar conspiracy issues.

What is interesting is the degree of censorship on this issue. In France, Germany and Austria, it is illegal to deny the holocaust. That is strange to me, since these are supposed to be countries that have some form of free speech.

What else is interesting is the responses of Governments to this convention. There are a host of Governments that have publicly denounced this meeting and those who deny the holocaust. Why do governments feel threatened by this convention? Why do they feel the need to publicly denounce the convention?

Anyways, I just think it is interesting that there are these taboo subjects that somehow threaten our social order. Those who deny the holocaust are a menace to society in a way that I don’t understand. Why can’t they say what they want and let everyone else brush it off or ignore it the way we do JFK assassination theories and those who deny the moon landing? Somehow, the Holocaust Convention has trespassed upon some forbidden intellectual property. My question is why is it so forbidden?
 11:10 PM   •  13 satisfied customers!!  

•

From Bill Baldwin's Blog -- "How many gays would look at the evangelical church and say “Those Christians sure do love us”?

This question is penetrating and convicting.

I think this sort of question can be extended to a host of similar issues. How does the world see the church? More particularly, how does the world see American Christianity?

Unfortunately, I think the image we portray as a group is quite negative. In the name of Jesus we are quick to support wars, are patriotic zelots, somewhat zenophobic (at least towards poor immigrants), love wealth, business and business men, imperialistic, prudish, and are generally unfriendly toward anyone we suspect is a "Liberal."

The thing that stikes me funny is I know a bunch of people who would look at my list and scratch their heads thinking, "what is wrong with those characteristics"?

The Church's tendancy to pursure ruling the world for Jesus may be a stumbling block for non-Christians. And for that matter, a stumbling block for Christians too.
 2:29 PM   •  4 satisfied customers!!  

•

Welfare: public subsidies for corporations.

This may seem like a strange way to frame the issue. Usually, welfare is seen as a bane to corporations. Well, this just isn’t true.

Let me explain. One of the attractions of a free market model is that it makes each person responsible for their own success or failure. People with talent and a good work ethic do well; people who are lazy do poorly. Supposedly.

My criticism of this model is that an individual of average abilities and average work ethic cannot live on the wages they receive from full-time employment. I have a friend who works two jobs, 1 full-time & 1 part-time. He is a hard worker. But the only way he can make ends meet is through government aid: WIC, food stamps, heath care and some other stuff I don’t know the details about.

He is not alone.

This is a problem to the free-market model. In a society that has the resources and technology to provide the staples for living to everybody, our organization of labor should provide a living wage. By living wage I mean that someone who works full-time should make enough to live – at least food, shelter, clothing, transportation and health care. I would also like to see some sort of retirement thrown into the mix – this way 75 years olds don’t have to kill themselves working.

The current welfare system subsidizes corporate profits. An employer should provide a fair wage for labor performed. In our system, when people don’t make enough at their work the gov’t steps in and supplements their income. This reduces the need for the corporation to pay their employees enough to live on. A corporation’s bottom line is maximized when it can cut labor costs. Welfare works as a supplement to corporate labor costs.

Corporate profits are enhanced by welfare.

The way welfare should work is a means of income for those that cannot work. Welfare shouldn’t make up for corporate greed. The way it is now, welfare is a subsidy for the very wealthy.
 2:23 PM   •  17 satisfied customers!!