Nonsense Hollywood Myths Many Don't Bother to Question

Just about everything out of Hollywood sucks, including the things a lot of people agree with. Here's a couple.

1. You always want what you can't have. I've even heard some reasonably intelligent people say this. But this Hollywood "wisdom" is nonsense. Think about it. It implies that there's something about not having something which makes you want it. "I want every sign that says 'slow down' to be repainted as saying 'drive slow.'" "Well, you can't have it." "Ooh, now I REALLY want it." If you really wanted things just because you can't have them, that conversation would make sense. But it doesn't.

   It isn't that you can't have something that makes you want it. We want things because we like something about them. We don't want what we already have simply because it didn't turn out to be all it was cracked up to be. Things are like that. We fantasize about something, and imagine that it will solve all our problems; then when we have it, it doesn't, so we want something else. There's no causal relation between being unable to have something and wanting it. Which brings me to my next point:

2. If you look deep in your heart, the thing you really wanted was what you had to begin with. No place is like home, eh? What if you live in an abusive family? Then do you want what you already have? I think not. In fact, as stated earlier, what you really want is probably what you don't have.

   A better way to state these things is, if you look deep in your heart, you'll discover the truth. This includes truth about your own wants, and whatever you need to make it happen, IF you want something to begin with. See, I think the reason these ideas are formulated this way is because of the concept of want. Hollywood wants to get you to want something. Anything. It's fundamentalist consumerism.

3. There are some things in this world that just can't be explained by logic alone. Of course, if you actually use logic, you'll deconstruct these ideas and realize they're nonsense. As a matter of fact, certain kinds of advertising, like political advertising, have been shown to work best on people who don't go to college, where they teach you logic. Go figure.

   Why then do so many people believe this statement? Because it's a bastardization of the idea that some things can't be explained by deductive logic alone. Actually, NOTHING can be explained by deductive logic alone. To show this, let's look at a deductive argument. Every deductive logical argument is constructed similar to this:

   • Assumption: pigs can't fly.
   • Assumption: Jake is a pig.
     

     ---

   • Conclusion: Jake can't fly.

   What are the first two statements? Assumptions. NOT necessarily deductions. Assumptions can come from other deductive arguments, though they don't have to. (E.g. Jake has four legs, pink skin, short hair and a snout. Every animal with these things is a pig. Therefore, Jake is a pig.) But these other deductive arguments are also based on assumptions. And if these assumptions are based on deductions, those deductions are also based on further assumptions, and so on. So where, aside from deductive logic, do these assumptions come from?

   Inductive logic. Which is simply observation. I've observed that no pig has ever been able to fly in the history of life, therefore it's a reasonable assumption that pigs can't fly.

   So nothing can be explained by deductive logic alone. But, sorry to rain on your parade, everything can be explained through inductive and deductive logic together. Even magic and the occult. Even paranormal activity. If you observe it correctly, that by definition is inductive logic.

Art doesn't have to be a philosophical textbook. But bad art comes from unexamined ideas. And bad art has observable negative consequences, encouraging people to be deluded, chauvinistic, consumerist, racist, perhaps even violent. And there's no reason for it.

Psychosis as Sexual Pleasure

Psychosis can actually be one of the most pleasurable experiences you can have. All it takes is a little courage and self-confidence. It's really tough to gain courage and self-confidence when your world is literally falling apart around you. But if you carefully approach the other world, and get to know it, become comfortable with it in a safe place, it's really not such a bad place.

The fear, for me anyway, was always losing control. Losing control of my mind and becoming something else. But I've experienced many, many bouts of psychosis, and except for once, I NEVER lost control. At least, not because of the psychosis. I became weird and freaked people out, because I was so paranoid... of the psychosis. I would do anything to try and be absolutely sure I was being "normal." But here's a secret: the more you try to be normal, the less normal you become.

Once I overcame the fear of losing control, the fear of losing my self, I recognized that this radically "other" world was a whole lot of fun. The funnest kind of fun. The demons and spirits trying to attack me suddenly became beautiful Goddesses. The fear and paranoia became wonder. The voices (few as they were, with me) became insight. Think of it this way: if you want a real fantasy world, you'll have to make a radical break with reality. And that can't be anything but scary. But it can also be rewarding.

Make no mistake: I DO have schizophrenia. I've been officially diagnosed, and hospitalized against my will. I know what these feelings are, viscerally. I'm on medications. But I insist: I have come to enjoy them. They are worth experiencing.

In fact, they are more worth experiencing than the medications. I took medications to rid myself of these feelings, and everything became infinitely worse, and I still haven't recovered. Instead of feeling paranoia, I was asleep constantly. I slept as much as 14 hours a day. When a filmmaking project of mine fell through, in the deepest depression, I finally had to make a decision. I decided: psychosis is infinitely better than medication. From now on, I would prefer psychosis to medication every time, and if people didn't like it, too bad for them.

Of course, I'm still on a low dose, but only because it's useful to me not to jump ship to the other world and become lost. I still have a stake in the "real" world. But if the beautiful Goddesses whisk me away for a while, even regularly, people will just have to get used to it. Because having a clear and alert mind, which isn't medicated to the point of sloth, is unquestionably better, even if I lose myself from time to time. I'm sorry, but the doctors have done so much more harm than good. I won't go so far as to say I should never have been medicated. But madness has been enriching and beautiful, while medication has been horrid.

Divine Promises—A Terrorist Poem

This is my submission to Meg McLain's "Online Terrorist Keywords" Poetry Contest. Every italicized word is a terrorist keyword.

My wish
Is the execution of every smart body scanner
And though I'm accustomed to watch no other,
To exercise the initiative of my love,
And invite an emergency landing
Beneath the galaxy
Of night.

And in case I collapse
In the explosion
Of emotion
Just recall
That should my avian soul
Speak human to human,
No other power is smart enough
To constrain the gods of skin
That sweat in the memory of your blue
Dress, which we cancelled in our one night.

And should I burst forth
And tremor in the avalanche
Of concealed promises,
Only with you it is not
Such a disaster;
Tempered as it is by the lightening
In your electric eyes.

It is a queer strain of
Cancelled passions
That commonly hail the
Outbreak of lovers' arguments;
But though I'm hostage to your green eyes,
Kidnapped by your home grown idiosyncrasies,
Even a small sigh could bring relief.

My words are but an incident
Of the typhoon that racks
My soul, or the
Organized crime that balks
At the mitigation of reason—
The old standoff spoken of
By the several poets, breaching the secrets
So toxic to every standard dream.

For only in this state of emergency
Is the facility of the starry
Divine unearthed,
Yet it crawls like an infection
And pains me,
My lover of North Korea,
Like a chemical burn.
I am, again,
A sick and wilted rose
Alone, with no vaccine,
Only the narcotics
Of the forgotten pictures
You took in China.

We all ask for
Closure in the extremism of passion,
The target of holy jihad,
Like a worm of never-ending failure or outage,
A calderon that can be tempered
Only in a wave of compassion—
Not an assassination of desires.

My wish
Is the execution of every smart body scanner
And though I'm accustomed to watch no other,
To exercise the initiative of my love,
And invite an emergency landing
Beneath the galaxy
Of night.

A Silver Lining on Wisconsin: My Analysis

The results of Wisconsin's recall election are understandably upsetting. However, there is some silver lining. We can't judge too quickly that American democracy is dead, because the richest 1% is, perhaps, not as monolithic and negative of a force as we may think.

Yes, the richest of the rich spent $63 million to buy the recall election. The bad news is, that's a lot of money. The good news is, that's a LOT of money. In fact, it is so much money that, I would argue, as long as activists continue to fight for democracy, buying elections like this is a) unsustainable and b) not necessarily effective.

The Voters

There are around 5 million people in Wisconsin (Wikipedia). Around 1/2 of them voted (Huffington Post). That's 2.5 million votes. Walker only won 4% more votes in this election than his 2010 election (Huffington Post). That means, all that money spent was worth around 100,000 voters. That's about $630 per voter. (If you count all citizens in Wisconsin, it's around $315 per voter, but according to what I was told by Democratic Party campaign officials, most campaigns don't even bother to spend money on people who never vote.)

Now keep in mind that the only counties which did significantly better for Walker were the Republican counties (Huffington Post). So that means the voter pool is even smaller.

Of course arithmetic like this may not mean much, but it should give us some kind of ballpark idea of how much money must be spent to buy every single important election nationwide. If people continue to mobilize like they did in Wisconsin, it will force the richest of the rich to spend a LOT of money, probably in the hundreds of billions, every couple of years. Simply multiplying half the American public by the $650 figure gets us almost $100 billion, and this figure assumes, of course, that Americans cast 150 million votes.

And note that this doesn't assume that Americans will cast 150 million votes in a single election. No, it assumes something more like casting 150 million votes in EVERY election. Every two years, voters must decide state senate, state house, gubernotorial, federal Senate, federal House, and Presidential elections, not to mention judiciary elections. And each of these elections is important. Wisconsin proves this, if nothing else. And the more public offices voters must consider, the more money must be spent on each voter. The $650 figure only applies to a single candidate in a single election.

Now for some more down-to-Earth data: My reading of a study by Gregor A. Huber and Kevin Arceneaux ("Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising") is that you're probably not going to get much more than 8 or 9 percentage points no matter how much advertising you use. Nate Silver also suggests that there is a diminishing return on advertising, as people eventually find it annoying, as well as the deleterious effect of the perception that a candidate is buying his office. Of course the effect of the advertising probably also depends on a large variety of factors, including the effectiveness of the ad campaign, the likability of the candidate, and so on. But this is important, because it means, in theory, there are some elections that money simply cannot buy.

There are other variables, too.

First of all, Walker's campaign is a recall campaign, not a general election campaign. This is important because, as the New York Times tells us, 60% of people believe that recall elections should only be held because of official misconduct, and 10% believe that recall elections should never be held at all. Understandibly, these people were more likely to vote to keep Walker in office. If this were a general election, the results might be different.

Also, lest we forget, Walker and his legislation had to get pretty brutal to hold onto his seat, and he may face indictment for corruption (Current TV). All things considered, this is by no means a landslide victory for Walker. And he had to outspend his opponent by at least 7-1 to obtain this far from decisive victory (MSNBC).

Patrons of Our Democracy Store

So far we might have assumed that corporations and the 1% are some kind of united, monolithic Republican force. That every single 1%-er will cough up his or her fair share of the hundreds of billions of dollars they need. But this may be giving them too much credit. The Sunlight Foundation and Forbes and New American Gazette show us that not every rich person is necessarily political. And of those that are political, not all of them are Republicans. And corporations respond to the demands of the public more often than we may think, because they are more interested in making a profit than buying an election most of the time.

And even of the monolithic Republican contributors, it seems highly unlikely that they can or want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every couple of years. If they wanted to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, they might as well just pay taxes and leave elections alone, because it will likely cost about the same, and it's less dangerous. Why is it less dangerous? Because it's less likely to produce large-scale protest movements.

Street-Wise Democracy

First of all, it's important to note that the Wisconsin and Occupy protests are getting it right. They're permanent, non-violent, and large. The question is, of course, will they have any effect. According to Paul Schumaker ("Policy Responsiveness to Protest-Group Demands"), either community support and intra-group support individually will predict a positive outcome more than either agency, elected-official, or media support individually. According to Schumaker and Michael O'Keefe ("Protest Effectiveness in Southeast Asia"), some factors correlated with positive response include whether the regime is democratic, and whether the group is permanent or whether it's large. In other words, the Wisconsin protests have everything going for them.

Conclusion?

I recognize that the information I've presented is not very conclusive, largely because of its speculative nature, and because the different studies seem to be measuring different things. For example, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies seem to be studying the policy response of the government, while the advertising studies seem to be measuring election outcomes. Also, the Schumaker and O'Keefe studies do not measure the interrelatedness of the various correlations.

But we can be sure of one conclusion: giving up is NOT the proper response. Protest movements may take time, but they are effective. One thing the data clearly do not show is that deep media influence necessarily trumps protest movements. There is a silver lining: We may win yet.