Joss Whedon, Economics, and Monday Morning Quaterbacks

Today was supposed to be a calm, relaxed Sunday. Filled with ennui off putting, whistsome sighs cast off from under a leafy oak tree with my trusty hound lazily nestled by my side. That is, until, I checked my Google Reader feed and found this little gem: "'AVENGERS' DIRECTOR WHEDON GOES ON ANTI-CAPITALIST RANT." Needless to say, the execution of my pastourelle was derailed.

The blogger in question (John Nolte, a Brietbart editor) forces the same, tired, old misconstruction about critics of corporate capitalism being feeble-minded god-hating pinkos.The author bends Joss Whedon's words to expell his own poorly ruminated anti-anti-capitalist vitriol in suggesting that Whedon's comments are movements toward a Socialist revolution. It's important to note that the entireity of this mess is extrapolated from four orphan quotes for which no source is provided. ('MURIKAN MEDIA RULES, YEAH!)

This allows me the lattitude to address two issues. The first of which is the truthiness which could be present in the orpiginal representation of our current state of affairs today. The analogy which presents Serfs as American middle-classers works quite well. The Serfs' lot was terrible, not because they were, for all intents and purposes, owned, but because their nominal social process was interceded by an assortment of alien legalisms. Mandates which governed the serfs came from the aristocracy as well as the religious environment of the time. The implementation and governance of those mandates were outside of the power vector of the people.

The similitude of the situations comes into focus when we think of the "American" citizen as an uninformed blade of grass which is swept in whichever direction the wind elects. The "middle class" doesn't have a firm handle on our own process of governance, and therefore it is an alien structure. Most people believe that the President makes laws and can raise taxes and so on. There are some polls and surveys and such that corroborate that about a third of Americans are not quite capable of passing a basic citizenship test. While I personally find that statistics are just as authoritative as a personal claim, they seem to carry more weight when conducting a discussion. I digress: All of that is not to say that Americans are stupid or lazy, or otherwise defective, it is explicitly to say that we (Americans) are slowly being processed into Industrial Serfs.

So, with giving support to one aspect of the claim that MAY HAVE been present, we can look at the rest of the regurgitated cliches. Nolte references  Whedon as, "the guy probably worth somewhere around a gajillion dollars and who likely made somewhere around a thousand times more money from "Avengers" than anyone on the crew." This position is seemingly hostile to the very notion of profit. I'm confused. Is the author disturbed by anti-anti-capitalism, or by success? The ironic whopper comes later in the fail-ridden text-vomit:  "Good heavens, there are probably a hundred thousand people living in poverty around Los Angeles -- living on the streets, waiting tables, parking cars -- waiting and working and hoping for a taste of the success Joss Whedon's enjoyed. You know, the people Whedon is obviously referring to when he speaks of serfs." These people are, indeed, serfs-- persons that have been programmed to be preoccupied with a multitude of things rather than their own governance.

The meltdown of reduction is packed into the last heave: "It's time to pay gaffers and production assistants and wardrobe and make-up personnel the same amount of money as, well, Joss Whedon makes!" By this logic, anyone who isn't a supporter of status quo corporate capitalism is a supporter of egalitarian communism. What's worse is that the quoted 'source' material suggests that Whedon himself positions this outside of the Conservative / Liberal, Republican / Democrat binaries. Despite that, criticism against his criticism place him right back inside of a box that isn't even being referenced.

Applicable Sources:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/14/Whedon-Goes-On-Anti-Capitalist-Rant
http://www.thewrap.com/tv/column-post/joss-whedon-america-turning-tsarist-russia-47756

English and The War on Women

This post was some time in the making. I sat down trying to weigh out “What does English say about ‘The War on Women?’ In doing so I came up with a couple of really good mechanisms of Literary Criticism that served the goals I set out to achieve. New Historicism is a valid tool for such an endevour. As a lens, New Historicism does not automatically give priority to one social construct or another. For the same token, Postmodern  structures of deconstruction (see what I did there?) can completely neuter the predominant social considerations behind current value structures.

Because of that whole mess; a broad notion such as a ‘war on women,’ is a tough nut to crack. We can, instead, look at the social considerations of participating in the exchange itself. New Historicism tells us to look beyond the literal considerations of a ‘text,’ and to take into account and consideration the social and political environ from which it springs-- as equals. Many proponents or advocates of ‘raising awareness’ on the ‘war on women’ are not engaging the discourse which defines the matter we are discussing. But rather these proponents wear their advocacy as a badge which locates them within a set of established, rigid, xenophobic values. This advocacy utilizes similar external argumentation and rhetorical positioning to the American Silver Legion, or the German Sturmabteilung (SA.) Showing your support for ‘women,’ in this ‘war on women,’ doesn’t really do anything. But rather it locates the individual within a particular discourse community. Identifying their allegiance and providing a cue to others for their preferred mechanism of interaction.


The social milieu, the cultural identity, which is promulgated by advocating the existence of a ‘war on women’ simultaneously supports a “White Liberal Middle Class” supremacy while giving the illusion of opposing it. Slavoj Zizek states that “Progressive liberals are, of course, horrified [...] However, a closer look reveals how their multicultural tolerance and respect of differences share with those who oppose [them] the need to keep others at a proper distance. "The others are OK, I respect them," the liberals say, "but they must not intrude too much on my own space. The moment they do, they harass me – I fully support affirmative action, but I am in no way ready to listen to loud rap music." What is increasingly emerging as the central human right in late-capitalist societies is the right not to be harassed, which is the right to be kept at a safe distance from others. A terrorist whose deadly plans should be prevented belongs in Guantánamo, the empty zone exempted from the rule of law; a fundamentalist ideologist should be silenced because he spreads hatred. Such people are toxic subjects who disturb my peace” (Source). This duality allows a panoptic enforcement of “White Liberal Middle Class” values, while projecting an image of tolerance. The very image of humanist tolerance is at its very core intolerant. Intolerant to the cultural values which precede it, intolerant to religion and intolerant to opposing views. Hateful intolerance with a “human face,” as Zizek would put it.

The most important aspect of the ‘war on women,’ is the acceptance of victimization which is a formic value which must be accepted in order to assimilate the concept of an organized movement against ‘womanhood.’ This short trieste does not speak to the affect or even the causes of this social movement, but it is necessary to point out that I believe in equality of gender. I do not believe in, nor do I support the supplication of a gender, or sex, even if it is willfully chosen by way of a portrait of self-victimization.

One month later... something completely different

I meant to update this blog with an addendum to my previous post talking about some of the changing personnel rules in the State of Colorado, (Namely that adjunct and temporary faculty will no longer be able to teach more than two classes without being offered a benefits package,) but the other issues which I briefly touched on have gained national media attention, thus making my limited contribution on the issues puerile at best.

An issue which I have been looking at with great interest as of late comes from input I have received from friends and family: "What do you do with an advanced English degree?"

My admittedly canned response to that question always points in the same directions: Working with traditional texts (writing, editing, etc,) teaching, government functionary. A Master's in English, is 'still a Master's,' after all. In parsing the question and subsequent answer in such a way, I steal from my own education the most important essence.

I'm reminded of a 90s advertisement campaign by the international chemical manufacturing group BASF- "We don't make the ______ you buy, we make the _______ you buy better." In a similar fashion, 'English' doesn't create a lot of the texts you parse, it creates a context and meaning for a lot of the texts you parse.  Put simply The force behind "English Folk," isn't the generation of texts, the writing of books, the production of movies, the writing and performance of music, making paintings and so on. The force behind English is to accept those things as input and make a case for their interpretation as output.


... In the coming week I will produce an example of such with an artifact of current events.

Working Subject for Thesis

Check it out, everyone. How's this sound:

[Starcraft II - Skyrim - Dead Space 3 - Diablo 3[Video Game(s)]] and Multiplicities of Meanings:
The Superposition of Decoded Content in Text and Literature

Colorado's Higher Education Fail

Two legislative actions have taken place in recent weeks. They each are being heralded by their own respective camps as being a broad step toward... goals... I suppose.

"It's a law!" (Yes... Somebody actually said that.)

The first is: Colorado House Bill 12-1144.This bill allows for institutions to enter into multi-year contracts with non-tenure/tenuretrack educators. This action is wilfully stupid. As with most labor movements, this will serve no purpose but to create an underclass whose only purpose is to  remain in servitude. Sure, a few individuals who, by the grace of god have managed to weasel their way into being appointed in consecutive years would benefit directly from such. According the AAUP's (the moving force for this was a union after all) own characterizations, this is the exception and not the rule. There remains little to no "protection," for Graduate Teaching Assistants, Part-Time Educators and the like... ...For a good reason. Speaking as a "Part-Time" Educator and occasional Graduate teaching assistant, I (we) get paid to teach a specified type, and number of classes. Not to research, not to perform administrative duties, not to serve as any sort of adjacent. To teach. Period. Tenured and tenure-track faculty are paid to do all of the above, and for good reason.

Creating this overclass of mudblood landlords to enjoy any benefit over what ALL temporary, throwaway staff receive is counterproductive, does not service the system it was created by and is wholly silly.

"I can't math... You said you could math?"

The second is: Colorado Senate Bill 15. This bill is... well... uh... Hold on: This bill is supposed to...  The Denver Post reports: "Colorado bill to lower tuition for illegal immigrants goes to House panel," and goes on to state that "A bill to reduce tuition costs for illegal immigrants in Colorado has been assigned to the state House Education Committee, whose Republican chairman, state Rep. Tom Massey, has said he would support the bill this year," which means exactly zero. In the great before-time, all that was required for in-state tuition in Colorado was proof of residency. State generated aid, as well as federal financial aid were not available for the "undocumented" student. The provisions for the bill demand that Colorado colleges and universities shall charge in-state tuition, then ADD the per credit hour "College Opportunity Fund" (Colorado's Higher Education 'benefit') amount. In some situations this is even more than the out-of-state tuition figure. So, let's recap. Rather than allow institutions themselves, to perhaps, wiggle their way around residency rules, the state will demand that these students are in a special status, which will sometimes force them to pay even MORE than out of state students. Nice. Budget allocation to higher education in the state of Colorado is third worst in the country, how about starting there?

Three, One, Two... OFFBLAST!

I'm considering this to be a relaunch of the blog. I forgot I had one, then I needed one, decided I should make one and then found that I already had one. Bully for me.

Can you guess which came first?

The story is told.