ovo

The content of these links may not be appropriate for all readers and all environments. – Trevor Blake

Furry Girl, Introduction, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Non:

After working on the outskirts of the porno industry since 2002, I have steadily been moving from wanting to modernize and re-define the concept of feminism to wanting to stop beating that dead horse entirely. Many of my friends and favorite people consider themselves feminists. A lot of my enemies consider themselves feminists, too, and they exist in larger numbers, with better funding, and with better brand recognition as the face of feminism. [...] I spent way too much of my own time trying to shoehorn myself into feminism, and I look back on that as an embarrassing waste of my energy.

Feminism as a word/identity is used to describe so much of everything that it has ceased to mean anything at all. Is fucking people for money feminist? Is climbing the corporate ladder feminist? Is wearing an abaya feminist? Is shaving your pussy feminist? Is being a stay-at-home mom feminist? Is BSDM feminist? Are sewing and crafting feminist? Is makeup feminist? Is being a woman in the military feminist? Is broccoli soup feminist?!?! You have people lined up, ready to fight to the death over their absolute certainty over whether or not such things are truly feminist. (What the word “feminism” stands in for, of course, is deemed permissible by the “right” kind of people.)

In general, I’m tired of “feminist” being used as a blanket qualifier to mean “awesome”, especially when it comes to the concept of feminist porn. I think “awesome” works just fine as a qualifier for awesome. I seek to advance the idea the first person in any debate to propose that their position is correct because it’s the most “feminist” has hereby lost the argument. I have been guilty of this one plenty of times in the past, but I can learn from my mistakes.

Furry Girl, Biography of a Pornographic Polemic:

Why would you NOT want call yourself a feminist? That means you’re sexist, then, right? Pick a side! We’re at war!
I don’t call myself a suffragette, either, but that doesn’t mean I am against women being allowed to vote. I still consider myself super-duper anti-sexism, because sexism is still a problem in my society. Unfortunately, it’s frequently perpetuated by people who call themselves feminists.

What could you possibly have against feminism?
For starters: “feminism” doesn’t have anything close to a singular meaning, so it’s too hard to have rational debate about it when it means opposite things to different people; the feminist pendulum has run its course and too often turns into pointless misandry; feminism used to be about women’s right to be more than just barefoot and pregnant, and now it fights for the “right” of women to be barefoot and pregnant and be given a ton of government and corporate handouts for churning out babies; feminism is commonly embraced by people who’s underlying beliefs are that women are stupid, feeble creatures who need to be controlled and saved; feminism these days focuses way too much on imaginary first-worlder problems like women choosing to feel badly about themselves because they think they’re not pretty enough, rather than real-world problems in the Global South where women aren’t allowed to own property, vote, or have a safe abortion; some feminists are obsessed with fanning and exploiting insecurities in women in order to indoctrinate them to their style of victim feminism, rather than being positive and helping women see that they’re strong and powerful. Last but not least: it’s REALLY FUCKING DIFFICULT to spend your entire life being viciously picked on by girls and women for various reasons, then swallow the idea that women are your true solidarity sisters and that men are the cruel enemy that oppresses you.

“Join us for our 11th Annual Valentine’s Invitational! Dozens of artists contribute Valentine themed artwork to benefit a local non-profit. This year’s recipient in the Special Education PTA of Portland (SEPTAP).”

I have been making collages (of the paper, scissors and glue variety) since around 1978.  A few have been published in books, a very few have been given to friends, but never have I offered one for sale – until now.  An original collage by myself will have the honor of being included in this show.  I encourage anyone in the Portland area to attend.  Bid early and often to support this most worthy cause. On exhibit the month of February 2010.

Thursday, 4 February 2010, 6PM – 9PM

Reading Frenzy
921 SW Oak St.
Portland OR 97205

(503) 274-1449

The Peter Principle is the principle that “In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.” It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the “salutary science of Hierarchiology”, “inadvertently founded” by Peter. It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their “level of incompetence”), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modeled and has theoretical validity. Peter’s Corollary states that “in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out his duties” and adds that “work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence”.

Article continues. I have never met anyone less than 40 years of age who knows about The Peter Principle.

France bans internet Nazi auctions – A French judge has ruled that the US Internet Service Provider Yahoo! Inc must make it impossible for French users to access sites auctioning race hate memorabilia. In a landmark ruling, Judge Jean-Jaques Gomez gave Yahoo! Until 24 July to comply with his order. Existing French law prohibits the selling or display of anything that incites racism. [...] Yahoo said it condemned all forms of racism but added the case raised significant questions. A lawyer for the internet service provider said the real question was whether a French court had jurisdiction over the English-language content of an American website.

Yahoo!, Inc. v. LICRA, 169 F.Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) – “Although France has the sovereign right to regulate what speech is permissible in France, this Court may not enforce a foreign order that violates the protections of the United States Constitution by chilling protected speech that occurs simultaneously within our borders. The reason for limiting comity in this area is sound. ‘The protection to free speech and the press embodied in [the First] amendment would be seriously jeopardized by the entry of foreign judgments granted pursuant to standards deemed appropriate in [another country] but considered antithetical to the protections afforded the press by the U. S. Constitution.’ Bachchan v. India Abroad Publications, Inc., 585 N. Y. S. 2d 661, 665 (Sup. Ct. 1992). Absent a body of law that establishes international standards with respect to speech on the Internet and an appropriate treaty or legislation addressing enforcement of such standards to speech originating within the United States, the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court’s obligation to uphold the First Amendment.”

Convicted Murderer Sues Wikipedia, Demands Removal of His Name – Wikipedia is under a censorship attack by a convicted murderer who is invoking Germany’s privacy laws in a bid to remove references to his killing of a Bavarian actor in 1990. Lawyers for Wolfgang Werle, of Erding, Germany, sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding removal of Werle’s name from the Wikipedia entry on actor Walter Sedlmayr. The lawyers cite German court rulings that “have held that our client’s name and likeness cannot be used anymore in publication regarding Mr. Sedlmayr’s death.” [...] Jennifer Granick, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says German publications must also alter their online archives in a bid to comport with laws designed to provide offenders an avenue to “reintegrate back into society.” [...] Granick said the First Amendment protects San Francisco-based Wikipedia.

Simon Sheppard and Stephen Whittle are citizens of the United Kingdom who operate a web site in California, USA called heretial.com (previously at OVO).  The content of their website is considered illegal ‘hate speech’ in the UK but is not illegal in the USA. Sheppard and Whittle applied for asylum in the USA but were instead extradited and are now in prison. The ‘Heretical Two’ did not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment that others have found in similar situations.  No evidence was presented at their trials that any ‘racial hatred’ had resulted from their website. No evidence was presented at their trials that anyone had accessed the website other than the single police officer who had downloaded the website for the purpose of the prosecution.  Is free speech only for those in the right who speak with a pleasant tone?  What nation’s laws govern US websites?

When openly gay college student Matthew Shepard was targeted, tortured and murdered in 1998 the story made national headlines. Soon after, MTV sent a camera crew down to Charleston, South Carolina searching for a redneck or two who might offer some insensitive remarks about homosexuals for their “True Life” series. They found one. Me. I was a student at the College of Charleston and as the lone conservative writer at the school paper, was asked to participate in the television tapings. I remember telling MTV I believed Shepard’s murderers should receive the death penalty. I also told them, when prodded, that I believed homosexuality was “against God.” It’s a comment I’ve regretted ever since. My first regret stems from the blasphemous assumption that I could know the mind of God and secondly, that I had portrayed gay men and women as somehow lesser children of that God. Despite my youthful ignorance, there is nothing more obvious to me today than the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals are born gay. It is nature, not nurture and certainly no choice. [...]

Most violent crime is born of some sort of hatred and examining motive is certainly crucial in any criminal investigation. But “hate” – for gays, minorities, women, chivalrous men – is still just a thought, and should not be itself, a criminal action. Criminalizing the thought behind a violent act sets dangerous precedent and gives special justice to special groups and lesser justice to victims of similar crimes who do not belong to those groups.

Article continues at link.  How is freedom of speech defended on the left, on the right, and at the extremes of each?  How does that change over time?  Are you ready to go this far to defend freedom of speech?  How about this far?  How far, my friend?

Meeting Ticker

Practice makes perfect, right? Yet in business you often find people who have been doing something for a long time and just aren’t very good at it. Why? Lack of feedback.

The Power of Continuous Improvement

The Guardian quotes the Wall Street Journal quoting the founder of the Whole Foods chain of grocery stores:

“Basically, we used to think it was enough just to sell healthy food, but we know it is not enough. We sell all kinds of candy. We sell a bunch of junk.” [John Mackey] said the store would now attempt to educate in the ways of healthy eating: “There will be someone in a kiosk to answer questions, they’ll have cookbooks and health books, there will be some cooking classes. It will be about how to select food, because people don’t know.”

Mr. Mackey is claiming that people would eat healthy if they knew how to, or knew the benefits of doing so.  He is bringing in books and teachers to combat akrasia, or acting against one’s own best interests (in this case by eating a bunch of junk).  But will he succeed?  We know more about nutrition than we used to, but it is likely that there is much to learn.  Even acting on the best knowledge available at present might be going against our best interests in light of future discoveries. We may eat as healthily as possible and still fall sick, or be killed in an accident that eating well could not have prevented.  This is not an argument against attempting to act in one’s best interests but it is a warning that we may not always succeed.

There are a number of explanations for akrasia. Each has its limitations.  In stating “No one goes willingly toward the bad,” Socrates claimed that akrasia simply does not exist.  If you can think of a single instance in your life when you’ve willingly gone toward the bad, you’ve demonstrated that Socrates was mistaken.  The ethical school called enlightened self-interest claims we always act in our own self-interest even when we appear to or intend to do otherwise.  But if we always and only act in our self-interests, we have to ask what other sort of interests there might be – thus enlightened self-interest doesn’t really explain anything.  Akrasia is explained as being weak willed when we judge it harshly and deferment to a greater good when we judge it favorably. Stated in this way, our interests are more like our preferences.  If there is a conflict of interests we may engage in akrasia, such as when it is equally in a person’s best interests to stay in the city they love and to move to another city for a good-paying job.  Where we cannot determine which conflicting self-interest is lesser, there is no way to identify akrasia.  An explanation for akrasia found especially among the politically left is that people act against their self-interests through lack of knowledge only, and that being exposed to knowledge will spontaneously and always result in self-interest choices.  Mr. Mackey of Whole Foods is banking on exposure to information as the key to lessening akrasia.  But every day experience shows that people will believe what they want in spite of the information they are exposed to.  Knowledge is not hidden in objects and experiences like a gift in a box, waiting for us to unwrap it.  And exposure to information does not equal acceptance or agreement or action.  Perhaps by having books and teachers on-hand Mr. Mackey hopes to be ‘forgiven’ for selling a bunch of junk.  Me, I like books and teachers and junk.

I claim the political left tends to use the lack of knowledge explanation for akrasia for two reasons.  First, at present the left is where intellectuals are valued, and this is an intellectual sort of explanation.  Intellectuals consider options and make nuanced choices.  Intellectuals also forget considering options and making nuanced choices is not always in one’s self interest – for future reference, go ahead and fight an attacker to the death, don’t debate them.  Second, the political left is deeply invested in the claim that there is an equality and sameness found in all people.  The political left thinks that being an intellectual will come to people and be their preference if they are exposed to the idea of being an intellectual, and that having become an intellectual they will consider options and make nuanced choices.  Part of why I’ve found less to agree with in the political left is my claim that there are a great deal of people (some of them quite smart) who are not intellectuals and who don’t value or prefer intellectual perspectives; there are a great many people who are not capable of being intellectuals even if they might value or prefer to be; and there are a great many people who use violence to get what they want and not the intellect.  Bluntly stated, I claim that akrasia exists in part because some people at some times are stupid and evil.  Fortunately for most people, my claims are next to ineffectual in the world.  I make no public policy, I control no one and influence very few, and eventually I won’t be around at all.  If I’m wrong, just be patient and I’ll go away.

Why do you think akrasia exists?  What do others think?  What is to be done?

Anonymous, Dmitry Babenko, Johnny Brainwash, Klint Finley, Witta Kelssling-Jensen, Vincent Al Ken, Ruggero Maggi, Mail Art Paul, Willi Melnikov, Thom Metzger, Emilio Morandi, No Institute, Wes Unruh, Carlos Valdez, Edward Wilson.

OVO is a collection of new works in the public domain edited and published by Trevor Blake. New issues are in progress. Past issues include…

OVO 18 Money (April 2008)
OVO 17 The Dreadlock Recollections (January 2007)
OVO 16 AntiChrist (January 2006)
OVO 15 Sperm (February 2005)
OVO 14 Suffering (March 1992)
OVO 13 Travel (January 1992)
OVO 12 Science (November 1991)
OVO 11 Control (September 1991)
OVO 10 Mayhem (July 1991)
OVO 9 (July 1991)
OVO 8 (May 1991)
OVO 7 Information (October 1989)
OVO 6 (Infinite)
OVO 5 (November 1988)
OVO 4 (May 1988)
OVO 3 (November 1987)
OVO 2 (July 1987)
OVO 1 (1987)

… and may be downloaded here.

having time and energy to manage the demands of their working life is the most important factor influencing men’s subjective health.

Different Clues To The Health Of Women And Men